More new color science...

[M Most]

It'll be interesting to compare the new RedLogFilm with Arri's LogC, which is probably partly what it's aimed at countering (perception wise, not in absolute terms).

Which makes sense, as film aficionados who have been saying how much they like Alexa's film-like image response curves are most likely just more used to dealing with log curves and hence relate better to that type of RAW image than Red's previous linear pre-curved images.

Arri's images going back to the D21 have always been a bit more film pipeline friendly, due primarily to the use of color matrices that yield a more film-like color pallette as part of the debayer/RGB image creation. The use of a Cineon like gamma curve is only part of the answer, hence my earlier question about a revised color matrix to accompany it.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Is the D-21 log-C Matrixed?

 

[M Most]

Is the D-21 log-C Matrixed?

It is available as a real time output selection, and it is also available by recording ArriRAW on either a Codex or S.two device, followed by use of either Arri's or Gluetools' software to convert the RAW files to RGB using various matrices - including multiple versions of LogC for different saturation levels (LogCFilm50, LogCFilm100, etc.). That would be the method that would be more comparable to Red's post path, and it's the method that I used on a DI project almost 2 years ago.

 

[Eric Haase]

Are there any plans for a "RedcolorFilm" color matrix as well? The gamma curve has never been as big an issue as the color matrix in terms of a translation to a film centric pipeline.

Of course, there is also the larger quesiton of whether a film centric pipeline is something that is really needed now and into the future. Personally, I'd really like to see a faster move towards ACES rather than continual introduction of new gamma curves and color matrices, particularly given that Jim has indicated planned support for it already. The quicker there's an agreed upon universal approach the quicker the inevitable confusion begins to end. I really do appreciate the effort to provide better images along with the newer hardware, but the staggered introduction of all this stuff has led to a situation where production may be looking at something different than post, and the VFX company may be doing file transcodes that are significantly different than the grading facility is getting from the same R3D files. Having already experienced the results of this on a television series, I'm not anxious to see it continue. The introductions really need to be simultaneous on camera, Red software, and the SDK so that all of us can at least technically be on the same page.

Amen to that. It's all great that RED is continually imoroving the color science but it would be nice if the releases were coordinated. There is so much confusion out there even among reputable post facilities. Sometimes simplicity and ease of use trumps other advantages in new methods. Probably for a lot of users on this board who shoot, cut, and grade their own material the way things get released is all well and good. But it's a bit of a nightmare with multiple vendors and schedules involved.

Having said this, im looking forward to seeing the new color science, while simultaneously dreading the endless nit picky technical conversations with whomever is processing or working with the footage after i shoot it.

 

[Elsie N]

Amen to that. It's all great that RED is continually imoroving the color science but it would be nice if the releases were coordinated. There is so much confusion out there even among reputable post facilities. Sometimes simplicity and ease of use trumps other advantages in new methods. Probably for a lot of users on this board who shoot, cut, and grade their own material the way things get released is all well and good. But it's a bit of a nightmare with multiple vendors and schedules involved.

Having said this, im looking forward to seeing the new color science, while simultaneously dreading the endless nit picky technical conversations with whomever is processing or working with the footage after i shoot it.

Count me as one who is satisfied with how things are being done, but that doesn't keep me from understanding your point. Assuming everything with a budget takes out insurance, maybe it is up to the insurers to stipulate that a written agreement between production and post on how to proceed would keep everyone on the same page. Maybe a post house should publish how they can handle a workflow and update it regularly.

I just don't think it is RED's responsibility to insure every use of the camera is assured, especially since they don't own the production companies or the post houses.

 

[Eric Haase]

Count me as one who is satisfied with how things are being done, but that doesn't keep me from understanding your point. Assuming everything with a budget takes out insurance, maybe it is up to the insurers to stipulate that a written agreement between production and post on how to proceed would keep everyone on the same page. Maybe a post house should publish how they can handle a workflow and update it regularly.

I just don't think it is RED's responsibility to insure every use of the camera is assured, especially since they don't own the production companies or the post houses.

There is something to be said for simplicity and ease of understanding, especially when multiple parties are involved. Redspace, REDGamma, REDFilm, RedLog, REDFILMLog, REDGamma2, etc etc. It's not that I don't understand it all, it's that A LOT of other people with their hands on the footage won't. Sometimes, a one-button style approach (think Apple hardware, software, GUI) can be effective. Sometimes less is more. Why is FLUT called FLUT? It's a fine-tune adjustment of the ISO but the name of it gives us no indication of what it actually does. This is just an example of a way of thinking. Relating to the release schedule of updates, I think the simpler approach could be helpful and effective for a lot of people to get the most out of their footage and have a pleasant experience using the camera system and posting footage shot by it. It would certainly help the reputation of the camera and give even more incentive for both producers and cinematographers to work with it.

 

[Brook Willard]

What is S-log, hypergamma, standard gamma, special gamma, user gamma, log-C, PDlog 685, PDlog 985, ITU-R BT.709, P3, cineCube or DCI?

There's a reason people do this for a living. RED is no more complicated than anybody else, they just use terms that are easier to remember.

 

[Eric Haase]

What is S-log, hypergamma, standard gamma, special gamma, user gamma, log-C, PDlog 685, PDlog 985, ITU-R BT.709, P3, cineCube or DCI?

There's a reason people do this for a living. RED is no more complicated than anybody else, they just use terms that are easier to remember.

You're missing my point. It's not about the names. It's about the number of options and number and frequency of revisions in an uncoordinated manner. It would be great if all companies moved as fast as RED but they don't.

 

[Brook Willard]

I think you're missing mine. My point is that all companies have a bunch of options. Even the companies that only have a few options still have to deal with the back end of it all... which has a bunch of options. My point is that it's the nature of it. Different post avenues need different workflows and options.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

As long as the options that are added are better, I see no reson to complain.

Then one have to establish a workflow with ones partners for any relevant project that works from start to delivery.

That's what we're all getting paid for independently of camerabuild and colorscience of preference... -

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

Agree with Brook here. Mike brings valid points, but this is REDUSER... pretty much the beta testing ground for RED> (Indusry first) and they are innovating at the speed of light.
RED works now in post. New stuff will work in the future.

I for one do NOT wan RED slowing down their innovation so the industry can keep up. This is just the reality of working with a company that is forging new ground and boldly going where no one has before. I trust when the new product cycle releases, innovation (and releases thereof) will be more methodical, but for now I hope Im not alone encouraging them to keep the pedal to the medal.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

Mike, I don't work in your line but it still seems to me that the issues are not forced into the mix by RED, but by those who chose to change their software mid-stream. Rolling back camera firmware is easy. Other jobs may force you to update post suites, and others to update their carts. Rolling back all these different elements isn't as easy, and that may not be possible with 2-week post schedules... but, if you have a 2-week post schedule, that reality isn't forced on you by the camera manufacturer.

I am sorry if it makes your job harder Mike, and I hope you are valued accordingly for the complexity and difficulty of your job. But in the end I have to think of myself first, and I benefit from this "chaos" as you call it.

Especially with color science, sorry... but I want Red to release these the very SECOND they can! This is like getting new stock, for free. People have already saved significant chunks of their budgets thanks to color science updates, and/or seen production values go up.

Many of us will be able to find a way to make it happen in our multiple-month post schedules.

 

[M Most]

What is S-log, hypergamma, standard gamma, special gamma, user gamma, log-C, PDlog 685, PDlog 985, ITU-R BT.709, P3, cineCube or DCI?

There's a reason people do this for a living. RED is no more complicated than anybody else, they just use terms that are easier to remember.

Nearly all of the non-Red things you just listed are stable and known. Red seems to come out with new things every 2 months, none of which are openly documented in terms of what they actually do, forcing you to try all of them and settle on something - something which will then be either updated or replaced by something else in 2 months. And you of all people here know that television production seasons last a lot longer than 2 months, even when you're only making 13 episodes. And they often involve reshoots for episode 2 in the middle of production on episode 6. I agree that there's a lot to keep track of these days, and that is indeed one of the things that lets me make a living. But to poo-poo this issue is to overlook the reality of what allows us to do what we do efficiently and accurately over the course of a television season. If you were standing in my shoes over the last few months trying to do that on a show with a lot of visual effects - which were created from transcodes that were considerably different than what I was getting directly from the original files, and for exactly the reasons I've already posted about, you might be singing a different tune.

I still think that the ultimate answer to all of this is IIF/ACES, or at least something like it, that would allow for a universal, common path that is based on widely accepted standards for image processing, leaving the manufacturers to do what they do best: innovative hardware and the specific algorithms to generate the most accurate information from that hardware. The whole secret sauce color science approach may currently be necessary, but it isn't the best eventual solution for Red any more than it is for Arri or anyone else. We'd be much better off with the best and most accurate linear light output from each camera and a standard processing path from that point forward. Jim has already committed to this, I'd just like to see it happen a little sooner rather than a lot later.

 

[David Quinn Carder]

Unfortunately I've never worked with an RED One, so this is probably a naïve question, but…

When I shoot with a DSLR, I'm careful to take my shots with a normal lens and an exposure that "looks right" compared to viewing the scene with my naked eye. Some people would argue you can't be very accurate using the little screen on a DSLR to get your exposure right, but it's always obvious to me when I'm one click too high or one click too low. I then process the files with "pure" settings, making sure not to enhance the image in any way. I also get my white balance from a grey card. So really, there are no creative decisions I make in post when the project is simply documenting my travels or what have you. I am very picky, but this method always produces perfect results. The only time I make any adjustments are if, say, I took some shots when the light changed suddenly and drastically (like on a train going through a quick tunnel), in which case I will adjust the exposure. But that can be viewed as an error in the photography.

Anyway, my point is that my goal is to take the most accurate shots possible, in the sense that the image looks as close to what one would see in person (one reason I am excited about the HDR!). With Nikon and Canon DSLRs, the above method has worked beautifully. I don't find anything to be over- or undersaturated or anything like that.

I assumed the RED post process would work the same way, and that I could basically tell it "don't mess with the picture, just show me what you got and I'll take it". What caught my eye is:

REDcolor2- more natural color with a bit less saturation than REDcolor.

The keyword being "more". Is this the best option for my workflow, or does "more" imply it's not entirely "natural", just more so, and finally, if this is not the best route for me, is there a way to do something akin to the "pure" settings I mentioned, or is that not possible at this point?

Looking forward to working with a Scarlet or Epic soon, regardless!

 

[Sam Winzar]

This might be a bit off topic, but we do seem to be getting on the topic of how hard it can be for post houses to keep up with RED's development.

Something I think would be great is an email announcement list that post houses can subscribe to. Because most post houses work footage from lots of different sources, it's often hard for them to live on REDuser and keep track of things. If RED ran a post specific email news letter that could come in very handy.

 

[Eric Haase]

Nearly all of the non-Red things you just listed are stable and known. Red seems to come out with new things every 2 months, none of which are openly documented in terms of what they actually do, forcing you to try all of them and settle on something - something which will then be either updated or replaced by something else in 2 months. And you of all people here know that television production seasons last a lot longer than 2 months, even when you're only making 13 episodes. And they often involve reshoots for episode 2 in the middle of production on episode 6. I agree that there's a lot to keep track of these days, and that is indeed one of the things that lets me make a living. But to poo-poo this issue is to overlook the reality of what allows us to do what we do efficiently and accurately over the course of a television season. If you were standing in my shoes over the last few months trying to do that on a show with a lot of visual effects - which were created from transcodes that were considerably different than what I was getting directly from the original files, and for exactly the reasons I've already posted about, you might be singing a different tune.

I still think that the ultimate answer to all of this is IIF/ACES, or at least something like it, that would allow for a universal, common path that is based on widely accepted standards for image processing, leaving the manufacturers to do what they do best: innovative hardware and the specific algorithms to generate the most accurate information from that hardware. The whole secret sauce color science approach may currently be necessary, but it isn't the best eventual solution for Red any more than it is for Arri or anyone else. We'd be much better off with the best and most accurate linear light output from each camera and a standard processing path from that point forward. Jim has already committed to this, I'd just like to see it happen a little sooner rather than a lot later.

all great points form the post production side. As a cinematographer, I care about color and look consistency through the course of the project. I also WANT to shoot RED. The more problems or workflow complications encountered in post, the more of a reason producers have to NOT want to shoot RED. Camera systems that are perceived as simpler, less hassle, less problematic, and less costly because of their workflow will be chosen by producers. This is likely why Arri chose the "Direct to Edit" slogan as a main focus marketing tool.

 

[Obin Olson]

It fits very smoothly into a cineon log workflow both for VFX and DI log grading.

sick sick sick!!! can't wait!

 

[Lorenzo Straight]

All exciting news from Red these days.

 

[Dhruv Govil]

The keyword being "more". Is this the best option for my workflow, or does "more" imply it's not entirely "natural", just more so, and finally, if this is not the best route for me, is there a way to do something akin to the "pure" settings I mentioned, or is that not possible at this point?

Looking forward to working with a Scarlet or Epic soon, regardless!

Well when you shoot with your SLR, are you shooting RAW or jpeg?
Every single camera applies it's own color management and treatment to the image shot if you save to jpg. This is baked into the image and all processing is done on top of it.

When you shoot RAW, the RAW file is meant to be a data dump of the sensor read, which the image editing software then appplies it's image processing over, just like teh camera would. Except now you have more control.

I'm assuming you already knew that, so just a refresher. All this image processing is subjective and definitely not standardized.

So the idea of a natural image varies from program to program, camera to camera. It's more of a vague ideal than a fact.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Mike.

I think we're a long way off (maybe 5 years) before we have an established "standard" as to image-pipelines and processing in the "digital cinema" context, and RED pushing the envelope is all good.

To make the RED start to try to fit into "filmscan" workflows is also all good, as long as the total signalchain continues to evolve. Best of two worlds.

For better or worse, that is what putting RAW in the hands of "laymen" has opened for: Constant development.

It has significant downsides, I agree, especially for projects where noone have researched the workflow before starting up, but that would be the case for a filmshoot, too - don't you agree?

As long as we're still some time from reaching general standards in image recording and post-processing on the high-end side - similar to what we have on the audio side, we will have to accept some kind of flux - if we want it to develop further. This is where we maybe disagree, as you may imply that the standards are here now (which is right in a sense) while I imply that they will change over time, maybe not conceptually but practically.

And I really want this to be developed further. I Think the current camera-systems have some way to go before they can be considered "mature". They're more like rebellious teens, dressed up in different fashions.

The redlogFilm should maybe have been there all the time, I dunno, but I am sure glad that it eventually came and can be used on footage recorded 6 months ago that only now is trickling down to post. Much better that, than the other option where you'd have to replace your whole image-chain to be able to enjoy the development. Now it is free, and if it takes too much time to implement for current projects (I haven't put RCX into any "real" production yet, but now it seems to have matured to a point where I will give it a shot for making online files on smaller projects), I can just use the established workflows for current work and start to plan for the new signalchain for the next series going into post. All for free, except for me having to research the pipeline.

The costs saved by only having to let me research a new workflow and certify it versus having to replace decks, even screens maybe, RAIDs et al - is tremendous. So are the gains.

I think the first time I started to suggest a "log" in-cam preview on set was back in may 2008. I do see good reasons why it isn't/wasn't implemented, though - with all the other confusion surrounding the system at that time, but I really hope it will come now.

OK. Two years later (if it comes) it might arrive.
Late?
Possibly (if it comes)
I still can use it on the same cam without swapping a "module" or changing my cam.

There are downsides. I think RED should offer a "foolproof" mode for people who are not used to the system. A kind of baseline. Recording redlogFilm or REC709 to a DNx/prores module on the Epic seems like a very logical optional step. I don't want it, but I can see how it could be helpfull.

But what I really love about the RED and RED as a company is the willingness to improve, the daredevilish bet on allowing us to process the images ourselves (that is NOT without downsides, but I think the upsides are more important) and the willingness to challenge.

Eventually this will all settle, and we can all tell fun stories from the trenches.
But now I am just enjoying the changes (mostly... As there have been some strange detours along the line.)

The fun part all along has been that: When I have disagreed with REDs recomandations - and I have - I could just choose not to follow them.

Try that on an F35...

As to matrices, there's other cams coming with unmatrixed log-curves to a post-house close to you pretty soon these days.
It will be good for some use, if/when it comes, but it doesn't make RED stand apart.