Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

RED - examples of natural, "filmic" color?

Is Epic always 16 bit? Does it change at some point with compression ratios? Is it user selectable between 12 bit and 16 bit?
 
Alexander Ibrahim said:
Wait ... what?

The film doesn't look like film?

That's an oxymoron. It is actually film, therefore it must look like what it actually is: FILM.
Click to expand...

If I had seen the "Nigel Stanford/FilmConvert" images projected in a film theatre, AND there was no DI involved,
then I would not have said what I said.

:)

It is unfortunate that a lot of films shot on film don't look like film because of excessive DI grading.
I prefer a more unadulterated film look.

Viewing film on a web forum means film is not film.

;)
 
David Rasberry said:
Is Epic always 16 bit? Does it change at some point with compression ratios? Is it user selectable between 12 bit and 16 bit?
Click to expand...

I have asked this before, but no clear answers.
 
The DIT's process was to quickly grade the A-Cam footage from the Alexa through LogC to Rec709 LUT and then MATCH the Epic to the Alexa look he came up with. He didn't use any secondaries for either, they are simple primary corrections. This was not some kind of test but a real life A/B cam shoot. I decided to use Alexa as A cam because it puts out a beautiful tap and gets you to great results very effortlessly. Both frames were shot with a 100mm RPP and the only reason we got a very similar frame is that A-Cam lived on a long Jib arm and we wanted to get some B-roll footage with some dramatic movement. I used this job as an opportunity to see both systems next to each other as the requirements were 60fps A-cam and 120 fps B-Cam. No one but the cinematographer "wins" in this scenario. As said before both systems are perfectly capable to produce wonderful results, in fact you can match them to each other in a pinch. Each has advantages/disadvantages in certain respects and my job as a cinematographer is to learn and exploit those creatively.

I will oblige and I output a 1920x1080 TIF frame of AlexaLogC ungraded and EpicRedlogFilm@320ASA. See for yourself if you can match them and what it takes...

http://florianstadler.com/epicRedlogfilmungraded.tif
http://florianstadler.com/AlexaLogCungraded.tif
 
Hi Florian

The RAW picture tells a lot and validate what Deanan says about Alexa, cuts a lot of red color away (or is there any political reason behind it being red/RED ?). Anyway, it also explain why the finish one light grade, appeared to have a little more reddish skintone on EPIC footage. Alexa is more yellowish, funny enough, this is the reason why Bruce started this thread that skintone in RED being yellowish (impression). It seems contradictory now.

But i have to say, the EPIC one looks better, despite your perception that Alexa produced better result effortlessly. It turns out the other way around. I have try to match it, no problem in matching, but skintone need little secondaries to nailed it. If we need alexa to match epic then we need to secondaries the alexa footage and also the other way around.

Thanks a lot for your contribution man

Cheers
Rivai
 
Peter Dmitriyev said:
seems those tests you posted were deliberately twisted to trick people. I chose all the contrasty shots as digital yet they turned out all to be film, i.e. seems film was deliberately made to be more contrasty and blacks crushed etc whereas we all know that's really more the look of digital or at least Red specifically with its lower dynamic range
Click to expand...

nothing deliberate, it's just that the filmconvert algorithm has had the contrast reduced, because people asked for it. I'll post another one which matches exactly and see if you can tell the difference then.
 
Due to lighting differences between shots more nitpicking would require some more time but this close works in most cases,
depending on the nitpickyness of the DP and/or how the shots are intercut.

In my opinion, matching both cameras in terms of color and contrast with an adequate colorist should be a non issue, but similar shots closely cut can show noticeable jumps in perceived sharpness.

This is just a rough work. First one just a match and second one with a look added, similar to what Florian targeted.
Keep in mind that this is done on a MBP late night.










 
Martin Stevens said:
If I had seen the "Nigel Stanford/FilmConvert" images projected in a film theatre, AND there was no DI involved,
then I would not have said what I said.

:)

It is unfortunate that a lot of films shot on film don't look like film because of excessive DI grading.
I prefer a more unadulterated film look.

Viewing film on a web forum means film is not film.

;)
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

On a web forum, those image tests look more the same than different. Even with high bit depth calibrated displays. I contend that this is because they are more the same than different. Even in a web forum you can see differences between two end points.

That said, you were not looking at the Red images on a 4K projector either.

If you demand the best with which to judge one system, then you must take the best of the other system as well.

Of course ... just to normalize the result, you'd have to do a filmscan of the film and project it digitally, then you'd have to do a film out of the digital images and project it on 35 ... or perhaps 65mm since Epic has been compared to 65mm.

Finally a note on aesthetics ... you mention films shot on film that don't look like film because of DI.

These are mostly top notch professionals using the best tools. They are starting with an unadulterated film look shot on film ... and altering it. Presumably to their taste.

That means all these films are REJECTING the look you are holding up as a goal.

If that's the case with actual film, why would we expect they would carefully grade digital to look like the film stocks whose look they are grading away from?

I guess I've managed to learn some things from this thread ... but the central point escapes me. Red can deliver a look close to what film delivers or as a color match to Alexa, if that is what you desire. So are we just looking for an enumeration of films that choose to create a very natural film look? Why limit it to digital then? Why not ask for films with good skin tone, regardless of their format of origination?
 
The two images by the pool look very easy to match. Alexa looks flatter. Less translucency/depth to the skin but more skin blurring going on. Epic looks like it has more depth/glow to the skin and translucency. More red and less green. Alexa seems to have less red responses and more green as was suggested. Hard to say which is more natural. They're just different.

I like the softness of the alexa shot but I was expecting the detail to be the same on both at 1080P. Is the Alexa shot in focus or does it have a filter to soften detail?

Lucas
 
@Lucas, if you zoom in more, you can see that the image is blur (in motion), and the resolving details in Alexa is not good. It is not softness
---

Has anyone tried to linearize the image and grade from floating point space ? I notice Alexa footage has become terribly difficult to grade. While on EPIC RLF footage works just like expected. Completely different characteristic by REALLY far.

When you increase the saturation, the yellow skintone on Alexa becomes unbearable to see. While on EPIC RLF, the red color is acceptable on the saturation increment, the behavior is more natural. Same saturation parameter on both.

I was wondering if Alexa footage is not meant for linear workflow, i need to do some secondaries to remove the excessive yellow color on the skintone.

On the gamma encoded space CC, the behavior is ok, more or less the same like RED footage. But in linear light realm, the characteristic differences become so obvious !



Rivai
 
Love the thread, thanks Bruce for starting it!

So it seems like Epic (+ R1 MX) and Alexa are all capable of reproducing a natural "filmic" color but that the Alexa is closer to that look when no color grading is applied. And while the Epic and R1 MX are capable of achieving this (or any) look, it might require more color grading knowledge / skills than most users have.

Considering that, I'd like to ask Mike, Jake and any colorists / experts out there, do you guys have custom LUTs (or preset looks) that you use as a starting point when grading? Or do you setup your primary corrections from scratch each time?

It seems like RED or some 3rd party could provide LUTs that take RC2/REDlogFilm to something more 'filmic' but still neutral - as a sort of starting point for those of us who aren't color experts. There could even be options, like a LUT that's similar to Eterna and another that's like Vision 2 or 3, etc.

Perhaps a LUT isn't the right way to go about it technically, someone else can correct me there. Still, I think the reasoning stands that it would be in RED's best interest to offer the "prettiest" pictures (in a classical sense) as easily as possible to as many people as possible.

Just a thought.
 
Brad Hawkins said:
Love the thread, thanks Bruce for starting it!

So it seems like Epic (+ R1 MX) and Alexa are all capable of reproducing a natural "filmic" color but that the Alexa is closer to that look when no color grading is applied. And while the Epic and R1 MX are capable of achieving this (or any) look, it might require more color grading knowledge / skills than most users have.

Considering that, I'd like to ask Mike, Jake and any colorists / experts out there, do you guys have custom LUTs (or preset looks) that you use as a starting point when grading? Or do you setup your primary corrections from scratch each time?

It seems like RED or some 3rd party could provide LUTs that take RC2/REDlogFilm to something more 'filmic' but still neutral - as a sort of starting point for those of us who aren't color experts. There could even be options, like a LUT that's similar to Eterna and another that's like Vision 2 or 3, etc.

Perhaps a LUT isn't the right way to go about it technically, someone else can correct me there. Still, I think the reasoning stands that it would be in RED's best interest to offer the "prettiest" pictures (in a classical sense) as easily as possible to as many people as possible.

Just a thought.
Click to expand...

I also wish for more ready-to-go LUTs.
 
Hm... We have that with RLF/RC
That with proper ISO/WB/Tint(and possibly small curve) corrections for the individual shot, is quite a neutral startingpoint
And the ISO/WB/tint/curve parameters aren't easilly set up for batch in a productive way.

There is a significant (in my eyes) difference between how the R1 mX and the Epic handles highlights and shadows, so I like to think of these three cameras differently, even though the parameters we adjust are the same.

I think there is no way around knowledge and understanding beyond a certain point....
 
aside for proper gamma curve ,color space , exposure , tint and WB ,curves etc...

what also is important is the HUE on each color from this cameras ... Film aside for dynamic range , have a different color palette , hue's for each primary color are quite different , and that is part of a "filmic Look "... for example on film cyan/blues are always rich and dense ...in digital motion picture camera are more vibrant and washed out ....

so changing those hue's is part of color correction process (time consuming ....)

so i wish that red could elaborate a color matrix that match Hue's of Film stocks that we all love...

or

in few years this hue's and this "look" will be considered the "True" filmic one , and the color palette of film will feel """"weird""" in a way that 3 strip technicolor might feel today ...

g
 
Gunleik Groven said:
Hm... We have that with RLF/RC
That with proper ISO/WB/Tint(and possibly small curve) corrections for the individual shot, is quite a neutral startingpoint
And the ISO/WB/tint/curve parameters aren't easilly set up for batch in a productive way.

There is a significant (in my eyes) difference between how the R1 mX and the Epic handles highlights and shadows, so I like to think of these three cameras differently, even though the parameters we adjust are the same.

I think there is no way around knowledge and understanding beyond a certain point....
Click to expand...

Right, and while we do have a great neutral starting point, I think what we learned from this thread is that the technical differences between the cameras is not all that great (color-wise) but really its a matter of what is done with the image afterward. The point being, nearly everyone is in agreement that the Alexa workflow (processing?) brings out better skin tones and a more 'filmic' look.

I'm not advocating that REDlogFilm or any of the current settings be changed, but rather that it would be great to have a simple "next step" to get those of us who aren't trained colorists to something like the look that Alexa achieves out of the gate. To put it simply, if the Arri users get to have that why not us as well?

If a colorist doesn't want to use that 1-click starting point, no problem, but at least it'd be there for the rest of us.

Also, I just want to be perfectly clear that I truly respect and appreciate all the amazing work done by Graeme and the team at RED. This is not a matter of questioning RED's color science, rather its a matter of accessibility and ease of use, for the masses - which by the way will be exploding soon with Scarlet.
 
The Alexa files are no more consitent than the RED ones. Just different.

SRY
I think that beyond a certain point, a trained eye and knowledge of the tools is unavoidable... :)

But you can get very far these days without those parameters and a with a bit of luck... :)
 
Gunleik Groven said:
The Alexa files are no more consitent than the RED ones. Just different.
Click to expand...

But I think that's exactly the point, different in a good way, a more 'filmic' way. Nearly everyone in this thread (perhaps that doesn't include you) agrees that Alexa (& film) skin tones are more pleasing to the eye out of the gate, and in theory as long as their sensor doesn't have some technical advantage there is no reason for that - regardless of the end user and their technical abilities as a colorist.

There should be some mathematical equation to produce "their" look - and that is what we, or at least I, am hoping for.

EDIT: or as Bruce originally suggested, a look that is "better" than film and Alexa!
 
The Alexa skintone is more yellow, while RED is more reddish.

I come to an agreement like deanan and graeme that it's up to your prejudice and own preferences. In case if you dont notice, Bruce started the thread asking why skintone seems yellow and not natural. Alexa footage is exactly that way.

Now i dont think Alexa is better than RED anymore. Dont read, but do your own test, the file is up there for you to test it, that's why i ask Florian to upload the file, thanks him for that. It's a good A/B real life shoot example. So you dont stuck into the hype !! In fact, RED skintone is better ! If you want to make it yellowish like alexa, it can be arrange with secondaries. Beside Alexa footage is horrible in linear realm.

Rivai
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top