boxfx wrote:Elsksa, with all due respect you are doing nothing but pushing your preferred workflow as "correct" and anything else as wrong (...) you are simply ignoring the real world limitations of production timelines.
Nothing more wrong but to think that subjectivity took part in my writing. It is purely technically factual and I've shared numerous unassailable arguments. Free time is not on my side, demos will eventually come at a later point. Anyone capable could test it on their own and realize that PNG, as “worshipped” on online social posts and misinforming tutorials, is nothing but a wide-spread erroneous misconception. To use your own words: you are simply ignoring the technical and factual information. Feel free to compare PNG technical specifications to TIFF and EXR or produce technical tests and measurements.
boxfx wrote:
You claim png is inappropriate and that tiff is preferable. It really, really, really isn't. Both give me the 8/16 bits of standard dynamic range colour data we need with no measurable difference in image quality. They both provide alpha channels. And png does it at a fraction of the file size at the expense of file saving time. If we were to switch from png to tiff, all we would end up with is the same image quality as we started with and larger files filling up our drives.
Quite the fallacy. I don't claim anything, as repeatdly said, it's all facts. In addition to that, PNG has the infamous"associated alpha" that is literally non-viable for compositing. At this point, it is becoming **alarming** that this trashy worthless file format is still naively being used for no valid reasons in such context.
TIFF has the proper transparency encoding, tags and more, such as optional compressions and tiled, making it the closest EXR alternative in term of viability, usability and flexibility, which (Mip mapping) will eventually come to Octane and is presently available in some other renderers.
EXR additionally also has the options to produce the most lightweight files of the bunch among other benefits that I've listed. Again and again and again, plain facts that anyone can demonstrate with know-how. Anyone opposing to all of this is simply in a complete delusion or misapprehension.
boxfx wrote:
png wasnt designed for professional production use. Right, and DJI hobby drones weren't designed to drop weapons in war zones, but you make the most of what you have at your disposal and use the tools which do the task most efficiently. png files are quicker to work with than tiffs and look the same. QED, they are the better choice for many people when they don't have the time or inclination to work in un-graded floating point formats and workflows.
TIFF and EXR are at everyone disposal. It’s 2023. Barely anything can be done with a PNG file. The sole use-case that I can think of is logos/icons on a website when other file formats are not supported. Even a preview or web-ready image would be a JPG, certainly not PNG. Never. Ever. Performance and file weight also take a hit on the web. It's such a futile file format, people don't realize and keep being in pure denial.
PNG is (and better be) forbidden in small to large companies or by some self-aware individuals that do not neglect it.
Storage is not that expensive these days compared to years ago. If people do not have the appropriate storage solution for their data-consuming work, the problem is obviously not the file format, still frame or sequence rendering.
People have been storing important files on desktop/documents locations on Windows OS folders with no back-up and archivale solutions, omitting proper nomenclature and then getting surprised by some system/ software errors. Still happening. No excuses, even for the sole individual freelancer. People will learn from their mistake, soon or later.
boxfx wrote:
It seems your general point of view is that nobody could possibly get the image correct during rendering, during the photo shoot, or during recording, and that everything needs to be re-graded in post to get professional looking results. I dare say that if you can't get it looking how you want during the shoot/rendering then you perhaps are using post production as a crutch to try and fix bad renders.
Conjecture.
You've certainly misunderstood my messages and led to wrong assumptions that would have been best kept for yourself. I've even been emphasizing it in other places, on the importance of "getting in right" in the renderer rather than relying on post. I apply this to myself.
However, it isn’t applicable to all cases. For instance, a digital camera is not only containing a manufacturer-subjective image-formation but the sole one. No other way. FYI, not a single digital still cameras can output the viewable imagery that can be properly developed in post from the raw sensor data. Period.
Renderers will inevitably produce a broken imagery without OCIO which without it, has no viable paths. No LUT or some sort of “color tools” built into the frame buffer GUI do. Needless to mention that “in-render correctness” is still relevant, prior to the image formation, which many omit.
To conclude, it seems that I have to get back to writing, update the initially posted page and publish the others. Just to be clear here, the problem is not the (proper) file formats or hardware, but disoriented people lacking awareness.
None of the replies have been taken personally in the offending sense, in case someone thinks otherwise.
