| 00:10 | aombk2 | joined the channel |
| 00:11 | aombk | left the channel |
| 01:42 | aombk | joined the channel |
| 01:44 | aombk2 | left the channel |
| 07:28 | anuejn | considering ir cut filters basically UQG gives us the best results by far
|
| 07:49 | se6astian | very interesting!
|
| 07:50 | se6astian | and great that we have a foundation now to rate the UV/IR filters
|
| 07:54 | se6astian | is there also method to compare these theoretical values to the actual images once max delivers the first set
|
| 07:55 | se6astian | to further fine tune or confirm the model
|
| 07:58 | vup | probably but its not super easy
|
| 07:59 | vup | or rather comparing is easy
|
| 07:59 | vup | instead of inserting the simulated pixel values for the color checker patches one would just insert the actually observed ones
|
| 08:00 | vup | (with some details like normalization of these pixel values that needs to be figured out, but also the color matrix is exposure independent, so that should not make a differentce)
|
| 08:01 | vup | fine tuning the model would mainly consist of trying to improve our idea of the spectral response of the sensor, which I think would be very tricky to do with just 24 patches + some uncertainties about the exact spectrum of the illumination
|
| 08:08 | vup | anuejn: afaik the ΔE value you are optimizing only is a proxy for the chromaticity difference, not the luminosity one, right? I am not really sure what is the "most desirable" thing to optimize, but I would have assumed we want to minimize both chromatic and luminosity distance, right
|
| 08:09 | vup | also, whats the reason for not specifing the illuminiant when converting to lab values?
|
| 08:11 | anuejn | vup: is it?
|
| 08:11 | anuejn | if i read the CIEDE2000 paper right, it also considers chromaticity?
|
| 08:15 | vup | anuejn: ah right, I misread some part somewhere
|
| 11:18 | McUles[m] | left the channel |
| 11:18 | davidak[m] | left the channel |
| 11:18 | underpantsgnome[ | left the channel |
| 11:25 | McUles[m] | joined the channel |
| 11:45 | davidak[m] | joined the channel |
| 11:45 | underpantsgnome[ | joined the channel |
| 14:01 | McUles[m] | left the channel |
| 14:01 | vup | left the channel |
| 14:01 | illwieckz | left the channel |
| 14:01 | fredy | left the channel |
| 14:01 | fredy | joined the channel |
| 14:02 | vup | joined the channel |
| 14:03 | illwieckz | joined the channel |
| 14:03 | McUles[m] | joined the channel |
| 15:00 | Guest8391 | joined the channel |
| 15:01 | Guest8391 | left the channel |
| 15:28 | illwieckz | left the channel |
| 15:41 | illwieckz | joined the channel |
| 19:29 | anuejn | se6astian: which filters do we give out with the devkits?
|
| 19:30 | anuejn | we probably also want a correction matrix for these
|
| 19:41 | vup | maybe, but one still probably needs to do calibration with the specific lens one uses anyways, no?
|
| 19:41 | vup | well actually the effect is not too bad: https://f.coroot.de/20221013_21h41m11s_grim.png
|
| 19:42 | vup | would be interesting to test how ΔE degrates if we simulate these lenses
|
| 19:42 | vup | (ref: https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2233723)
|
| 19:42 | vup | if anybody else know sources for lens spectral response function lmk
|
| 20:16 | se6astian | Haida Pro II MC Digital Slim UV / IR 390 / 750 Filter 77mm
|
| 21:35 | anuejn | vup: interesting :)
|
| 21:35 | anuejn | se6astian: thanks :)
|
| 21:36 | anuejn | but you didnt by accident throw one of these into a spectrometer too?
|
| 21:36 | anuejn | huh oh wow these go pretty high
|
| 21:37 | anuejn | that might be a bad thing
|
| 21:44 | se6astian | I can plan to measure one if it's not in the list of measurements yet
|
| 21:47 | anuejn | it is not sadly
|
| 21:47 | anuejn | or i didnt find it
|
| 21:47 | anuejn | if it is the haida filter we have a measurement
|
| 21:47 | anuejn | but i am not sure if it is this one?
|
| 21:47 | anuejn | can you confirm or deny that? do you still remember ;)
|
| 21:48 | vup | how do the filters in a camera with integrated filters look like?
|
| 21:54 | davidak[m] | i've also been exploring color science lately. i'm fascinated by the idea of using an lut to recreate the colors of an arri alexa on a cheaper camera. if the axiom offered that, as a "cinematic" preset, it could be very popular.
|
| 21:54 | davidak[m] | here is my research so far: https://pad.nixnet.services/XDgdTJERQv6fr9Iu79iSmQ?view
|
| 21:56 | davidak[m] | especially check out the perspective of Steve Yedlin in the theory section on color science. i think that fits the open nature of the apertus project very well and we might should use that in our communication. we can also offer the tools to create a custom look
|
| 22:17 | davidak[m] | have we decided what our main intended audience is yet? is it professional film like hollywood or small budget indie productions? the latter can be intrigued by the possibility to have the ARRI look with a fraction of the cost while the first will want to match the colors to an ARRI camera. maybe they would use our camera as a small throw-away camera that can get destroyed in action scenes. it does have the benefit there that the recorder is
|
| 22:17 | davidak[m] | modular and not attached to the sensor, so you can fully destroy the sensor without loosing the recording :)
|
| 22:36 | vup | well, doing proper color calibration and providing a way to get the color of the pxilse in some well defined color space is a precursor to both of these
|
| 22:52 | aombk2 | joined the channel |
| 22:55 | aombk | left the channel |
| 23:01 | aombk | joined the channel |
| 23:03 | aombk2 | left the channel |