Thanks Alex and everyone for the hard work. I had a look at the last meeting and at the Google Form and I had a few commnents.
First, what are we comparing ?
- The SSTS
- OpenDRT
- ZCAmishDRT
Is it correct to assume that the SSTS (Single-Stage Tone Scale) is actually only one module of the ACES Output Transform ? And therefore what we are really comparing should be :
- ACES Output Transform
- OpenDRT
- ZCAMishDRT
Sorry for the nitpicking… But I thought it was worth mentioning to avoid any ambiguity. I guess at some point the SSTS mechanism (a s-curve made of beziers) could be used in OpenDRT or ZCAMishDRT, and vice-versa ?
Because, and I am happy to be corrected, if we talk about a simplified version of the SSTS where we would put the “sweeteners” in a LMT, these “sweeteners” are actually part of the ACES RRT and not the SSTS itself ? For the record, I am referring to the “red modifier”, “glow module” and “global desaturation”.
So maybe, my question is : what are you exactly referring as SSTS ? Because it looks to me that we are really trying to evaluate here are the limits of per-channel (RGB) lookup used in the ACES Output Transforms ? Sorry if I misunderstood !
And maybe I can give my tuppence. Although I have been pushing for a “chromaticity-linear” approach since day one, I understand that there is a deadline to achieve and that we may have to come up with a plan in January. It looks like this deadline will be key in our choice for the next ACES Output Transforms.
And to play devil´s advocate, a very popular rendering solution called K1S1 is using per-channel (RGB) lookup. So it might not be the “ultimate” rendering transform I was hoping for but revisiting this approach, exactly like Jed did back in May, might be sufficient for the ACES 2.0 requirements. It really depends on how high we set the bar… But from the early tests I did, this experiment was “solving” some of the know issues of the current transforms.
An other comment I had is how close OpenDRT and TCAM are in their rendering. I already mentioned it once on slack and I will just mention it here once more. Investigating other rendering transforms to understand their mechanics like Jed did is excellent. This is tremendous work on his end to gather these experiments and knowledge in Nuke. But is there a line that should not be crossed ? One thing is to get inspired, another is to release an “open-source copy” into OCIO/CTL/GLSL… and every major software. To me, it would also be a missed opportunity for more diversity.
Finally, I wanted to mention JzDT. Could it be a potential candidate ? It looks like a rather elegant and simple solution. Again, I guess it all depends on our constraints of time and quality. Would it be the “ultimate” rendering ? Probably not. But does it matter ? I don´t think so for two main reasons :
- The “ultimate” rendering probably does not exist. In the end, it is just a choice we have to make.
- JzDT is already quite an improvement on the ACES 1.X Output Transforms.
And that would be my final comment. In the last TAC meeting, Rod Bogart mentioned an interesting solution because of the schedule. This is how I understood it :
- Release the ACES 2.0 Output Transform on time that fixes most of the issues mentioned in the feedback tour (contrast, clipping, skews…). That would be like a first step in the right direction.
- Then focus on ACES 3.0 as it was mentioned in this post/video (at 32:00). Who knows ? Maybe with a Meta Framework this time ?
Sorry for the long post… I hope it helps a bit !
Chris