Thanks for the explanation of the reasons. As a technician myself I
understand it and accept it. Just want to notice, that it would be nice
to tell a user that manual enabling of the filmic plugin requires both
disabling basic curve (it replaces it) AND adding +1EV.
Some notes on enabling scene-based workflow in settings.
1. Default +0.5 EV exposure boost is not enough to match nor the result
from camera nor the perceived level of luminosity in the field. The
images are too dark. Previous +1.0EV was almost perfect.
2. The option to preserve color (defaults) makes colors look unnatural
compared to original scene seen by naked eye. It can cause colors look
oversaturated or undersaturated in different scenes, but I feel they
differ from observed reality. I can provide RAW samples for both of the
cases. If the option is set to none, colors look good to me.
If the aim is obtaining camera-looking or scene-looking images right
from the box, these two options should match the target.
With respect,
Alexander Rabtchevich
Aurélien Pierre wrote:
I need to presume things in order to provide consistent and reasonable
workflows from start to end. You get the scene-linear one, based on
linear editing with exposure and filmic, and the display-linear one,
based on legacy modules and modules order (and base curve), or
alternatively, no workflow at all, and set everything yourself.
I guess the question could be reformulated as : why can't user shoot
himself in the foot faster ?
Pick a consistent workflow from the start, and abide by it. There is
no point in trying to interleave unrelated things, unless you want to
make it worse for everyone.
There are technical reasons at play here, that impose to think the
pipeline as a whole, and not just as a stack of individual modules
allowing local shortcuts to spare 2 clicks at the expense of degrading
color for all the upcoming modules and image processing steps in the pipe.
Global exposure needs to be fixed before input profile for people who
use LUTs ICC profiles, or other LUT-based modules, and to help gamut
mapping and chromatic adaptation. Fixing it later is a nasty hack that
may work for people as long as they do lightweight editing with little
exigence, but is not safe in general.
Technics are not a democracy, they are dictated by the tools you use,
and if you don't adapt to them, they will not adapt to you. Workflows
are not a matter of opinion or personal preference, but a way to cope
with technical requirements in the least painful way. Having more
choices to shoot yourself in the foot is only having the illusion of
choice.
Cheers,
Aurélien.
Le 11/06/2020 à 20:54, Alexander Rabtchevich a écrit :
You presume a user chooses one of the approaches and uses it full time.
In that case the expose is added automatically. And what if a user
mostly uses basecurve approach and time after time wants to make a
scene-referred variant? He needs to turn off the basecurve, turn on the
filmic module (it is logical) and to add + 1EV exposure shift. The first
two actions can be done easily via custom style, but if one adds
exposure to the style, the previous exposure value will be replaced by
the value from the style (1.0). And the image will require to adjust the
exposure again.
Why can't the module itself make signal boost of +1EV at its input just
as the +1EV exposure does in the pipeline before the filmic. Is there a
difference in the results?
With respect,
Alexander Rabtchevich
Aurélien Pierre wrote:
The required +1 EV exposure boost is now applied automatically in
exposure module for new edits if you choose the scene-linear workflow
in preferences -> processing -> auto-apply pixel workflow default.
Filmic v4 imposes 18% scene to be remapped to 18% display no matter
what, resulting in preservation of overall brightness through the
process. Previous Filmic v3 remapped 9% scene to 18% display to better
match OOC JPEG, which creates problems with the curve (contrast
behaviour degrades if grey is not more or less centered on the graph).
Current v4 behaviour is to slide the image dynamic range along the
luminance axis with exposure module, to anchor scene grey to display
grey. Once this is done, filmic compresses the bounds of the dynamic
range by rolling *around* the grey value, used as a reference, and
therefore preserving the overall brightness of the image. This makes
the transform more predictable and remove the scene grey param in GUI,
which has confused too many users.
See : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leZVK2s68QA
Cheers,
Aurélien.
Le 10/06/2020 à 08:19, David Vincent-Jones a écrit :
The change that I see in v. 4.0 is that all of my images appear 1
stop underexposed as compared to the previous version. Earlier I did
not need to adjust exposure at all, now I must boost the exposure on
all images.
David
On 2020-06-09 11:46 a.m., Alexander Rabtchevich wrote:
Hm, as I understand, if I enable filmic plugin v 4.0 manually, I
need to
add +1.0EV manually too? That wasn't so with 3.0.
With respect,
Alexander Rabtchevich
Aurélien Pierre wrote:
Hi,
there is a +1 EV added by default in exposure if you enable the
scene-referred workflow. I don't understand what you mean. The
exposure bias is read in image EXIF, if the bias is 0 EV, then the
setting is 0 EV too.
Cheers,
Aurélien.
Le 09/06/2020 à 19:46, Alexander Rabtchevich a écrit :
Hello
Exposure compensation bias for my Sony A99 is 0EV and images are
too
dark. They require to add +1EV to match filmic v.3
Current git master
With respect,
Alexander Rabtchevich
___________________________________________________________________________
darktable developer mailing list to unsubscribe send a mail to
darktable-dev+unsubscr...@lists.darktable.org
___________________________________________________________________________
darktable developer mailing list
to unsubscribe send a mail to darktable-dev+unsubscr...@lists.darktable.org
