tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30253707.post2970503478488288033..comments2024-03-19T03:17:15.685-04:00Comments on Notes On Video: Quick LinksMichael Muriehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10506717118157555218noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30253707.post-44752402540175970872011-10-22T20:50:12.140-04:002011-10-22T20:50:12.140-04:00Hmm...okay, but they are actually taking the bayer...Hmm...okay, but they are actually taking the bayer pattern data, creating the 1920x1080 image (the chip isn't a one to one pixel match to an HD frame) and adding the gamma and white point. What happens if next year they come up with a slightly improved S-Log? You can't really go back to your "digital negative" and convert it using the new S-Log.<br /><br />It's not like it's a huge issue, if they want to call it a digital negative I'm not going to start a protest march and petitions!Michael Muriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10506717118157555218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30253707.post-30541203852050294932011-10-22T14:05:22.230-04:002011-10-22T14:05:22.230-04:00The reason Log encoded video material is referred ...The reason Log encoded video material is referred to as a "digital negative" is because it's very similar to a scan off color negative in terms of saturation and tonality. Color negative motion picture film stock has white balance "baked in" just like log encoded digital material originating from something like the Alexa or F3. And just like a film scan at a telecine, you must apply saturation and contrast to these images in order to view them in a normal video color space. RAW doesn't really apply to motion picture film because this refers to bayer sensor data where gamma and white point are applied in processing. Referring to Log encoded video material with white balance baked in as a "digital negative" is actually quite accurate.Ben Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623830826132116291noreply@blogger.com