RAW workflow - a discussion

[Gunleik Groven]

Just thought this could be a productive thing to discuss...

There seems to be a bit of confusion to what a RAW workflow implies, and there are defintely different ways of doing things that can get you where you want.

This is not inteneded to be an Adobe vs FCP/whatever discussion, but more about what can give which results and about the signalchain.
I'll post examples as the discussion hopefully evolves...

But what I'd like to ask first is for different definitions of "RAW" workflow.
To me it mainly means that you don't do a transcode. It says very little about image integrity, as that can be messed up in both a RAW and a non-RAW workflow.

There seems, though - to be a bit of misunderstanding about how the metadataparameters affect the signalchain, from the "well it's raw so I have everything available" statements... Which is only partilally true, as that is totally dependent on how you set your metadata.

And I thought it could be fun - and possibly a bit enlightening - to discuss these issues.
Basically:
How does your metadata affect your image in a RAW workflow

and:
How does that differ from a transcoded workflow

And:
If one chooses to transcode, how and why would we do that for different scenarios.

Hope this is of some interest and that people can join in with examples.

I'd love examples posted to be in r3d single frames, and transcoded media of choice, not only jpg's, as that isn't very informative to the subject. If someone wants to post files, but don't have serverspace - I'll gladly host the files.

Just to be clear, what I want to discuss is different approaches to technical integrity of the image.
The aestethical values and choices, are just that. And cannot be measured in any way I know of.
I tend often to do rather harsh aesthetically choices... :)

Now.

Let the discussion begin!

I don't mind discussing different toolsets, I just don't want the standard Adobe vs the world discussion.



Cheers

Gunleik

[Nick Shaw]

It could be argued that all RED workflows are RAW workflows, since RAW refers to the original recording. In my experience grading is rarely, if ever, done using the RED SDK parameters.


Any "baking in" of settings in a way which cannot be undone with the grading toolset could be considered harmful to grading flexibility. And it does not matter if this baking in is done by transcoding to RGB files, or during the RAW decode into the RGB frame buffer of a grading system.


If the conversion to RGB is done without clipping or crushing any image data, and at a sufficient bit depth, I consider that it does not matter if this is done in the grading system, or in a separate transcode prior to grading. This is of course providing the conversion to RGB is done with consideration as to what SDK parameters are appropriate for each particular shot.


To me the best solution is conversion to 16-bit log DPX or unclamped float EXR by somebody who knows what they are doing, and then grading with those while still keeping the RAW files available so that a re-transcode can be done if required for individual shots.


I think I just basically said the same thing three times!


Everything I just said with reference to grading applies really to the entire finishing process, so applies equally to VFX.

[Jaakko Rinne]

To me the best solution is conversion to 16-bit log DPX or unclamped float EXR by somebody who knows what they are doing, and then grading with those while still keeping the RAW files available so that a re-transcode can be done if required for individual shots.

I too think this is a good way to do it. Not to say keeping it RAW 'till the end is a bad way, but especially if you're hampered by the inability to do realtime playback when staying RAW, there's no major problem in doing things like Nick suggests. The key here being that the conversion is done by somebody who knows what they are doing.

[Gunleik Groven]

I happen to agree with all three statements.
Which probably means I think Nick is a very wise man... :)

But I have seen others disagree with this.
I think it could be practically informative with some examle-images put through different approaches...



Whiteballancing of the image is also part of the soup...

[Matthew Scott]

I have a question which I've been testing but am failing to really understand. Take this situation.....I shoot at 800 ISO, protecting some highlights then drop back to 320 ISO in RCX and use curves (and Red Log Film) to balance the contrast of the image...is this a bad practice? Useless? Perfect? And once that is done, then I would head into DaVinci for grading and refining of the look. I want to know if this is good practice or if there alternatives that are better and why.

[Louis Eguchi]

Nick shaw had kindly cleared up some questions i had about the red raw workflow in post. and as you both agree that setting the white balance is an important first step and then after that transcode for use in a more 'comprehensive?' grading program such as davinci, then what is the real use of all the other RAW parameters? it is interesting that you say that the technical integraty of the image be discussed and not asthetical. personally what draw me to red was the Raw parameters i found them more intuitive to understand to do a grade as the parameters are like that which you would set before shooting.shortly i will post some transcoded images and my process for discussion

[Ido Karilla]

I vote for RAW all the way!
Having the RAW settings available through all the grading sessions is a must I think.
In the real world you get shots that without a WB tweak you will not be able to achieve.
Some footage that was shot recently with RG2 and RC2 get an over all bust when going RG3 and RC3, and you want to discuss this decisions with the DP on the grading session and not as apre decided workflow.

[Nick Shaw]

In the real world you get shots that without a WB tweak you will not be able to achieve.
Some footage that was shot recently with RG2 and RC2 get an over all bust when going RG3 and RC3, and you want to discuss this decisions with the DP on the grading session and not as apre decided workflow.

That is why I advocate having the RAW files available to go back into for particular problem shots.

Things like the the introduction of REDcolor3 are also IMHO an argument in favour of transcoding, as it takes a while for new colour science to become available in grading systems, whereas using REDCINE-X to transcode allows you to use the latest colour science (if appropriate).

[scott william]

The way I see it its best to start with red gamma 3, red colour3 . It's my assumption that the guys at red have done much for testing and image scrutinizing than you are I. They would have maximise the amount of DR possible from the sensor whilst maintaining a pleasing contrast ratio.

I like editing raw because I like to change the exposure of an image using the iso setting without degrading the image unless I go beyond iso800. I also like being able to change the WB.

I do find myself spending a lot of time playing with looks in RCX when I probably could spend that time on the edit.I use adobe so I stay in raw until the final export but I do wonder if my footage would look better if I rendered out of RCX using the extra tools on hand.

All in all I like shooting red raw but trust redgamma 3 is doing a very good job.

[Gunleik Groven]

@ Mathew..

That can be a good approach. You do not destroy your image that way, as ISO is created through floating point curves operations.

You might (or may not) find it as easy to go to redlogfilm and grade from there, as that gamma (cineon) is created to protect both the highs and lows with headroom for grading both ways.

If you go for direct to delivery, your approach is as god as the results you see. Which can be excellent!



@ Louis
As to whiteballancing.
Usually it is a good idea to whiteballance the image. Especially for quick turnarounds. Whiteballancing can in some situations compromise the signal in an unwanted way though, so if you have an image that doesn't perform as you want it to, that could be a place to look for solutions. But generally and for most applications, a WB is a good thing to do.


@ Ido
As to RAW all the way... Well it isn't whatever way you turn it.

I agree that having access to the metadata is a good thing, if you know what you do, which you obviously do Ido.
But in larger operations with specialists doing editing/VFX/grading, consistency of the signal is an important thing - and everyone do not know what happens with the signal when seemingly "undangerous" metadata is altered, in that case what Nick describes is the foolproof way.
Also, editing RAW isn't really practical in a few scenarios I know off, both from a dataintegrity, competence and quick turnaround perspective.

In smaller operations, I can see it has a better value.

Conforming to RAW for grading is good, if you get a proper signal out of the RGB buffer in the grading app, but that is easilly messed up, and can thus give unwanted results.

The signal that is graded is RGB/YUV whichecver way you see it and does perform exactly like what it is. No magic soup there.

But I think image-examples will be neccesary to come along the statements here...



Cheers!

G