SMH Thanks for calling. Try again. Once you've color corrected actual film you'll know why this post and POV is so errant. I'm sure you meant well, but you misunderstand why we shoot flat. You'll learn eventually. Or not.

I'm sure you meant well, but you misunderstand why we shoot flat.

For now LOG exist mainly due to how NLEs and color grading tools work.

As present implementations contain less information than non-LOG footage.

You'll learn eventually. Or not.

Or we'll all go to good compressed raw, where required and proper working NLE with non-flat profiles for all else.

Let me clarify: there will never be a digital sensor that can do what film does.... never. Why? Because film is a physical medium. It's 3 dimensional and transparent. The 3D nature and transparency (when developed) along with random grain inherent, all work to add a magical quality to film. Softening while retaining details, and a magical "glow" to the celluloid itself as the light passes though it on it's way to the screen.

I am a huge proponent of digital. I love it, but I love it more if the final DI is transferred to film, and then re-scanned. Which is expensive, but IMO the only way to do digital right.

As for the flatness and saturation argument, you were on the right track, but we shoot flat so we can digitally remap with vibrance and contrast along preset filmic curves to attain the "film look", but to truly attain it... see the above paragraphs.

Because film is a physical medium. It's 3 dimensional and transparent. The 3D nature and transparency (when developed) along with random grain inherent, all work to add a magical quality to film.

Actually requirement to have layered structure and never ideal properties of "transparent" parts are big issues of film. Random grain inherent (as well as physical limitations of this) always had been viewed as issues.

I love it, but I love it more if the final DI is transferred to film, and then re-scanned. Which is expensive, but IMO the only way to do digital right.

I have no words. It is same as say that you love underpants better if they had been used before you for a week by someone and presented to you unwashed.

Another obvious sample is idiots praying on tube amplifiers or recent movement of degradation in synths with demand of "true analog" shits.

Softening while retaining details, and a magical "glow" to the celluloid itself as the light passes though it on it's way to the screen.

I hope you understand it is all not going away only due to greed of capitalist owners?

As for the flatness and saturation argument, you were on the right track, but we shoot flat so we can digitally remap with vibrance and contrast along preset filmic curves to attain the "film look", but to truly attain it... see the above paragraphs.

Term "film look" is used still as it is huge inertia in the industry. It'll all go away.

Same will happen with LOG formats, especially all current implementations. As none of their makers really understand how their own compression part works, how information being stored, etc

@squig

More than seriously.

So you're telling me the album I spent 4 years making would've sounded just as good without the valve pre-amps, limiters, and compressors. Wow, what a waste of money that was.

If you understand how this things work and select plugins that emulate this stuff - will sound even better (I mean - better to you).

I can somehow understand using valve preamps if you like trashing sound a little. But using EQs/limiters and compressors is not needed even from time saving standpoint, just inertia.

I do use some very realistic sounding plugins, but they don't sound better than the real thing.

It is strange terms ala "realistic" and "better".

Proper correct words are - this exact plugin with this exact settings produce different sound compared to this gear with this specific settings.

We used valves to take the edge off the harshness of digital at the A/D phase, this was 1999, 24bit A/D had only just become affordable to indie producers.

What exactly is "harshness of digital"? How it is defined?

I put a studio together for 20k.

How it is related?

It's been a long time since I worked on the cutting edge of digital audio recording but from memory the harshness was due to aliasing.16bit dithering helped. 24bit was much less harsh.

All it sound very strange.

But the digital master pales in comparison to the vinyl, which is kinda like doing a DI film transfer.

Mine god. And yes, it is exactly same scientifically insane as doing that @shian proposed.

The marriage of affordable analog and digital gear (and a bit of talent) produced something that brought happiness to a lot of people enduring the drudgery that is capitalism. And I paid a few bills.

Now all this analog things is mainly pushed via ads money and huge inertia. Plus horrible education level helps.

I had few talks with analog synths big sellers and manufacturers - all clearly know how much bullshit it is, but this is where profits are.

@bannedindv

Actual purpose of LOG is to emulate film NEGATIVE with the bit depth and gamut we have available. Here’s an article

Present purpose of LOG is to overcome some NLE/grading software limits. And as some parts of grading software had been done to process scanned film - it had been just convenience and inertia decision.

Article on link is quite bad, as it try to touch everything at very low level.

Many decisions start with Business (capitalism, just for you Vitaliy) - make money and lots of it. How ?

I really do not care. Our talk here is pure science.

And artists are not made to "entertain the mind of the audience", as some capitalism born people tend to think reading nice books. Most artists are just prostitutes used as such by ruling class and not having any real positions that reflect their own interests (all they can is to produce trashy horrors that partly depict their own internal horrors).

Most of us fell in love with the “week old used underwear” it’s true. Now as humans and artists we want to hold onto that semiotic signifier of what a movie is. The pure capitalist or pure pragmatic technologist don’t care and want to move away from it - but we are codependent on one another.

And this is just idealism that does not match reality around. You can see real examples on how things change fast and this dependence really does not exist.

The pure capitalist or pure pragmatic technologist don’t care and want to move away from it - but we are codependent on one another.

It is real things around, real technologies that determinate how things are being done. This is called materialism. All this vinyl, analog synths and film things are no more than reflection on present capitalist society decay, reflection of its inability to more forwards, it tries to catch to something old and bad and call it as something good and renewed.

@bannedindv Thx

@shian Yikes!

True happiness is a life spent busting your arse on a collective farm.

I agree that analog modelling makes having the real thing obsolete, and materialism will get us all killed, but you can take my vinyl out of my cold dead hands.