Correct but you leave out the effects on the compression itself. A well
designed compression algorithm is going to try to go with higher
precision in the areas it has been told are important and it's going to
rely more heavily on its predictions in areas it's been told are less
important. If whoever designed that algorithm made the usually logical
assumption that the mid tones are where human eyes will most notice
excessive compression, they will design the codec to compress more in
the highlights and shadows. Along comes log and everything is a mid
tone. --J.B.
bigfish@pacbell.net [Avid-L2] wrote:
>
> I am of the opinion that properly shot Rec 709 that is intended to be
> delivered in Rec 709 is technically superior to shooting LogC. While
> this may be technically true it is not common practice these days as
> everyone has opted to shoot LogC under the assumption it's going to
> give me more to work with in post. When you say it trades big depth
> in some areas of exposure I would think it trades bit resolution more
> so than bit depth. In my basic understanding the top and bottom of
> exposure are rolled off so they have fewer steps or millivolts of data
> range at the top and bottom. To me that would mean that a gradient
> would have more banding in the high and low exposure areas. This is
> how I view it but please correct me if this is wrong.
>
Posted by: john beck <jb30343@windstream.net>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (12) |
No comments:
Post a Comment