This is a followup post to some of the points introduced at last meeting. As we approach the next meeting, please continue thinking about some of the observations I raised and consider some of the discussion points. These are sort of stream-of-consciousness - feel free to respond to any that you feel comfortable commenting on. Or, if you feel more comfortable, just hold it for the meeting.
This week we will expand these fundamentals to see if they also include “What is an ACES show?”
Re: the existing Logo Program documents, including “Description and Qualification” document
The current documents are lengthy and steps numerous (although the current version of the documents is more concise than pre-2020).
Some current requirements are (or at least were) under-specified, especially those relating to AMF & CLF.
The existing “Major Features” seem like a good starting place for defining “tenets” of ACES:
- Produce scene-referred data
- Process color without compromising dynamic range or color gamut
- Display consistently across multiple display devices
- Enable on-set preview and look management
- Enable basic grade portability
- Enable color pipeline configuration portability
The enumerated Specific Features are useful, but likely not comprehensive.
Product categories seem like a good idea for providing examples, but there should probably be a way for hybrid categories or unexpected exceptions.
- What should it mean for a product to “support ACES”?
- Which products need to support which features?
- How can/should products be adequately qualified without the process of doing so being overly regimented?
- There is a need to balance a thoroughness of qualification without being an overwhelming process that will discourage submissions
- How can requirements be structured so as to remain flexible enough to conform to unexpected applications or overlaps?
- A suggestion was made to speak about Product types in terms of the phases of production workflow that they work in. If a product is used in a specific phase of production, there are certain things it should be able to do.
- Does the current list of enumerated Specific Features cover validation of the specific features that we think are important for an “ACES” Product?
- Might there be a way to leverage the evidence submitted for product qualification to be used as documentation or per-product demonstrations? e.g. if screencasts demonstrating how features are implemented, could these be shared to help users?