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

Windows, layers and masks



I have been following the thread on windows and layers, and am surprised at
how few replies there have been. 

Since I am one of the few to have had real hands on experience of Edwin,
here are my opinions- and they are just opinions.

1. Windows, or layers are both designed to solve the same problems -
problems arising from the need for geographical area isolation. These
problems occur to a greater or lesser degree in any given circumstance
according to the color system involved. ie what constitutes a problem is
different according to whether you have a Turbo, FDL, Gold, Diamond or
Spirit: and whether you have Copernicus, Pogle or da Vinci {or not -Ken:-)
}.

2. The da Vinci windows concept is the simplest and therefore fastest
approach most of the time. It also allows  smoother transitions and greater
flexibility of "simple" ie geometric, shapes

3. The Pogle and RSQ layering approach, although themselves inherently
different from each other, have the advantage that they allow shapes to be
masked or concealed, and therefore deal better with 3D type problems ie
geographical isolation by depth rather than plane. On occasions this allows
more processing to be applied than say the windows approach, although there
is a severe time penalty.

4. Edwin, the new da Vinci hardware option (which has escaped much
conversation from this group) not only provides totally irregular shape
generation (in a variety of ways) but perhaps more importantly re-defines
the windows architecture, so that all windows can be defined as either a
boundary or mask simultaneously, for either primaries, secondaries or both
processors. This feature can now offer fast, accurate geographical
isolation for 2D and 3D problems, and in my opinion sets new standards in
what in only a few years has become an established telecine technique.

5. It is hard to make direct comparisons between the 2 philosophies,
because they are so different. For example take one da Vinci primary
window. This allows the colorist to make global corrections, inside the
window corrections, and outside the window corrections. To do the same in
layers, would involve the base layer, a layer for the "inside" grade, and
another layer for the complimentary outside grade - 3 layers. This is not a
contentious statement, I agree that it would be rare for the 2 sytems to be
used in the same way, and I fully accept that Kens RSQ is capable of things
which are arguably (from the operators point of view) no longer in the real
time domain. I simply wish to make the point that direct comparison is
complicated. 

6. The colorist has more of an impact than the technology, - and thats why
colorists get more than the president ;-} : sorry Bob the secrets out !

I am not an expert on Pogle systems, or RSQs, but try to remain aware of
their capabilities. I am independent of any manufacturer, but I am a
longstanding da Vinci user. 

New toys are frequently better than old toys.

All the best ~ Kevin Shaw      (Freelance Colorist, Consultant and
Instructor)                 E-mail:         kevs at online.rednet.co.uk      
http://home.rednet.co.uk/homepages/kshaw/index.htm
Kanvas Film and Video Ltd            Phone/Fax:  +44 (0)7000-227854
(after a very nice bottle of hot saki in Hong Kong)

*** 
thanks to Ken Rockwell, Dwaine Maggart, and Joe Wolcott
for support of the TIG in 1997
---
mailinglist digest available......posting guidelines on the webpage
http://www.alegria.com/telecinehome.html


Follow-Ups: