I'm posting this for anyone interested in the Brytewerks Model 1 projector. Sounds very promising on paper (reviews & reliability pending), and as I'm working on a projection-based project I'm seriously interested - so I signed up to their notification emails.
Today they sent out one about projector light sources, called 'Let there be Light'. At least one statement in it was incorrect. No big deal, I emailed them (the message actually solicited corrections). Got a reply within a few minutes from head honcho Justin Eugene Evans - pretty cool right? Not so much. Here is the full unedited correspondence (every message, nothing left out). It's not about the details (he's wrong, so what) - it's about the way the guy talked to me. I won't be replying to this thread, make up your own mind:
Section from their email I took issue with:
Anyone who knows anything about the mechanics of 'colour grading' (ie. digitally recolouring the footage in post) knows this is fundamentally wrong. I'm a programmer (who's written grading code) as well as a grader, so I know it pretty well too. Grading can create new colours from a wider gamut that didn't or couldn't exist in the original footage. As a simplistic example, I can make a particular green shade in the footage much greener than the camera could have captured. Or that the lighting used on the set could have produced. In fact I can digitally create any possible colour in any possible colour space.
So you can easily create colours in post that require a better colour rendering than the original footage would have.
My correspondence with Justin:
Me:
Justin:
Me:
Me (followup):
Justin:
Me:
Justin:
Me:
From their original email:
"CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS
If you'd like to submit corrections or additions please email them to info@brytewerks.com. The first and only rule is simple: Keep it civil."
.
Edited by _gl - 6/8/12 at 3:32pm
Today they sent out one about projector light sources, called 'Let there be Light'. At least one statement in it was incorrect. No big deal, I emailed them (the message actually solicited corrections). Got a reply within a few minutes from head honcho Justin Eugene Evans - pretty cool right? Not so much. Here is the full unedited correspondence (every message, nothing left out). It's not about the details (he's wrong, so what) - it's about the way the guy talked to me. I won't be replying to this thread, make up your own mind:
Section from their email I took issue with:
"So, we have an entire global projection industry built around projecting a slightly superior range of colors that were never captured on the set to begin with and therefore cannot be projected.
The logic is simple. The source is the source is the source. What you capture is the best you can ever hope to project."
The logic is simple. The source is the source is the source. What you capture is the best you can ever hope to project."
Anyone who knows anything about the mechanics of 'colour grading' (ie. digitally recolouring the footage in post) knows this is fundamentally wrong. I'm a programmer (who's written grading code) as well as a grader, so I know it pretty well too. Grading can create new colours from a wider gamut that didn't or couldn't exist in the original footage. As a simplistic example, I can make a particular green shade in the footage much greener than the camera could have captured. Or that the lighting used on the set could have produced. In fact I can digitally create any possible colour in any possible colour space.
So you can easily create colours in post that require a better colour rendering than the original footage would have.
My correspondence with Justin:
Me:
[re. the email]
Interesting overall, but this bit is flawed:
"The logic is simple. The source is the source is the source. What you capture is the best you can ever hope to project."
That only holds true if the footage isn't graded. Colour grading can create colours (as well as colour resolution) that didn't exist in the original footage, so also a larger gamut. And pretty much all movies are graded these days.
Interesting overall, but this bit is flawed:
"The logic is simple. The source is the source is the source. What you capture is the best you can ever hope to project."
That only holds true if the footage isn't graded. Colour grading can create colours (as well as colour resolution) that didn't exist in the original footage, so also a larger gamut. And pretty much all movies are graded these days.
Justin:
GL -
As a cinematographer and filmmaker I'd love to know how you expand the gamut beyond what was captured. I agree, all films are graded. My colorist is one of the best in the business. He's currently the senior colorist for Disney. And we've gone to great lengths to work together in pre-production because if I don't capture it on the shoot he can't make it appear in post.
Can he make a warm scene cool? Sure. But, that's not the same thing as expanding the gamut. That's scientifically impossible.
As a cinematographer and filmmaker I'd love to know how you expand the gamut beyond what was captured. I agree, all films are graded. My colorist is one of the best in the business. He's currently the senior colorist for Disney. And we've gone to great lengths to work together in pre-production because if I don't capture it on the shoot he can't make it appear in post.
Can he make a warm scene cool? Sure. But, that's not the same thing as expanding the gamut. That's scientifically impossible.
Me:
? I can place the footage into any colour space I want, then manipulate its colours to use any colour in that colour space.
As an extreme example, I can place monochrome footage into any colour space, and colourize it in some way. Of course the resulting colours are then part of that space. Make sense?
As an extreme example, I can place monochrome footage into any colour space, and colourize it in some way. Of course the resulting colours are then part of that space. Make sense?
Me (followup):
Another way to think of it. I load a standard sRGB image into Photoshop, then convert it to Adobe RGB (which has a larger gamut).
I can now push the original sRGB colours into that larger gamut via, say, Hue/Saturation adjustments. The manipulated image is now using colours from the larger space.
I can now push the original sRGB colours into that larger gamut via, say, Hue/Saturation adjustments. The manipulated image is now using colours from the larger space.
Justin:
I think we're going to have to disagree. Just because the footage has been placed in a particular color space doesn't mean the gamut is now wider. What you're talking about is artificial and doesn't look real in any way. You cannot take monochrome footage, colorize it and have it look natural.
Let's just agree to disagree.
Let's just agree to disagree.
Me:
> Just because the footage has been placed in a particular color space doesn't mean the gamut is now wider
Exactly - it's the colour manipulation (grading) after the conversion that makes it possible.
> You cannot take monochrome footage, colorize it and have it look natural.
I was using an extreme example to better illustrate the point. As you know, modern digital grading can take any colour, or range of colours, and either shift them in some way, or completely replace them (or anything inbetween). So you can manipulate pixels to any colours from the space you're working in.
In other words, (with grading) the limitation isn't the input footage - it's your final output format & its colour space.
I'm speaking as a video & general multimedia programmer. Run it by your colourist, he'll confirm.
Exactly - it's the colour manipulation (grading) after the conversion that makes it possible.
> You cannot take monochrome footage, colorize it and have it look natural.
I was using an extreme example to better illustrate the point. As you know, modern digital grading can take any colour, or range of colours, and either shift them in some way, or completely replace them (or anything inbetween). So you can manipulate pixels to any colours from the space you're working in.
In other words, (with grading) the limitation isn't the input footage - it's your final output format & its colour space.
I'm speaking as a video & general multimedia programmer. Run it by your colourist, he'll confirm.
Justin:
GL -
Do you have a REAL name? Or am I supposed to debate with a pair of initials?
And, you just exposed the hole in your argument. Yes, you can load an image into a different color space. And yes you can manipulate it. And yes that color space is larger...but it doesn't matter because the original image's limitations still apply.
And we're done having this debate now. We clearly disagree. If you can't see the difference between manipulating an image in a larger color space and actually HAVING that large color space available to the image then I feel sorry for you. They aren't the same thing.
And I don't need a ****ing lecture from a mental midget.
Do you have a REAL name? Or am I supposed to debate with a pair of initials?
And, you just exposed the hole in your argument. Yes, you can load an image into a different color space. And yes you can manipulate it. And yes that color space is larger...but it doesn't matter because the original image's limitations still apply.
And we're done having this debate now. We clearly disagree. If you can't see the difference between manipulating an image in a larger color space and actually HAVING that large color space available to the image then I feel sorry for you. They aren't the same thing.
And I don't need a ****ing lecture from a mental midget.
Me:
> And I don't need a ****ing lecture from a mental midget.
Wow. I was trying to share useful information. Good to know what kind of guy is running this thing.
Justin:Wow. I was trying to share useful information. Good to know what kind of guy is running this thing.
It is easy to be anonymous.
I have no idea who you are. You choose to be anonymous. And your argument is...stupid.
You are confusing the ability to manipulate an image in a different color space with the magical creation of colors that were never captured. And I've already had this conversation with my colorist a dozen times. He teaches at class on this issue at Disney so idiot directors don't walk in and say "What do you mean you can't uncrush the image? What do you mean you can't make it even warmer? Why not? I thought color grading could do anything?"
If you had real knowledge you'd be signing a name, not initials. You know who I am. Now go away. I've banned your emails. I don't have the free time to debate something with someone who clearly can't grasp basic science.
I have no idea who you are. You choose to be anonymous. And your argument is...stupid.
You are confusing the ability to manipulate an image in a different color space with the magical creation of colors that were never captured. And I've already had this conversation with my colorist a dozen times. He teaches at class on this issue at Disney so idiot directors don't walk in and say "What do you mean you can't uncrush the image? What do you mean you can't make it even warmer? Why not? I thought color grading could do anything?"
If you had real knowledge you'd be signing a name, not initials. You know who I am. Now go away. I've banned your emails. I don't have the free time to debate something with someone who clearly can't grasp basic science.
From their original email:
"CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS
If you'd like to submit corrections or additions please email them to info@brytewerks.com. The first and only rule is simple: Keep it civil."
.
Edited by _gl - 6/8/12 at 3:32pm
