Filmic as default is hurting the experience for people

[MC-Blender]

I also remember Back very long ago u asked me to understand what I mean by fake contrast, so I appreciated that to u.

But now when I talked about it after someone else pointed out the same issue of lack of details and washed out look that cause the same thing I meant long ago as fake contrast, I get other technical details that try to bombard me with technical details or trying to lecture me to point out impossibilities by diverting from the main point is kind of ‘‘offensively explanative’’ when I never blamed anything about filmic core creation, because I was just talking with the other person who had the same idea I didnt blame core viewtransform of filmic or how filmic is created, I just said something missing and its fixed by curves or compositioning. So its still kinda ‘‘offensively explanative’’ to defend something by giving to much information about other things when noone blamed anything about it or when other two people were talking about something else.
.
When I say fake contrast, if architect ask me what do u mean by fake contrast to understand what I mean instead of telling me other things like ''impossible, no way, it cant be ‘’, then I am okay with it when both side compromise , so we can discuss what is missing and what can we do to fix it even though client may not know the technical words or may use differnet ways to explain the issue, but my main point about missing thing is not well understood but other things are mentioned regardless of topic, then it cannot be meaningful conversation because I got more other answers that are less related to what I was wondering or trying to accomplish…

In your example, If I was an architect, when someone asked me ‘’ I need rainbowy coorful black’’ , I would say ‘‘can u more detaily explain what u mean by rainbowy colorful black’’ then after understanding the point without diverting topic I would say ‘‘I am sorry, unfortunately its not yet possible to have that color Rainbowy colorful black due to technical limitations, but maybe we can achieve same effect by doing this or something similar by this, then explaining very detailly about it , rather than putting time to explain more about impossibilities or diverting topic by putting emphasis on other things that are faulty or wrong or impossible’’

Anyway, no need to prolong this, I dont plan to reply again about Filmic Its loss of time when main points are lost in conversations.

[Eary]

@MC-Blender

I get other technical details

Can you give me an example of technical detail? I believe all of my and Troy’s explainations are artistic enough, things like how the “washed out problem” is an illustion, the truth is that the more “popping” feeling one is actually the one loosing details:

Does this already count as technical details for you?

But again, it’s important to know relevant stuff to actually have a meaningful conversation. When some folks said Filmic is loosing details, ok are you talking about the issue like on the left side of my above image? Or are you calling the right side “losing detail”?

@MC-Blender

so its also about blender’s lack of lut system as well, not about filmic vs SRGB thing

Again, vanila Filmic was a Log, the current Filmic in Blender = original Filmic Log + Base Contrast. So the contrast looks are part of Filmic, it’s weird to say that we are criticizing the looks without Filmic. It’s especially the case since we are talking about “washed out” and things, original Filmic was a Log, so what are we talking about?

[MC-Blender]

No its not technical detail, Color sweeps are important to be aware about and they are good way to explain things if someone is not colorist.

I know AGX and TCAMv2 (probably the right sweep in the image u showed is AGX ) gives more depth and variation that make u think there are more details because of turning colors into better desaturated tones smoothly as lightness increase and make objects look more distincitve and better foreground-background relationships. as I saw in many comparisons So it look more similar to Tcamv2
So its a good improvement after filmic and I like it and I agree with it. But I wasnt talking about hue or color shifts in viewtransform part.

But what I just meant in general was just the looks that come alongside filmic with blender,
Original filmic is log so its normal to be washed out, I am not saying anything about that, I just said I wish there are more looks that users can use to have final image without compositioning everytime or without changing curves all the time, thats all, so I just said that lack of enough look that are added on top of filmic log (filmic log+ base contrast = filmic ) make people think filmic hurt user experience if user just wanna have good results on viewport by choosing filmic and a look without learning the way to edit config file and adding new looks to filmic because blender doesnt have option to add secondary cube LUTs on top of filmics looks on color management.

So my whole point was that in general , and more specifically my point was more about WHITES and differentiation between WHITE ,highlights and midtone that make details feel less washed out)

Thats why I showed 2 images one filmic high contrast and another with filmic high contrast + curves that make details feel like pop up more due to WHITES as expected on reflections on car or shadows that create contrast because whites are enhanced and it remove washed out lack of detail feeling from white , so I just said if such looks can also be added to looks of filmic for everyone so there are more opitons to get final result out of box in blender without compositioning, if its done, there wont be treads that keep saying filmic as default is bad because they cant see things that are supposed to be white grey and feel washed out , they just need more look option that make whites look more like white for NPR or other things so they wont keep using srgb just because of WHITES (as mentioned in this tread).

If its devtalk, then adding more options for every user with different need or expectation is good way, so I just pointed out solutions that will end the fights or put and end to people who keep making new tread to tell unsatisfactions about filmic

[In that purpose, simply I asked to know how to achieve that curves adjustment of blender (even if its broken and i m aware its not doing what curves in other software does maybe, , its not important for me, I just wanted to know how that result is accomplished , for me result was important, not the technicality of broken things because sometimes broken things give u the result u want , (Even thought it wasnt doing what curves should do , I knew what I were doing and which effect I wanted to reach, because I also accomplish same output in other video/photo editing softwares without curves but by playing with ‘‘WHITES’’ in LUMTERI’s basic corrections for example.)]
Here is filmic high contrast without any additional thing

Here is filmic high contrast where WHITES are enhanced (shadow of car is more sharp and less washed out )

Here is standard none that looks similar to filmic with whites enhanced (to compare with enhanced whites in filmic high contrast)

In summary, its about lack of LOOKS that use WHITES in a more prominent way while having the advantages of filmic log view transform in filmic color sweep as a base. So thats what we are talking about, as u mentioned by urself that filmic log + base contrast = output that we get by using filmic So its not about filmic view transform versus SRGB view transform base, troy already said he used similar contrast looks with srgb and filmic, but what I mean is filmic need different looks to make it more usable due to WHITES. So people here who keep needing whites for cartoon or NPR or even someone who dont wanna do secondary color grading on compositor or somewhereelse can just choose that look and stop being against filmic due to lack of LUTS that enhance WHITES.

But i think its hard to explain so, I guess I ll just give up about this.

[3di]

Yep, filmic should be off by default as it also can massively increase render times by hiding the fact there’s over bright lighting. Also prevents proper composition workflow…and looks crap

[OcularEvolution]

@3di

filmic should be off by default as it also can massively increase render times by hiding the fact there’s over bright lighting

Can you provide evidence for this? “massively” is a big claim.

[Illasera]

@Eary , I wasn’t trying to reply to you in this very post you are reading, but to @MC-Blender, i just picked his quote from your post, I apologize.

@MC-Blender

Noone need to understand all the details as much as you to discuss with you

@MC-Blender, Yes sir, You need to do that, Trust me, I understand how you feel, I don’t want to go through chris brejon long articles and troy’s stackoverflow pages that you can’t tell where they end.

Let alone sit through endless lectures by technicolor and filmlight on youtube on how to control your colors , nor dive into photography and composition that comes with the territory, at some point, you will be using the camera that blender provides or use references (Therefor, composition and photography), And learning all that , just to make bloody sofas (And the waifus that sits on it, *Had to insert some cheap humor).

But, it comes with the job (Thankfully not my job).

If you are a hobbyist / amateur, you don’t care much about the details, the medium / software rules you over
If you are a professional, You rule the medium / software over.

*Nobody likes the learning stage, Including the people who tell you that they do; but learning is the price of admission

@3di

Yep, filmic should be off by default as it also can massively increase render times by hiding the fact there’s over bright lighting. Also prevents proper composition workflow…and looks crap

Translation : “X should be off because i feel like it, Care about my feelings please!”

Some argument there, mate, Very technical , Precise and empirical, Careful when you use the word “Crap”, It may rebound when you use such ingenious arguments.

[MC-Blender]

I dont think so, my point is just about ‘‘LOOKS’’ and ‘‘WHITES’’ side of filmic bundle, so I dont need to understand technical details of Filmic view transform, When someone ask you how to make a salad from vegetables, u never explain them how plants make vegetables in cellular activity without making connection to main question.

Thus, its not about being against learning or something, I love learning stage more than many people (its hard for u to know me just by a reply in a website) and learning comes from within, not by advises to learn from others for me, and also learning is proportional with the purpose u have, so if someone talks about another aspect while I am focusing on other aspect which is my purpose, then I dont have to learn everything, learning is a practical process, if something is practical for ur purpose or target, u will easily learn.

Still, I dont want to discuss about learning topic because devtalk is not a platform to advice learning or discriminating people as beginner or pro.
Plus, u quoted only little part of my sentence , so you need to consider all the reply to understand oveall point, if people keep quoting only one sentence, then its like how reporters do in newspapers by taking one sentence to make a news without considering other things someone say.
Lastly, No need to prolong this, topic is too much diverted from filmic to advice on learning things. Then devs should reply people who want new feature ‘‘you need to watch tutorials on video websites to learn coding and CC pyton and become a developer to add this feature or they would throw u technical details about cycles architecture when u talk about adding a checkbox to cycles with simple feature’’

[3di]

Hello OcularEvolution. Sure thing try this blend file (instructions included):

filmic problem.blend

Here are the render results from the above file.

Both set to 0.1 noise threshold and open image denoiser enabled. Identical render settings and materials.

Filmic render time 00:56:96. It looked fine in the viewport, but this was hiding the fact that the lighting was too bright leading to double the render time. Note also the additional denoising artefacts.

Standard enabled 00:27:46 faster because I was able to see the lighting issues, leading to me reducing the sun brightness and then brightening up in the compositor instead. @Illasera (although you talk to people like a spoiled brat) Note how I was also able to avoid it looking crap by getting much stronger whites (optional) when compositing myself because the filmic algorithm is no longer limiting the whites to an off gray which can result in a washed out, drab and soft image. It’s not a great idea to try and composite with filimic enabled of course, otherwise you’re constantly having your intentional grading altered by the filimic algorithm. I could of course easily replice the filmic result pretty much exactly using the scopes if I’d wished to.

Basically the standard method helps to avoid problems that could lead to longer rendering times, and allows you to achieve any look you want with some colour grading in the compositor.

@Illasera

Translation : “X should be off because i feel like it, Care about my feelings please!”

@Illasera I don’t really care if it changes, I already know what I’m doing. I was trying to be helpful to new users as I was in agreement with the original poster, that this leads to poor renders and long render times for new users.

[Eary]

@3di

I was able to see the lighting issues

That’s backwards. You see the “issue” and that issue was created by the “Standard” view transform, not the 3D rendering. Filmic improves the situation and does not produce the same issue, not “hiding lighting issue”, note you can use Filmic, AgX etc. with real-world camera footage, and you would need to have a very dim and controlled lighting to acheive what you are talking about here. The reducing render time thing is a hack, and lowering the light to avoid crappy view transform having issue is just what people have been forced to do before Filmic came out. Filmic should have unlocked your use of brighter lighting (what I meant when I said “unlock your creative freedom”), not “hiding the light being too strong”.

An example with real word footage:
“Standard”:

Filmic:

And here is our state-of-the-art cinematic camera ARRI Alexa 35

I think we can agree that Filmic is the one looking closer to the state-of-the-art ARRI Alexa 35.

[3di]

No the issue of me not seeing the overbrights was caused by filimic being enabled. Enabling standard allowed me to reduce lighting to a more render speed friendly level (because I could see the clipping), and still achived the same/better result in the compositor.

[Eary]

@3di

allowed me to reduce lighting to a more render speed friendly level

Again that’s a hack and it limits your creative freedom to use brighter and more contrasty lighting. Look at the images I posted. See what the latest state-of-the-art camera is doing.

[3di]

@Eary

I think we can agree that Filmic is the one looking closer to the state-of-the-art ARRI Alexa 35.

You don’t need filmic enabled to achieve that is my point. You can have the image look however you please with some quick compositing. With the added benefit of faster rendering times.

[Eary]

Look at the “standard” result’s skin tone, you can’t fix that in post. It’s the lost of data:

[3di]

You don’t lose data with 32 bit.

[Eary]

@3di

with 32 bit

Are we talking about formed image or the open domain tristimulus? We are comparing oranges with apples.

[3di]

We’re talking something, lol We’re talking about the raw data directly from the render engine…

[Eary]

First of all the 32 bit rendered data is not image, it’s just data waiting for the image formation: the view transform.

So if we are talking about open domain tristimulus before view transform (the so called “raw” data). It means your “compositing” operation will need to be very careful to not go beyond 1.0 otherwise the “issue” will reveal. Operations like exposure adjustment, stronger contrast adjustments are mostly forbidden. You are limiting your creative freedom.

If we are talking about formed image after view transform, as I said, you are dealing with the lost of data.

At any rate, using “standard” and you will never be able to achieve image like this screenshot from ARRI Alexa 35 sample short “The Siren”:

I haven’t managed to download the ARRI footage yet so I will use a similar alternative:
“Standard”:

Filmic:

My current version of AgX I have been working on:

An ideal image formation should give you enough visual cue that “This part of the face is brighter than the other part”, but you seems to mistake this visual cue as “hiding the lighting issue”.

Just remember how we paint on a canvas, when the left side of the apple is brighter than the right side, we use a lighter paint to convey that sensation, this is image formation. The view transform is the image formation tool, our painter, to paint the image on our canvas: our monitor. The 3D rendered 32 bit data is just what the painter is looking at when they paint, it’s not image until they paints it.

[3di]

Your images make no sense. The standard image’s light stick couldn’t possibly look like that directly into the compositor if filmic looks so bright from the same rendered frame. Anyway, back to work for me

[Eary]

@3di

Your images make no sense.

Try it yourself, here it is:

sobotka/Testing_Imagery/blob/main/mery_lightSaber_lin_srgb.exr

I just extracted the red channle, there is also a extracted green channle version available:

sobotka/Testing_Imagery/blob/main/green_primary_light_saber_rgb.exr

@3di

he standard image’s light stick couldn’t possibly look like that

Believe it or not, it is just a fact that “standard” view transform is a very bad painter.

[Dragosh]

Hey guys, i’d like to give a small input, as an end user who knows nothing of colour stuff.

I did a bit of VFX rendering for a project, Filmic is kind of giving me a headache, probably for different reasons than what i believe, i cant really use filmic in post Davinci specifically (or rather i’m limited with what i see and what i want to achieve), as Filmic isn’t anywhere in Davinci colour transform stuff.

And looking at Eary’s demonstrative view shots, i’d say that the Filmic is barely usable for colour grading and such with that overblown red shading on the character.

The AgX on the other hand looks like you’d have maximum control over possible grading with the least loss of colour data as possible.

Apologies if i have misunderstood the theme here