waltervolpatto wrote:Better have a standard
Color to that standard
Delivery that standerd
Have TV that show the content on a panel that adhere to that standard.
It works. It has for more than a century.
You are saying, exactly, what I am saying.
The reality, is we have panels that don't map to various standards. A good consumer set can go under in one area, and over in another. The same for cameras too. Unless you do a version of each file for the possibly tens of thousands of panels out there, you need to map in the display to it's performance limits, which is probably not done very well. The proposal is for a more accurate map, by first mapping it into the. widest colour space, and using standardised transform code and algorithms developed by the standards organisation, to transform it to the displays characteristics. But, to go further, cameras don't care about our colour gamut and go beyond it. So, it's hard to preserve the increased performance, let alone whatever we do to it to push it outwards. I'm not talking about preserving ACES, I'm talking about using the colour space etc. Using a preset cutout, such as p3, rec2020/2100, 709 etc, you actually don't really use any extra space, it just maid that into the display processing space for better controlled standardised transform into the panels space, and precision for users to move it around, particularly on proposed super premium 16 bit panel. That's existing old files using the existing standards. However, to make an even better file for distribution, it's raised to 12-16 bits, an existing preset gamut preset can still be used (the files auto saved into a higher precision file, based on the original processed workflow of the file. Now. It is more like you see it when you grade it, and the user and panel looks, can push it around even more again. I have a high end set here, best for it's type I could get here. It is still rather limited. I can still push it around a lot more and it tries to do a good job. It doesn't go as horribly wrong as in the past, but, it still tops out, and steps more than it could. So 8 bit linear to 10 bit is useful, but HDR is brittle. But, preserving the camera's full performance in a cut out, plus whatever we do to it in post, is better again. But, on this size matter, a cutout could use a12 bit file might consume close to a 10bit file in data and map into a 16bit space for display processing on arrival. There is no smaller way to do it, without doing more prediction of levels, which is compression. It is no more than current standard methods and the way forwards to preserving the camera performance and grade, replacing all standards mess, more quality and flexibility for users to adjust, more market opportunities for manufactures to sell high end product to do this. We are still stuck on 10 bit panels, an 8 bit area quality initiative (while 12 bits would be better for TV/user processing).