I only have very little time atm, so I'd rather spend the available time on improving the algos atm.Since it looks like 'Display Peak Luminance' and 'Dynamic Target Nits' will stay with us at least for for quite a while, would it be much work to include them in the assignable shortcuts section? I believe it would greatly help balance them out in real time with running content.
That's what desat 2-4 and dumb desat do.Maybe there is a trick to make it work? Only desaturating much more aggressively near the very brightest pixels?
The inside of an explosion might also have a "solid" center. I'm not sure we can use that as a deciding factor. It's also not too easy to detect.These artifacts are only of one "solid" color it seems?
That's an optical illusion... Try a pixel peeper. E.g. I'm using this freeware:Moreover, with "max" the artifact is even darker than in the non-tone-mapped image(?). How is that possible?
Free portable colour picker and colour editor for webmasters, photographers, graphic designers and digital artists. Works on Mac and Windows PC, 32 and 64 bit.
Do you really mean desat1? Desat1 is part of the brightness adjustment, as recommended by BT.2390. Basically the more I compress the luminance of a pixel, the more desaturation I apply. That's desat1.Well it would be more like mixing desat4 with desat1 actually, but desat4 is already mixed with desat1, right? The problem is that we can not control how much desat4 and how much desat1 are "mixed".
The idea would be to keep more desat1 than desat4 (using desat1 to desaturate pure colors a bit more). Does that make sense?
Desat2-4 and dumb desat all work completely different. I'm not sure if it makes sense to make desat1 stronger. I don't really think so, to be honest. I tried that once but it looked really bad. I think it's a much better approach to add desat2-4 and/or dumb desat on top of desat1.
If you use a mixture of 0, you get desat2. A mixture of 50 is desat3. A mixture of 100 is desat4 or dumb desat. Did you really mean desat1? Or did you mean desat2? I'm not completely sure. In either case, I'm still not fully understanding the reasoning behind your idea. Why do you want to use more of desat1 (or maybe desat2)? Why do you think that would help? I'm not saying I won't offer that, I'm just wondering what the logical reason is why you're asking for that? Can't follow your chain of thought here atm.
Ah ok. So you're saying the latest build works better for you for some reason?there have been a few titles(namely starship troopers and king kong2005) which have had an uncomfortably bright appearance, and I found I needed to adjust dpl(say from 50 to 150 or 200) to provide a comfortable viewing level, just increasing dtn previously didnt resolve this. i think dont add peak + the higher dtn + max lum method resolved it, and possibly the recovery assisted.
Sorry, but no. GUI design costs a LOT of time. And doing this for options which are only supposed to stay in the short term does not seem like a wise investment to me.Yo, can we settle on a (Scientifically Correct DTM Tab) and a (Experimental DTM Tab) to split the settings & testing?
I've no idea.Can custom curves fix/improve this?
Generally, a key question here is: Do we absolutely have to have perfect detail, on the cost of saturation? Or do you prefer to have a bit more saturation in highlights and buy that by losing some detail? Looking at test patterns, it's tempting to aim for more detail. But in real movie scenes that's not always what looks best. So I don't think there's an easy answer here.
I would prefer using test patterns only to double check things and to look for clues of problematic areas etc. But I would prefer making decisions more based on real movie content instead of test patterns. I do love test patterns, though, and like to use them extensively.