|
Re: Photoshop plug-in
Simon Björk <si...@...>
Thanks Brendan, the new beta worked without any errors. Cheers!
|
|
|
|
Re: Photoshop plug-in
Brendan Bolles <bre...@...>
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 1:31:16 AM UTC-8, Simon Björk wrote:
Yep, that's a bug! I've posted a new beta with a fix. Let me know if you find other problems.
|
|
|
|
Re: Photoshop plug-in
Simon Björk <si...@...>
Hi Brendan, I tried with a few configs (my custom, ACES and Nuke default). Here's some screenshots (nuke-default): https://www.dropbox.com/sh/16753ezhpozn9r6/AADnZy3uRl7WXgMdW8ZkoVSBa?dl=0 Best regards, Simon
On Feb 12, 2017, at 2:45 AM, Simon Björk wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Photoshop plug-in
Brendan Bolles <bre...@...>
On Feb 12, 2017, at 2:45 AM, Simon Björk wrote:
This is great Brendan, thanks a lot! It will save lots of time. Hey Simon, it's supposed to work. I think this is what we call a bug (you'll notice the plug-in is actually in beta). Which configuration and settings are you using? Brendan
|
|
|
|
Re: Photoshop plug-in
Simon Björk <bjork...@...>
This is great Brendan, thanks a lot! It will save lots of time. One thing though. How is the Display option supposed to work? When I try to use it I get the following error: Coul not complete the OpenColorIO command becuse DisplayTransform error. Cannot find display colorspace, ".. Maybe I'm missing something? Is Display only for exporting luts? The Convert option works great though. Best regards, Simon
|
|
|
|
Re: Photoshop plug-in
Brendan Bolles <bre...@...>
On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 7:56:04 PM UTC-8, Sean Cooper wrote:
Or maybe create some! ;) I've spent a fair amount of time making Photoshop do this stuff for a few different studios, and it's really a pain in the neck. After jumping through a bunch of hoops I have barely managed to get it to do what I want. Anyway, at least this plug-in makes it possible to do OCIO operations. I just wish I knew how to make it easier. Brendan
|
|
|
|
Re: Photoshop plug-in
Sean Cooper <se...@...>
Looks very interesting! Certainly will make a lot of headaches go away, I'll try and take a gander asap. And yes, we will be taking pull requests again.
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Brendan Bolles <bre...@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Photoshop plug-in
Brendan Bolles <bre...@...>
Hey everyone, I've made an OCIO plug-in for Photoshop. There are download links in this blog post: http://fnordware.blogspot.com/2017/02/opencolorio-for-photoshop.html I've got the code in my GitHub fork in the "photoshop" branch. It's ready to be merged into the main repo if we ever take pull requests again. Brendan
|
|
|
|
Re: reversable, but not 1D color transforms in config.ocio
Andrew Wood <andre...@...>
Cool, that's what I thought. Just making sure you hadn't snuck anything else in there I hadn't noticed! And yeah re: LAB space vs Log space for doing the actual sharpen --that's an interesting idea I'll have to look into that more for sure. I know that wide gamut devices will be here soon and we really can't be going off into l*a*b* and back to do this stuff. I'm starting with pipeline parity with what we do today, but I know there will be a whole bunch work to go back and move all of this to an aces workflow someday, and there's no room for this nonsense there.
On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 1:42:27 PM UTC-8, Troy James Sobotka wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: reversable, but not 1D color transforms in config.ocio
Troy Sobotka <troy.s...@...>
> Troy, I was looking through your (amazing) example, and the only part that I didn't recognize was the matrix you used to go from RGB to XYZ based on srgb d65 primaries. I didn't do much other than read Doug's post and force myself to re-read the CIE L*a*b* formula. The matrices to XYZ are Illuminant C adapted from D65. Feel free to replace that component as required. With respect, TJS
|
|
|
|
Re: reversable, but not 1D color transforms in config.ocio
Andrew Wood <andre...@...>
You all are my heros. I had gotten so caught up in the XYZ to LAB calculation that I didn't notice it could be reduced to a 1d LUT and simple matrix. Troy, I was looking through your (amazing) example, and the only part that I didn't recognize was the matrix you used to go from RGB to XYZ based on srgb d65 primaries. I usually steal my matrices from Bruce Almighty: http://www.brucelindbloom.com/Eqn_RGB_XYZ_Matrix.html but yours looks a little different from this one. What is it based on?
On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 10:13:36 PM UTC-8, Troy James Sobotka wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: reversable, but not 1D color transforms in config.ocio
ra...@...
Doesn't really answer your question (sorry) but.... On Transformers the director wanted sharper cg robots! so we had a sharpen shootout. The joint winners were either LAB or Log, unshapen masks.i.e. the difference between artifacts when filtering it in L*AB or log was very minimal. It might be easier for your PS artists to use a lut rather than a RGB>LAB transform?
On Sunday, 5 February 2017 06:13:36 UTC, Troy James Sobotka wrote:
Ahead of our New York launch, Finish and Realise Studios are now Freefolk. Please update the email address you have for me.
|
|
|
|
Re: reversable, but not 1D color transforms in config.ocio
Troy Sobotka <troy.s...@...>
Whilst stranded in an airport... No assurances expressed or implied. Seems the values are darn close to Lindbloom's, which may account for a different value for Illuminant C adaptation via Bradford. With respect, TJS
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 11:58 AM doug <colo...@...> wrote: The conversion from XYZ to CIELab can be done with matrices and 1d-LUTs, so you should be able to do the forward and reverse quite exactly with the existing machinery and without resorting to 3d-LUTs.
|
|
|
|
Re: reversable, but not 1D color transforms in config.ocio
doug <colo...@...>
The conversion from XYZ to CIELab can be done with matrices and 1d-LUTs, so you should be able to do the forward and reverse quite exactly with the existing machinery and without resorting to 3d-LUTs.
(Of course CIELab is only appropriate for display-referred colors, but that is a separate issue.) Doug Walker
|
|
|
|
Re: reversable, but not 1D color transforms in config.ocio
Troy Sobotka <troy.s...@...>
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:52 AM Andrew Wood <andre...@...> wrote:
The shaper here would be a purely technological solution, simply helping out interpolation given that your input happens to be imagery. In your CTL, you would assume that you are being fed Log2 values and undo it, then run the L*a*b* according to the proper canonical formula. Even a simple Log2 shaper would probably be more than acceptable I'd speculate, although Mr. Cooper's suggestion might be more on point perhaps given that L* is already nonlinear and uniform, albeit more complex to implement in the CTL. To fix the negative nature of the a*b* formation, I'd encode them with a uniform offset of 0.5 in much the same way 8 bit cheats encode L*a*b*. This would spit out a Log2 encoded L*a*b* series of values. Undo the Log2 on the tail end and you end up with pure L*a*b* with a*b* offset. If you really wanted to get fancy, you could run it through a MatrixTransform with an identity, and leverage the offset to reset the a*b* to proper negatives. Perhaps even an ExponentTransform or LogTransform etc. could be used to cheat that as well. Sean? With respect, TJS
|
|
|
|
Re: reversable, but not 1D color transforms in config.ocio
Sean Cooper <se...@...>
L* is inherently logarithmic, so perhaps you could use L* it's self as the shaper here. But I think the inherently negative a*b* values will make this effort futile, unless there is an alternative all positive formulation of L*a*b*, but that would be a bit odd.
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Andrew Wood <andre...@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: reversable, but not 1D color transforms in config.ocio
Andrew Wood <andre...@...>
Looking at my values closer, looks like you are probably right. My input image is 0 to 1 linear, so I wasn't using a shaper. However, when I get to LAB space, there are negative values, which would explain why its all messed up going back to rgb right afterwards. But what shaper would even make sense here? My head hurts trying to think about the a*b* components going through a log curve or something. That doesn't really make sense, does it?
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 6:41:59 PM UTC-8, Troy James Sobotka wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: reversable, but not 1D color transforms in config.ocio
Troy Sobotka <troy.s...@...>
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017, 7:32 PM Andrew Wood <andre...@...> wrote:
That screams bad shaper to me. What are you using for a shaper here? With respect, TJS
|
|
|
|
Re: reversable, but not 1D color transforms in config.ocio
Andrew Wood <andre...@...>
Ha. Yeah, that pull request is exactly what I'd want. I'll add my +1 to the PR :) And thanks for the response Sean and Troy --that's pretty much what I'd tried already, CMSTestPattern -> ColorSpace (linear to lab) -> GenerateLUT I hadn't played with ociolutimage before, that's nifty. Unfortunately it just seems too lossy (esp in dark areas) for an unsharpening pass.
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 6:19:54 PM UTC-8, dbr/Ben wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: reversable, but not 1D color transforms in config.ocio
dbr/Ben <dbr....@...>
FWIW there is an old pull request for a simple expression transform which would have been perfect for this,
On 3 Feb 2017, at 12:36, Sean Cooper <se...@...> wrote:
|
|
|