[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Comments to Steve B.




DV wrote
" The problem with the delay introduced between operator colour correction
adjustments of colour correction and resulting changes on the monitor would be
eliminated."
 
This is not entirely correct as it masks a drawback in an otherwise excellent
device. The colour processor is not the device that introduces the delays. In
fact the colour processing in itself is more in the region of a few lines of
delay.  It is all the other image enhancement that does the delay but as they
are all integrated into the whole concept and does not offer a breakout facility
for third party manufacturers of colour correctors,  the overall delay becomes
an issue. But then DV would not be able to sell a colour corrector...

The point is not what the DV system can do or not as beeing the best approach it
is what the client desires. As this varies depending on type of suite (job
types) then should a well designed system be open for these requirements as well
as integration with third party hardware. In other words, solution orientation.
Particularly the users of daVinci systems have a preference of routing the
digital cleanup post of colourcorrection (daVinci CC). Paul Grace has had this
setup for some time and if my memory does not fail this has also been the
preference of Kevin Shaw. While I did not understand why this was so at first I
do now and this is explained by Paul Grace. Noise reduction using recursive
filters is very effective on random, electrical type noise but less so on
filmgrain as this is not strictly noise nor competely random. In high quality
applications with untainted stock (like in commercials) it might be better to do
some very subtle cleaning at the very last, if needed at all.

We should all be in agreement as to where aperture correction best is carried
out...

Mike Reichel