[Moninca Cooper]

Hi all,

As a brand new user, I would like to ask if Maxwell is utilizing ISO standards for "film speed" based on negative film (traditional ISO 5800:2001 Color/ISO 2240:2003 B&W), if it is using standards for digital still camera's ( ISO 12232:2006), or if it has it's own system of determining speed.

Thank You very much.

Moni

[Mihai]

I'm not sure how this would influence your work in any way? Could you please explain?

[mverta]

It would influence the work if one's attempting to integrate with imagery shot with known ISO settings on a device which adheres to ISO 12232:2006 automatically. The answer is: No, (last time I checked, anyway), Maxwell's ISO rating is arbitrary.

[Moninca Cooper]

Thank you mverta.

@Mihai
It is a simple curiosity, and I am wondering if it will influence the manner in which I study and research the subject of "camera" as it applies to Maxwell...

It seems to me that an astute observer would want to know if the emulated "film" in the "camera" is digital or traditional. That would most certainly, to my untrained mind, influence the application of settings.

Since you answered my question with a question, may I ask you why it would matter to you my motive for asking, or is this a special area of Maxwell I have no business inquiring into?

I am not taking offence at all, truly, I just don't understand why such a question requires an explanation to "qualify".

It is just a simple question.

[Mihai]

It is simple curiosity on my part as well I wanted to add, if you mean in regards to camera calibration, or if it was some sort of notation concern in which case I would be confused.

It would influence the work if one's attempting to integrate with imagery shot with known ISO settings on a device which adheres to ISO 12232:2006 automatically.

What would that mean for you exactly? That Maxwell will produce an image with the exact same speed and latitude as that specification? Or are you and Moninca simply referring to exposure?

[mverta]

I know for me, with a lot of practical photography in my background, a "calibrated" Maxwell would be even more intuitive, because I also like thinking of my Maxwell light sources in terms of the real-world units and values I'm used to, just as I model and work in real-world scale in my scenes. We get used to certain exposures and lens types/film backs, light intensities, scales. There's a world of grammars and vocabularies and syntaxes out there describing them, so I think we have a natural inclination - with as real and literal as Maxwell tends to be - to see it behave realistically not just in terms of scale or angle or refraction, but for exposure as well.

[Moninca Cooper]

I'll echo what mverta wrote, better than I could have. I do know a little about photography, and after glossing over some of the obvious features yesterday, and watching a couple of vids over on the digital tutors website, I was surprised and happy to find the similarities between Maxwell and real world camera systems. I had no idea, and I think the approach is great. Somehow I made the same connection regarding more settings that may or may not exist in the program that I have yet to explore. I'm patient enough that even though I downloaded and registered yesterday, it will be a few more days of learning for me before I even fire it up and start a basic project. Hence my question and my ignorance on that Maxwell fine point.

I do think it would absolutely rock if Maxwell did in fact emulate everything that professional grade camera/lighting systems strive to accomplish, and likewise used the lexicon of syntax and language.

Thanks for helping clear up my curiosities.

M

[mverta]

My advice: Jump in. Fear not.

[Mihai]

if Maxwell is utilizing ISO standards for "film speed" based on negative film (traditional ISO 5800:2001 Color/ISO 2240:2003 B&W), if it is using standards for digital still camera's ( ISO 12232:2006)

I'd just like to ask if there would be any difference in exposure between these standards you mentioned, and if so, how big would this difference be? Not even taking into account of course the exposure differences between films of the same speed but different brands, while supposedly adhering to the same standard. Just saying that for the purposes of integrating a Maxwell render with a piece of footage, such a "fine grained" question/concern should probably come well after the questions of:

- dynamic range of some capture device (which would not be a standard)
- color response of some capture device (which would not be a standard)
- contrast curve of some capture device (which would not be a standard)
- grain comparison with some capture device (which would not be a standard)
- ....possibly color subsampling...?

So while I would like Maxwell to respond predictably to *some* ISO of course, I'm not sure of what importance the specific standard of that ISO would be, visually. You would have a lot more visual difference between capture devices or films used, rather than any particular ISO standard those devices/films adhere to officially. Hence my original reply as a question to you...

Now just render something!

[mverta]

When it comes to digital devices, the specifications you mention are known. We know the latitude of the Arri Alexa, or Red Scarlet or Epic, or even DSLR's like the 5/7D. We also have and refer to detailed information about other aspects of the devices capture nature, usually directly correlated to RAW settings appended to footage. Various physical film stocks' responses are also known, and there are at least some conversion standards between ASA and ISO. There is a compelling case to be made for adherence to ISO standards in principle, for sure; in practice, to the degree that most devices adhere to that standard.

It is fun to consider a future in which Maxwell emulates all the various components of common devices along the chain. For now, we just post it. 6 of 1... ? Maybe?

[zdeno]

Uzbjeckiazutjenikitzistan 0:1 Los Angeles

[Moninca Cooper]

I love L.A.

[eric nixon]

But you have to love starwars too..

[zdeno]

but to be maxwell style "physical correct" it is better to love Star-trek, not "biased- faked" Star Wars (explosions in outerspace! rotfl)

[mverta]