Monitor solution for P3 grading (with some questions)

Hi everybody!

Up to now I did some Rec.709 grading with Davinci, Hackintosh Sierra, 2x Titan X (Maxwell) and a Dell UP2715K.
I graded within the GUI: I don't have a big studio and I was pretty happy to have all (controls + little preview) in a single monitor.

Now I have to start grading some P3 thing. My UP2715K seems to be not compatible with DCI-P3, so I'm wondering which monitor to buy. All solutions seems to be pretty expensive, so first of all I'd need some information:

1. Having a Hackintosh SIerra + Titan X (Maxwell), can I grade on a P3-compatible Monitor directly within the GUI screen?

2. Using OSX, anyway, I should see all at 8bit, and not at 10bit, right?

3. And anyway, the little GUI preview should be always at 8bit, even in Windows, right?

If all the 3 answers are YES, it should mean that with a proper monitor I could grade P3-8bit within the GUI (so a one-monitor solution).

If the 1st anwer is NO, then this should mean that I have to use two monitors (1 for the GUI and the second for the Preview). But having OSX, I think I should use some Blackmagic external card to connect the Preview monitor in order to work in 10bit, right?

1. Which is that card?

2. Which is in your opinion the most cheapest P3-compatible (let's say 95% min.) 10bit monitor to be connected to the Blackmagic external card?

3. If instead I used Windows, something changed?

Thanks for your help!

This has been discussed- try searching.
In short- if you really want P3 use monitor which at least can be calibrated to P3 (regardless its accuracy) with BM card.

P3 is basically Adobe RGB. Try to find a monitor which covers as high a percentage as possible of Adobe RGB and you'll be in the general ballpark.

Now, of course I assume that you're on a tight budget, otherwise if you're doing P3 because you're grading the latest Star Wars movie you wouldn't be posting here.

So to answer:

#1 No.

Then to the second set of answers:

#1 I think the Decklink Mini PCI card should suffice and it's very inexpensive.

#2 Look into the BenQ Technicolor line for around $800.

#3 Windows doesn't buy you anything different. You still shouldn't grade in your GUI, you still need a Decklink Mini card or similar, you still need an external P3 compliant monitor.

Mac GUI preview can be 10bit, Windows not.

P3 is basically Adobe RGB. Try to find a monitor which covers as high a percentage as possible of Adobe RGB and you'll be in the general ballpark.
Now, of course I assume that you're on a tight budget, otherwise if you're doing P3 because you're grading the latest Star Wars movie you wouldn't be posting here.

Which brings you to the point that in this case whole exercise with P3 is pointless.
You will be way better grading to Rec.709 on decent monitor which supports it well (which is way easier to buy) and then on export using conversion to P3.

First of all thanks you a lot for your replies.

Mac GUI preview can be 10bit, Windows not.

Really? That's perfect for me! But you say "can be", so what is the setting to have a 10bit GUI preview?

P3 is basically Adobe RGB. Try to find a monitor which covers as high a percentage as possible of Adobe RGB and you'll be in the general ballpark.
Now, of course I assume that you're on a tight budget, otherwise if you're doing P3 because you're grading the latest Star Wars movie you wouldn't be posting here.

Which brings you to the point that in this case whole exercise with P3 is pointless.
You will be way better grading to Rec.709 on decent monitor which supports it well (which is way easier to buy) and then on export using conversion to P3.

Well... at that point, why the conversion to P3? I mean: if I grade in Rec.709, I can convert directly the Rec.709 graded video into DCP for the cinema (which I did with DCP-O-Matic). The point, in my case, is building a DCP for the cinema, so I thought that grading in P3 was more appropriate than grading in Rec.709.

#1 I think the Decklink Mini PCI card should suffice and it's very inexpensive.

I haven't space in my tower, I'd need an external card (Thunderbolt or better if USB3) for 10bit HD preview (no 4K). Is there something?

P3 is basically Adobe RGB. Try to find a monitor which covers as high a percentage as possible of Adobe RGB and you'll be in the general ballpark.

Well... I've seen many specs from different monitors: one says Adobe RGB 99% and DCI-P3 98%, another says Adobe RGB 99% and DCI-P3 84%, another Adobe RGB 99% and DCI-P3 78%... My UP2715K says Adobe RGB 98% and DCI-P3 not declared, that means that probably the DCI-P3 percentage is very low...

Thanks for your help.

I haven't space in my tower, I'd need an external card (Thunderbolt or better if USB3) for 10bit HD preview (no 4K). Is there something?

Yes, there are a bunch of BMD products that will do it, either on Thunderbolt or USB3.
https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/ultrastudio

Well... I've seen many specs from different monitors: one says Adobe RGB 99% and DCI-P3 98%, another says Adobe RGB 99% and DCI-P3 84%, another Adobe RGB 99% and DCI-P3 78%... My UP2715K says Adobe RGB 98% and DCI-P3 not declared, that means that probably the DCI-P3 percentage is very low...

Thanks for your help.

Adriano,

Much like yourself, I work on a hackintosh and freelance as a colorist. My clients hire me because...let's face it...I'm inexpensive compared to a full blown facility like Technicolor or Deluxe. With those savings though come compromises and realistic expectations. I don't use a $20,000 monitor or a $30,000 control panel, I don't have my walls painted an exact shade of grey, and I don't have a Christie projector and 20 foot screen to guarantee absolute true color translation to theaters. Now don't get me wrong, I stand by my work and I think I'm good at it, most importantly I know my gear and I know how to get good results out of it.

My point is that you might be getting too bogged down in the details and specs. Just do your best job, grade in Rec709 knowing that there will be some variations on a big screen, and sleep soundly knowing that you're giving your clients a good value for their money. And if they demand absolute color accuracy in a P3 color space kindly refer them to some of the larger houses who will likely charge them more for an hour than what you charge for an entire day.

P3 is basically Adobe RGB. Try to find a monitor which covers as high a percentage as possible of Adobe RGB and you'll be in the general ballpark.

speaking of "ballparks:"

http://www.gainline.us/.shared/image.ht ... etco_1.jpg

This is a rugby pitch fisked into a baseball stadium. Does this seem like a good idea to you?

How are you calibrating your judgement display?

http://www.astramael.com/

jPo, CSI

First of all thanks you a lot for your replies.

Mac GUI preview can be 10bit, Windows not.

Really? That's perfect for me! But you say "can be", so what is the setting to have a 10bit GUI preview?

It has to be one of the new Macs (iMac or Pro+ have AMD GPU I think) and of course you need decent display.
Once you know your path to display is 10bit you then enable it in Resolve main preferences.

In order to confirm that path to your display is 10bit you need to check it in:




These Eizo should be decent for your need: CG248-4K or CG318-4K which is really nice monitor.
Cheaper option: LG-31mu97

First of all thanks you a lot for your replies.

Mac GUI preview can be 10bit, Windows not.

Really? That's perfect for me! But you say "can be", so what is the setting to have a 10bit GUI preview?

It has to be one of the new Macs (iMac or Pro+ have AMD GPU I think) and of course you need decent display.
Once you know your path to display is 10bit you then enable it in Resolve main preferences.

I've checked in my System info, and this the result:

graphics.jpg (125.22 KiB) Viewed 18482 times

I suppose that 32-Bit Color means 10-bit per channel, so it should confirm that my path to display is 10bit, right?

Than I've checked the main preferences in Davinci, and I've found this:

preferences.jpg (80.86 KiB) Viewed 18482 times

Is this the preference that enables the 10bit GUI preview?

Nope- you connection to display is 8bit (32bit is bit misleading as it's 3x RGB+A at 8bit).
It needs to say 30bit ARGB2101010. This is 3x 10bit RGB.
You also need EL Capitan+ OSX.
Resolve setting is meaningless until you see 10bit pipe between GPU and monitor.

Nope- you connection to display is 8bit (32bit is bit misleading as it's 3x RGB+A at 8bit).
It needs to say 30bit ARGB2101010. This is 3x 10bit RGB.
You also need EL Capitan+ OSX.
Resolve setting is meaningless until you see 10bit pipe between GPU and monitor.

I have Sierra, so where is the problem in my case? Is it my display or my GPU (or both)?

I haven't space in my tower, I'd need an external card (Thunderbolt or better if USB3) for 10bit HD preview (no 4K). Is there something?

Yes, there are a bunch of BMD products that will do it, either on Thunderbolt or USB3.
https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/ultrastudio

The "cheapest" 2K-DCI external card seems to be the UltraStudio HD Mini that has thunderbolt3, and I haven't thunderbolt3 in my tower... Instead UltraStudio Mini Monitor can't handle 2k-DCI... And no usb3 external cards seems to be... Perhaps the Intensity Shuttle for USB 3.0: this also output HD only (not 2K-DCI), so even if my project is 2K-DCI, the Intensity should resize the output to match the HD limit, and in this way I should grade with a dedicated 10bit preview monitor, right? Anyway ALL this cards specs say "Color Space: Rec.709", then this means that there is no P3-compatible card-to-preview monitor?

My point is that you might be getting too bogged down in the details and specs. Just do your best job, grade in Rec709 knowing that there will be some variations on a big screen, and sleep soundly knowing that you're giving your clients a good value for their money. And if they demand absolute color accuracy in a P3 color space kindly refer them to some of the larger houses who will likely charge them more for an hour than what you charge for an entire day.

Sorry for the very basic question: when I grade in Rec.709 and I convert it in DCP (via DCP-O-Matic), is it correct saying that I output the same amount of color of P3-to-DCP process but whitout controlling them at 100%? Or is it more correct saying that a Rec.709-to-DCP process output a file with less color than a P3-to-DCP process?

Thanks all

usualy you will not exceed the gammut of 709 when gradeing for theatrical, there's little to nothing to be gained from gradeing in P3 if the content does not even make it to the boundries of 709, and 709 has vastly simpler pipeline, and vastly simpler color management

if gradeing in P3 you need to have a near black room to work in and no incedental light from the UI or scopes hitting the monitor

when spec's say 9x% of P3 the missing x% is always in the shadows where it matters the most

use a Projector -or -a Dolby, Sony or Flanders monitor -or- don't bother

on budget challanged films i grade in 709 untill happy, and do a trim pass on a projector, usualy a 4hr session and usualy the only changes are nr/sharpening/key edges, the grades hold up well

Sorry for the very basic question: when I grade in Rec.709 and I convert it in DCP (via DCP-O-Matic), is it correct saying that I output the same amount of color of P3-to-DCP process but whitout controlling them at 100%? Or is it more correct saying that a Rec.709-to-DCP process output a file with less color than a P3-to-DCP process?

What did I say about getting bogged down in the details and specs?

I believe the former is correct, but Dermot brings up an important point. You have to understand that these are all color spaces based on an "ideal" set of factors; but ultimately they need to be resolved within the reality of how we perceive visuals. In essence P3 might be able to display a certain saturation level of blue, or red, or other color; but if your desired look is anything that looks "normal" then chances are you will not reach those extreme ranges anyway, particularly not with the current desaturated esthetic that most directors and DPs seem to favor nowadays.

My advice is do the best job that you can working in Rec709, keep your shadows and highlights consistent, make sure that the overall balance matches from shot to shot, focus on keeping everything feeling like it belongs in the same film; and chances are you will be pleasantly surprised by how well your work translates to a theatrical screen.

if gradeing in P3 you need to have a near black room to work in and no incedental light from the UI or scopes hitting the monitor

Then you are saying that if you are not in ideal ambient conditions, grading in Rec.709 or P3 gives you nearly the same result, right?
Actually my studio is not an ideal ambient, so let's say that I decide to go for Rec.709 even if for theatre things.
But now I discovered that my Titan X can't handle 10bit OpenGL, so no 10bit signal for my system/display.
It seems that only a Quadro could solve the problem (Quadro should handle 10bit OpenGL) but it's a pricey toy even if used/Maxwell on ebay.
Anyway I HAVE to do this work for the theatre, and they need a 10bit DCP.
So what is your opinion abuot: trying to work at 8bit without problems, or upgrading my GPU gear?

P.S. There is also the Decklink + Preview-monitor solution, I know, but more or less it sounds to be the same money (and I'd prefer to work with a single monitor if I can). Anyway what is your advice?

[Peter Chamberlain]

This sounds like a bad bunch of compromises for a theatrical deliverable.
My vote....
Invest in a DeckLink mini monitor and connect it to the best sRGB monitor you can afford. Calibrate the monitor with a pro app and probe. Use Resolve color management to put you in the correct color space for the new monitor. Leave the existing GPU monitor arrangement whtatever state it's in for processing and UI.
Good luck.

Yep, forget about P3 GUI grading on "ballpark monitor".
Stay with proper path over BM card to calibrated Rec.709 monitor.

you are saying that if you are not in ideal ambient conditions, grading in Rec.709 or P3 gives you nearly the same result, right?

Anyway I HAVE to do this work for the theatre, and they need a 10bit DCP.
So what is your opinion abuot: trying to work at 8bit without problems, or upgrading my GPU gear?

P.S. There is also the Decklink + Preview-monitor solution, I know, but more or less it sounds to be the same money (and I'd prefer to work with a single monitor if I can). Anyway what is your advice?

1) no, if i had sub optimal control of the enviroment, 709 is far safer choice
2) upgrade to an i/o card
3) decklink is the way to roll... sdi -> lut box -> mon (unless you a have a mon that supports internal luts) + callibration software + probe

honestly i'd get it close, and then hire a gradeing theatre for a review / tweaks session at the end...

rarely use P3, there's drawbacks involved, ie; a stop sign on a street at night lit for a few seconds by passing car's taillights is increadbly RED, and that has to be sorted in P3, and a complete non issue in 709, P3 is a time suck, and if you do not gain any benifit from it, why bother?

typicaly on a feature i'll do a first pass in 709, turn on a mon that sits quietly in corner of my suite that displays 9x% of P3, turn off all the lights, ui mon, scopes mon, and screen once to see if there's any value in working in P3, and the answer is almost never bollywod & horror films are possiable exceptions, thriller, crimi's & drama rarely, comedy never.

But i do not grade on the 9x% mon, i grade in 709 on a callibraated mon, and switch my ODT to P3 when i move the project to the gradeing theatre

3) decklink is the way to roll... sdi -> lut box -> mon (unless you a have a mon that supports internal luts) + callibration software + probe

Resolve supports monitoring LUTs in software, no need for a box or internal monitor LUTs. Just generate a 3DLUT from DisplayCAL's 3DLUT generator, it can make LUTs from source/target ICC profile pairs.

not a great idea if;
1) you use external scopes
2) have more than 1 monitor
3) use a single mon with other software
4) you have more than 1 machine

all of those apply to my set-up.

but if you are using nothing by but Resolve, use it's internal scopes, and have a single hero mon only, no client mon's for example.. sure..

i'd be betting the majority of features are graded in sutes that can not fit into the confines of those exceptions tho, external scopes, client monitoring, identical accurate monitoring for other gradeing/finishing software choices, mutiple machines accessing any monitor accuratly is a basic underpinning of most suites

not a great idea if;
1) you use external scopes

As I read it that is not OP's case.

2) have more than 1 monitor

Never grade based on the GUI preview. I agree it'd be nice to be able to set different monitor LUTs for GUI preview and external playout, but if you grade on the external monitor only (and only use the GUI preview for things like positioning power windows) there is no issue with using a calibration 3DLUT as the monitoring LUT in Resolve. You can set the scope LUT to bypass so Resolve's GUI scopes aren't affected. Again this is going off of OP's use case, not yours or anyone else's.

3) use a single mon with other software

I don't see what that has to do with anything, because the Decklink monitor output would be connected to the monitor on its own input in the first place.

I don't see what that has to do with anything, because the Decklink monitor output would be connected to the monitor on its own input in the first place.

if the callibration lut is inside Resolve, then other software may or may not be able to access that = uncallibrated mon with other software

the aliasing makes Resolve's font tools useless in this world, so it has to go to another software for finshing no matter what

No one cares about the colorists limatations, they care about what is presented on screen in their local cinema, the distb cares about geting the word "PASS' on a Qc report so they can sell the film

Accurate monitoring is key, the OP has 3x Titans in that machine, way big power for DCi2k, and no accurate monitoring to base accurate judgements on...

i'd sooner have 1x Titan and a Flanders on SDI with a Scopebox or UltraScope looped through, and a C6 or i1 probe and software, and sell the two Titans to help pay for it, or look at altenitive workflows, using another suite or a few days for a trim pass after getting the heavy lifting done on what ever the cat draged in for monitoring

i'd sooner have 1x Titan and a Flanders on SDI with a Scopebox or UltraScope looped through, and a C6 or i1 probe and software, and sell the two Titans to help pay for it, or look at altenitive workflows, using another suite or a few days for a trim pass after getting the heavy lifting done on what ever the cat draged in for monitoring

Hello Dermot,

I think that's good advice, but remember that some of the people on these boards are grading indie features for festivals and (possible) distribution with EXTREMELY limited means. Maybe it's because I live in L.A., but the scene is all over the place around here with a good chunk of the features that end up on Netflix being graded on a laptop in someone's bedroom (no ****). So yeah, if the OP has the ability to "borrow" a nice grading suite for a few hours and go check his work then great, fantastic! My guess is that's not really an option.

Again, thank you all SO much for your precious advices!
You all are great.

About the 3x Titan X... I bought them used for Octane, so I think I'll keep them with me for some time

Anyway...

if the callibration lut is inside Resolve, then other software may or may not be able to access that = uncallibrated mon with other software

Let me understand: in my case I use mainly Davinci, Photoshop, After Effects, Cinema 4D. Does it mean that using a LUT inside Davinci, then in Ps or in C4D my monitor will be uncalibrated? (Sorry if it sounds a silly question.)

About an affordable DCi2K monitor (via DeckLink), I've seen these:
1. Eizo CG247X is the "cheapest" in the Eizo's high range (about 1700€) but it's HD only (while I'd work in DCi2K, so I suppose that the image will be scaled);
2. Eizo CG277-BK is less "cheap" (about 1900€) but it fits 2K and has a 3D LUT cine-tv emulation (10 bit log), but I don't know what is it (if someone know, please tell me);
3. BenQ PV270 is around 1000€ and has a lot of good things (it supports X-Rite calibration and has many presets), but I've read it's 8bit+FRC, so not really 10bit;
4. Dell UP2716D is the cheapest of the list (around 700€) but it has its own non-user-friendly SDK for color calibration.
What do you think about?

I think that's good advice, but remember that some of the people on these boards are grading indie features for festivals and (possible) distribution with EXTREMELY limited means. Maybe it's because I live in L.A., but the scene is all over the place around here with a good chunk of the features that end up on Netflix being graded on a laptop in someone's bedroom (no ****). So yeah, if the OP has the ability to "borrow" a nice grading suite for a few hours and go check his work then great, fantastic! My guess is that's not really an option.

This made me chuckle. I thought.. I wonder why “Friends from College” (show on Netflix in HDR 4K) looks so bad because of a situation like this. I have a decently calibrated and pretty good LG OLED HDR 4K TV and that show scared me because of how bad the content looked. I’d really love to know where things went wrong. Is delivering a nice-looking HDR 4K show (Dolby Vision, I believe) that difficult? I am really hoping that my TV set is somehow not working well (other stuff looks really good, though)…

This made me chuckle. I thought.. I wonder why “Friends from College” (show on Netflix in HDR 4K) looks so bad because of a situation like this. I have a decently calibrated and pretty good LG OLED HDR 4K TV and that show scared me because of how bad the content looked.

I literally just stopped watching a movie on Netflix a few minutes ago because the grading was so bad that it was totally distracting.

I literally just stopped watching a movie on Netflix a few minutes ago because the grading was so bad that it was totally distracting.

Professional deformation is real. I noticed a sloppy power window on this week's Game of Thrones the other day.

Plenty of professionals as they can use Resolve at home these days

Calibrate the monitor with a pro app and probe.

i1Display Pro (x-rite) is considered a pro probe?
Thanks

My advice is do the best job that you can working in Rec709, keep your shadows and highlights consistent, make sure that the overall balance matches from shot to shot, focus on keeping everything feeling like it belongs in the same film; and chances are you will be pleasantly surprised by how well your work translates to a theatrical screen.

I agree with this 100%. I think the conversions they can do nowadays that move a Rec709 project into a P3 theatrical DCP are good enough, it's essentially going to be identical assuming the Rec709 display was calibrated and the theatrical projector is calibrated.

keep your shadows and highlights consistent

What does it mean? That I have to keep them a bit brighter or a bit more saturated? Thx

keep your shadows and highlights consistent

What does it mean? That I have to keep them a bit brighter or a bit more saturated? Thx

watch for matching, esp in the shadows. use care in getting all shots in a scene to match each other closely, what can apear to be a small mis-match on a small callibrated mon can be very visable on a large screen, use scopes for this

keep your shadows and highlights consistent

What does it mean? That I have to keep them a bit brighter or a bit more saturated? Thx

No, it means watch your scopes and use your eyes.

Sierra supports 10bit colour. The iMac 27" Retina computers (late 2015 and mid 2017) support 10bit colour and the System Preferences/Display/Colour gives you various options including P3. You can easily see the differences between Adobe RGB and P3 but they are close. The SMPTE Rec.709 is very different than P3. If you grade your video for Rec.709, the colour shifts, looks milky but not in a good way if you change the screen display from Rec.709 to P3 (not Apple's earlier hybrid Display P3, but the newer presumably more accurate P3).

I'm not a professional or a colourist, so feel free to check it out for yourself, but I do videos for display on television (Rec.709) and the web (sRGB). I just don't think I'd grade in Rec.709 for display in a cinema P3 DCP projector from what I've seen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not a professional or a colourist, so feel free to check it out for yourself, but I do videos for display on television (Rec.709) and the web (sRGB). I just don't think I'd grade in Rec.709 for display in a cinema P3 DCP projector from what I've seen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can do it this way, but you have to convert on export to P3. This will give you "correct" colors on projector/monitor set to P3. You can't watch Rec.709 master on P3 calibrated monitor as this is just plain wrong.
In ideal scenario Rec.709 master should look identical to the eye on Rec.709 monitor as the same master converted to P3 on P3 calibrated screen. This is not necessarily true for opposite case as P3 has wider gamut.

And coming back to opinions that you don't need P3 gamut (in overall scenario). Why I don't need it when it's still tons smaller than my eye can see? Is it yet another legacy thing because we are use to this limited gamuts (which exist only due to technology limitations- very old limitations!)? I want to see ALL real nice colors on my display as in real life- not a eg. just 30% of them Push technology and industry further as it has been on about the same level for 20 years
Whole thing feels so outdated and PHONES are technology drivers now, which is a bizarre situation, but real
It just makes me lough when senior film color experts keep talking about "because this is how CRT looked like"- maybe it's time to forget about CRT look and all limitations which were introduced for this bit ancient (now) technology. I'm sure we can do better
P3 (as gamut) is not just for projectors anymore- most modern TVs are way closer to it than almost any TV was few years ago to Rec.709.

I'm very happy of receiving all your advices.
Just a pair of questions remained unaswered:

1.
About an affordable DCi2K monitor (via DeckLink), I've seen these:
1. Eizo CG247X is the "cheapest" in the Eizo's high range (about 1700€) but it's HD only (while I'd work in DCi2K, so I suppose that the image will be scaled);
2. Eizo CG277-BK is less "cheap" (about 1900€) but it fits 2K and has a 3D LUT cine-tv emulation (10 bit log), but I don't know what is it (if someone know, please tell me);
3. BenQ PV270 is around 1000€ and has a lot of good things (it supports X-Rite calibration and has many presets), but I've read it's 8bit+FRC, so not really 10bit;
4. Dell UP2716D is the cheapest of the list (around 700€) but it has its own non-user-friendly SDK for color calibration.
What do you think about?

2.
i1Display Pro (x-rite) is considered a pro/good probe for calibration purpose?

Thanks a lot.

I would not go below Eizo/NEC quality.
Dell (and most likely BenQ) is not really the same level of quality as Eizo/NEC.

Based on Eizo CG247X manual it rather won't accept 2K signal, so you would have to send already pre-scaled to HD signal.

If you want to spend around 1K euro I think I would rathe ago for LG-31MU97 which should give you about Dell/BenQ quality, but with 4K DCI resolution (not just UHD). It does not support interlaced signals, like 50i etc- well it has no deinterlacer.

No idea about probe- is it pro level or not, but it should be good pair for mentioned monitors (specially cheap ones). High-end probe won't suddenly make your "cheaper" display high-end

And coming back to opinions that you don't need P3 gamut (in overall scenario). Why I don't need it when it's still tons smaller than my eye can see? I

because 99% of the films do not even use the limits of 709, and are far away from getting anything usefull from P3.. Bollywood and Horror aside.... those may at times gain more than they lose from P3, not always tho

What do you mean by this? They don't use limits in what sense?
Because this is what colorists are use to and for whatever reason try to keep them within Rec.709? This heavily desaturated, dull, lifeless 100 nits look ? Or maybe because film looked like this? It's all so legacy and caused by old technology limitations (which are no necessarily present anymore). If Dolby would not be "brave" enough to come up with HDR we still would be grading to 100 nits Rec.709 throwing 50% of information in native camera recordings and "creatively" squeezing those 15 or so stops into 8 or less.
I was actually lucky (or not) to see Dolby HDR when it was still some prototype/mystery technology and it was quite interesting to see how experienced colorists did not like it at all

Look at gamut of modern cameras- it goes way beyond P3, my eyes go even further, so how come films suddenly don't need all these colors? I want to see all these colors- why not? I understand that some creative decision are made to make movie less saturated, contrasty etc, but another half of movies can easily benefit of those REAL colors. Many movies could benefit, not sure why you limit them just to poorn and horrors.

If Rec.709 is really enough then what is the point of making better cameras- colorists already have to throw so much information from the actual recordings. It got to point that it's their creative decision (which they get paid for!) what to throw away
For me the only reason why colorists are so careful with "colors" and going beyond Rec.709 is that they have "bad habit":) The more experienced they are the stronger it's. So many movies are dark, lifeless. Another part have 1 dominant tone (which allows them to stay within Rec.709) and not so many actually use whole pallet, because this is apparently so videoish and amateur.
If I shot some colourful street etc. on sunny day why would I WANT to destroy 50% of colours which are there?

Going to the limits in color saturation for a wide gamut like P3 might not be a great idea, since individual color perception – even by persons with 'normal' sight – varies much more for such high values.

Consequently, it would defeat the purpose of color grading, since the picture would just be 'colorful' but perceived differently by each individual.

What do you mean by this? They don't use limits in what sense?
Because this is what colorists are use to and for whatever reason try to keep them within Rec.709? This heavily desaturated, dull, lifeless 100 nits look ? Or maybe because film looked like this? It's all so legacy and caused by old technology limitations (which are no necessarily present anymore).

What are your theatrical credits again?

I think I've worked on over a thousand theatrical films in the last 30 years, and I'm not aware of hitting any technological limitations in terms of brightness or color gamut. If anything, often the filmmakers wind up making things a lot more moody and dark and less colorful than my normal tendencies would be (with rare exceptions). In other words, we're not even using the dynamic range and gamut available to us now in Rec 709, let alone P3.

I have no problem with HDR, particularly when it's used for specular highlights and preserving more detail. The rest of it has the stench of hype and trying to sell new TV sets. I am a big fan of Dolby Vision for theatrical, and I think having a 100-nit theatrical level is fantastic on a large (40' or bigger) laser-projection screen. I think what you're asking for is easy to obtain today, and it has nothing to do with "what colorists are used to." If there's anything colorists have had to do in the last few decades, it's adapt to change: going from analog to digital, an all-film world to an all-digital file world, standard-def to HD, HD to 4K, CRT tube monitors to flat screen, and on and on and on. There's no time to get used to anything -- it's all changing too fast to settle into one thing. We're used to change at this point.

Desaturated, dull and lifeless? Well if you make your movie to look like that then sure. It has nothing to do with REC 709.

I just don't think I'd grade in Rec.709 for display in a cinema P3 DCP projector from what I've seen.

I've graded on a REC709 calibrated Flanders Scientific monitor and then used an accurate transform to take the file from REC709 to DCI-P3 and create a DCP for theater projection for more than a dozen feature documentaries. Not only does this work, it works quite well. Every single DCP has looked great (and accurate to the REC709 master) in the theater. As has been mentioned above, very few films ever artistically require the extended gamut of P3 in the colors shown on screen.

Going to the limits in color saturation for a wide gamut like P3 might not be a great idea, since individual color perception – even by persons with 'normal' sight – varies much more for such high values.

Consequently, it would defeat the purpose of color grading, since the picture would just be 'colorful' but perceived differently by each individual.

P3 is not really wide gamut. P3 is still tiny compared what eye can see. P3 is wide gamut only in industry terms as it was created when technology was barely able to hit it. Rec.2020 maybe quite wide, but P3 is still just a fraction of human vision regardless how different can human vision be.
Do you know if those possible differences are in actually in those "edge" colors or in main colors?

Desaturated, dull and lifeless? Well if you make your movie to look like that then sure. It has nothing to do with REC 709.

I think I've worked on over a thousand theatrical films in the last 30 years, and I'm not aware of hitting any technological limitations in terms of brightness or color gamut. If anything, often the filmmakers wind up making things a lot more moody and dark and less colorful than my normal tendencies would be (with rare exceptions).

Well, yes you are right that it may not be directly related to Rec.709- we can still make saturated Rec.709 master. Its more directors decision and brightness issue. I also would just like to see all those additional colors which are present in real life.
How many Hollywood productions make a use of whole pallet and give very vibrant and saturated colors? Why trend is to make everything rather desaturated, dull and dark? It's impossible that such a scheme is good for every movie. It feels like you have to make it this way or it will be seen as "bad grading"- this is my point.
Some French movies if I'm correct tend to us "more colors" and are actually pleasant to watch.
What about Bollywood? They also use way more color and their movies (when done well) are also pleasant. So maybe it's just a Hollywood thing?

Those additional colors maybe like high frequencies (pass 16KHz) for audio- they don't make huge difference, so there is no point to try hard to keep them. This could be an argument, but I'm not that convinced that P3 is really hitting these areas. Answer may come with Rec.2020 capable displays.

Do you know if those possible differences are in actually in those "edge" colors or in main colors?

Those differences get bigger when we are approaching the outer range of colors. For sure they get stronger when we cover the field of human perception outside of P3, like Rec 2020.

After all, color perception is defined by the so-called "standard observer", which just means that a large number of test persons contributed their personal observations and a certain range of deviation was still defined as "normal". Outside of this you'd have defective color perception (nearly 10 % of men and about 10 times fewer in women). But the deviations get bigger for all observers when we are approaching the outer range of perceivable colors. Consequently, fewer people will agree about a color hue to be 'identical' when you are using the full range of Rec 2020. Less so with P3, but still more than with Rec709.

Those differences get bigger when we are approaching the outer range of colors. For sure they get stronger when we cover the field of human perception outside of P3, like Rec 2020.

Is it confirmed by research or just a guess?

These are fairly low numbers. I don't see it as any big issue at all.
TV settings are more important by 1000000x compared to this "problem". It's not like those people see different colors only when they watch movies- it's happening all the time, so for them it's a norm which they're not even aware of.
Are you or me one of those people? We have no clue!

I'm not a professional or a colourist, so feel free to check it out for yourself, but I do videos for display on television (Rec.709) and the web (sRGB). I just don't think I'd grade in Rec.709 for display in a cinema P3 DCP projector from what I've seen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can do it this way, but you have to convert on export to P3. This will give you "correct" colors on projector/monitor set to P3. You can't watch Rec.709 master on P3 calibrated monitor as this is just plain wrong.
In ideal scenario Rec.709 master should look identical to the eye on Rec.709 monitor as the same master converted to P3 on P3 calibrated screen. This is not necessarily true for opposite case as P3 has wider gamut.

And coming back to opinions that you don't need P3 gamut (in overall scenario). Why I don't need it when it's still tons smaller than my eye can see?
...

I'm in total agreement with you, Jamie. Cinema P3 is an improvement over HD broadcast Rec.709 of course, but looking forward to having Rec.2020 everywhere someday in cinema and broadcast and computer screens (that are replacing the cinema experience for many people already, ergo Game of Thrones, Netflix, Amazon and Apple!?).

Now if that's just a few years away for me, it will be likely five to ten years before the typical viewer will enjoy Rec.2020 capability everywhere.

But the wheels are in motion. Sure the industry was completely crazy chasing 3D everywhere for everything, and not quite as crazy pumping up resolution to 4K even if people can't see much difference, however they're nuts trying to make virtual reality a reality (eventually people will admit that's all about selling pharmaceutical remedies for the headaches from wearing wearables). But there is hope now that HDR and (evil) variations on Rec.2020 have finally appeared for the consumer's consideration. At last a technology that most will appreciate when they have it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

calibration and setup depend on your budget.
And your client will dictate the budget: they pay well, you buy better equipment, they don't you stick with basics.

For resolve, the absolute basic is:
Mini monitor hdmi, 150$
A 35-49 inch regular led tv. Sony is better IMHO because you can calibrate it close enough to 709 and remove all the "enhancements" 500-1000$. Spend 200$ and have it calibrated professionally once every 6 months.

Yoy can do:
Web projects
Tv projects

If you have to do for theater, you can do 90% of the work there, do a quick dcp, rent a theater for 30 minutes to screen it and see the necessary trim because of difference in perceptions.

And before the ritual "who the f@@@ are you" question:

http://m.imdb.com/name/nm2164371/