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

Re: Windows, layers and masks



Kevin Shaw wrote:

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

Me too and its been the same in the past....  

Something just reminded me that actually the RSQ has been in existence for 10 years now in various 
forms, from its analogue beginnings to now in a digital form.  So this now begs the question, why 
has windowing taken so long to get a hold?  

 
> Since I am one of the few to have had real hands on experience of Edwin,
 
> 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:-)
> }.

I was trying to understand the meaning of the above as well as your number 3.  I don't follow the 
difference, on a 2d screen what would the approach difference be?  Are you talking about 
mask/window/layer transition?  Frankly, now I can't view them as different, and I did spend the 
better part of last year running an 888.  Now I may have got the wrong end of the stick here as I 
did with custom curves, as you pointed out to me last year.

 
> 2. The da Vinci windows concept is the simplest and therefore fastest


Has the operation method been changed now since the show in LA?  Thats when I saw it and frankly 
saw no great difference in speed of operation of either a Pogle or anything else ONCE you got used 
to it.
 
> 3. The Pogle and RSQ layering approach, although themselves inherently
> different from each other, .........  delatia....... On occasions this allows
> more processing to be applied than say the windows approach, although there
> is a severe time penalty.

Well, I saved a client 2 hrs in a Henry using my windows.... { I know I am 3 x more expensive than 
a Henry, but thats not the point :-)!}.  But having said that, I still have to be as quick as my 
opposition down here, and get the job done.  And BTW, there are others far quicker than myself.
 
> 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.

Oh, come on, where is there anything new there.....  Thats the point RSQ has been doing that for 
years, AND still no interest from the market, My question again, why the lack of interest????
 
> 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. 

Absolutely wrong, it would take two layers the same as dV and Pogle (errrr Seamus?) 
 
My only concern about this thread is that it might get into a "mines better than yours" deal, and 
really I just wondered why all the manufacturers have landed at the same point and still there's no 
excitement.  Generally all good ideas get copied in one way or another, isn't 
windowing/layering a good idea?  I'm real curious.

I am independent of any manufacturer, except I had to pay for mine, okay, we borrowed a little!


Ken

************************************
Ken Robinson
Imagen Transfer
Av. Cristobal Colon 4733
Santiago de Chile

Tel: 56 2 207 9515
Fax: 56 2 228 5871

186,000 miles per second.  Not just a good idea.....  It's the LAW!

*** 
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


References: