+1 for live LUT support.

Yeah, I understood that - I am personally more interested in seeing live LUTs support. In that sense, sorry for hijacking the thread... I saw some suggesting LUTs support earlier in the thread and just wanted to add my +1 to that idea.

I would see LUTs support and X-Rite as complementary, rather than either/or, and would certainly love to see your suggestion regarding some sort of automatic X-Rite calibration as well. I would be interested in LUTs support for different reasons - LOG, different looks, etc., more than for color matching two cameras, where your suggestion of X-Rite would be the best solution, I think. So, +1 to that too. :)

+1

+1

This is an interesting thread.

i was one of the first to buy the color checker video when it was released in Holland, and to use it in fcpx together with the ground control app in fcpx for a one click match.

time spend colorgrading vimeo

its typical use is for pre adjustment on raw ungraded inputs, like log input, very flat. in combination with luts for a base grade and finally a looks grading.

the color checker is only of use when the checker is used under representative lighting, like in a studio and the color lighting will not change much in a scene. In live situations and long duration shooting a color checker will not be of much use ( do you want to run on the stage to put it up for the cameras to see?)

What I use the color checker for now is to calibrate cameras and set color profiles to match so I dont have to spend time on grading in post much. I would not know how to use the checker in live productions? other than tuning the cameras before.

an option to consider would be a solution in vmix that would match live camera inputs and tune the spectra to be similar. This could be done to assign a master camera input and have the rest of the inputs follow this profile to match. it could be triggered with a button, so if lighting is changed, the inputs could be adjusted based on the reference camera input. ( you could even set up avseperate camera with representative lighting and pointed at a reference card like the checker, but would this help?)

I also find that the bigest problem in live recordings is that you can not really test the real lighting conditions before. basically light is made for the stage and audience and not for the video recording. similar for the audio input i get: i hardly get broadcast quality feed and usually prepare to just get the audio off one of the speakers, since the audio is mixed on the ear...

so, interesting topic. we should focus first on the aim, matching camera input feed and later on the means to get there. For now my best results are using exact similar cameras with exact similar settings, color temp, framerate, etc. so matched on the source level. so if i want to make a change in vmix i want to do it on all camera inputs to match...

makes sense? ( remember: vmix is a software mixer with a variety of users and user levels, from studio to live, indoors and outdoors, for churches and sports...) we should focus on a simple easy to use solution that would help most of the users, a one click easy match that could benefit the first time users ascwell as experienced users. the pros might end up considering upgrading to hardware based expensive stuff.

stefan

+1 if the pro industry is going to take vMIx seriously, some of the basic industry tools such as wave forms and scopes should be added.

@ Nick Davidson

You should add your support for additional features in the appropriate threads:
https://forums.vmix.com/....aspx?g=posts&t=6208
https://forums.vmix.com/....aspx?g=posts&t=1242
And take note of what Martin states:




Ice

I totally agree with Nick regarding the need for vMix to provide traditional AV tools to get interest from broadcast industry.
And as Zenvideo said, yes, NDI is certainly the way to go to avoid overloading vMix hosts.

However waveform and vector scopes can already be used with vMix. Many rack mount or field monitors will provide signal analysis. Many cameras also have this builtin too.

This being said, such features don't provide color matching. They are useful for camera settings, especially iris aperture, but when used with cameras that do not have remote control functionnality, their interest is purely for monitoring.

An alternative solution could be something like NDI Connect Pro which treats the signal while capturing (not on the camera). Never tried this though, not sure it is realtime and convenient.

I'm working on a demonstration video showing the benefit of X-Rite for color matching in a multicam situation. I will publish it in a few days.

I will also reply to Martin's questions during last vMix fun time show aswell as showing results using a Lastolite calibration grey card with vMix autowhite balance.

@vMixTeam: while you're in Vegas, maybe you can pay X-Rite a visit. They're sharing the Atomos booth #C8925 in the Central Hall.

Have fun! Thanks

Guillaume

Yes X-rite color correction is the way to go for multi cams!

Often i use different brands of cams, no way to match with actual vMix color adjustments!

Best scenario would be to integrate to vMix some function to calibrate as in resolve, see demo:
DaVinci Resolve 12 - 48 Color Match Palette
Easy FAST ant extremely accurate!

Yes Martin 3D LUT is CPU intensive, but could be GPU acceptable!
I base this assumption in a quick test in Premiere Pro applying a 3Dlut do not affect CPU and about 5% of a GTX 660 for one 1080p video.
(i can do a more precise benchmark if you ask)

I dont know the coding of vMix but seems to me that you already apply 1D LUT as color adjustment through directx GPU accelerated?
Probably wont impact so much more to go full 3D LUT!

I know it's no easy task to integrate to vMix and frankly useless to beginner user, but to me vMix is a professional tool, such a function should put vMix in an even more high end rank and bring more professionals to use it!

Reffs:
luts-part-1-what-is-a-lut
Interesting open source project:
3d-luts-direct3d-opengl-applications


Daniel