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 :)

skintone

Well in my case, usually I'd only have mixed lighting when there are tungsten practicals on screen all over the place. So to avoid mix lighting, my options are to replace all practical bulbs with daylight balance (since they can't realistically be filtered without showing on screen), OR, filter the camera/lens, and use a tungsten balanced lighting kit (which, to me, seems easier.) Again, this goes under the assumption that by having a better balance in the camera (read: a cleaner blue channel via CTB), I'd be able to counter-act/compensate for light loss by being able to raise the ISO higher and still have an adequately clean result because of the stronger blue channel.

Obviously they're are other options, but they'd be more expensive and/or time consuming (and the projects where I'd be in this scenario usually don't have much money or crew.) I'm basically looking for a solution that is simple/easy (Set it and forget it) and offers better results than going bare in tungsten. Obviously it would not give better results than actually doing things to the standard.

Before anyone says anything, this side-filtration discussion is related to the topic because the wonkiness is most noticeable in the skin tones.
 
Matt Ryan said:
...How do you convert these LUT's for use in Resolve? Would love to try them out.
Click to expand...

Matt,

I do not know if this has been already answered, but if you have a HDLink, load them (they are in the native format it is used by the box), and then hit "Save Table". It will be saved as ".cube", so Resolve should be able to read them.

Hope this helps...
 
If someone is willing to convert these luts to a resolve readable format, I will be pleased to host them to make them avaiable for download.

Thanks,
David



Luis Otero said:
Matt,

I do not know if this has been already answered, but if you have a HDLink, load them (they are in the native format it is used by the box), and then hit "Save Table". It will be saved as ".cube", so Resolve should be able to read them.

Hope this helps...
Click to expand...
 
Luis Otero said:
Matt,

I do not know if this has been already answered, but if you have a HDLink, load them (they are in the native format it is used by the box), and then hit "Save Table". It will be saved as ".cube", so Resolve should be able to read them.

Hope this helps...
Click to expand...

Thanks Luis, thats good to know. Juan Melara was able to convert and post a download link so all is good. Thank you
 
Bob Gundu said:
Is there any description as to what the different versions mean?

ConstLclip, CUSPclip and ConstLmap
Click to expand...

I'm going to guess (and probably be wrong), but I think it's Constant Luma clip, Cusp clip, and Constant Luma Map... not sure what they do though. Someone mentioned that cusp rides the highs brighter I think (or maybe I just thought that, and assume someone else said it.)

Bjorn?
 
Bob Gundu said:
Is there any description as to what the different versions mean?

ConstLclip, CUSPclip and ConstLmap
Click to expand...

It's the LUT's mapping method. CUSP clipping is indicated by CUSPclip, constant luminance clipping is indicated by ConstLclip, and luminance mapping is indicated by ConstLmap.

It's all explained in this PDF. Quite a good read, Also very well write up how to step by step to calibrate your screens:

http://download.autodesk.com/us/systemdocs/pdf/lustre_color_management_user_guide.pdf
 
Thanks Bjorn!




Mapping Methods
Display and conversion LUTs use one or more of the following mapping methods.

Constant Luminance Clipping (CLC)
A color outside the destination gamut will be clipped to the nearest
color on the target gamut “shell” with identical luminance. This is the default clipping method used for
display LUTs.

CUSP Clipping (CC) CUSP
clipping identifies the luminance level at which maximum saturation is achieved
within the target gamut (the saturation cusp). A color outside of the destination gamut will be clipped to
the closest color on the destination gamut “shell” in the direction of the saturation cusp. This method
usually better preserves saturations, but may introduce luminance shifts. This type of mapping is available
for logarithmic to linear, and linear to logarithmic conversion LUTs.

Luminance Mapping (LM)
Preserves relative differences among colors by remapping all colors within the
target gamut. Luminance mapping is recommended for images that have a high dynamic range with many
colors outside the destination color gamut. This helps prevent solarization, which occurs when several similar
colors are all mapped to the same point on the destination gamut shell. Luminance mapping is available
for logarithmic to linear, and linear to logarithmic conversion LUTs.
 
Bob Gundu said:
Thanks Bjorn!




Mapping Methods
Display and conversion LUTs use one or more of the following mapping methods.

Constant Luminance Clipping (CLC)
A color outside the destination gamut will be clipped to the nearest
color on the target gamut “shell” with identical luminance. This is the default clipping method used for
display LUTs.

CUSP Clipping (CC) CUSP
clipping identifies the luminance level at which maximum saturation is achieved
within the target gamut (the saturation cusp). A color outside of the destination gamut will be clipped to
the closest color on the destination gamut “shell” in the direction of the saturation cusp. This method
usually better preserves saturations, but may introduce luminance shifts. This type of mapping is available
for logarithmic to linear, and linear to logarithmic conversion LUTs.

Luminance Mapping (LM)
Preserves relative differences among colors by remapping all colors within the
target gamut. Luminance mapping is recommended for images that have a high dynamic range with many
colors outside the destination color gamut. This helps prevent solarization, which occurs when several similar
colors are all mapped to the same point on the destination gamut shell. Luminance mapping is available
for logarithmic to linear, and linear to logarithmic conversion LUTs.
Click to expand...

Great you found it I know it was in there somewhere, just did not find it while scrolling the text.
 
Another thing I've noticed about RED footage in general is that if you light for ISO320 (sensor native) but expose at ISO800 (highest clean SNR) you get a lot out of the image. That will essentially force your histogram to the right (ETTR at 800), whilst filling the entire frame with ample light (particularly the skin tones)... It's basically what checking your raw image during exposure forces you to do, too.
 
Last edited:
BRANDON JAMESON said:
Please elaborate on your technique.
Click to expand...

Whoa, whoa, it's not a technique and definitely not a rule (I amended my statement to make it less definitive)... It's basically just me saying, in my testing I generally find that, 'more light is better than just-enough light' and it goes under the assumption that you're still shaping the image (with light and ratios) just as much as you would at 800ISO. The problem I'm finding when lighting to ISO800 is that I often underestimate the amount of fill needed and just riding the contrast/curve to compensate doesn't give amazing results (usable, but not amazing). The other thing is that saturation in both highs and lows tends to disappear on RED footage (this may be a characteristic of all digital cameras though I've never noticed it as much as I do with RED footage), which means you need to fill them to maintain tonality/colour in those areas and then bring them down in post. Technically you could rely on your colourist, but that doesn't seem like an ideal solution to me (plus what they can do depends a lot on the source footage you give them).

[Off topic; this is also why I still think raw stills controls (like for Canon and Nikon stills... and Cinema DNG) with their "fill" and "recovery" sliders is still a better implementation than RED's controls. Both fill and recovery (I believe) increase/maintain saturation and (micro)contrast within the shadows and highlights dynamically as you slide those sliders... With RED/RCX you have to mask those areas and (re)apply saturation/contrast... Similar result, just a pain in the ass and much longer than just "increasing the fill slider."]

So again, nothing formal and it's not a technique, I'm just saying that when I light to 320 but then bump the ISO to 800 (and expose there), the results tend to be "thicker" when I manipulate them afterward (especially in the mids/skins). Conversely, I think that's what these film LUTs essentially do (they expand the mids, while trying to roll off lows and highs), but they do it after the fact.
 
Last edited:
Mike P. said:
So again, nothing formal and it's not a technique, I'm just saying that when I light to 320 but then bump the ISO to 800 (and expose there), the results tend to be "thicker" when I manipulate them afterward (especially in the mids/skins). Conversely, I think that's what these film LUTs essentially do (they expand the mids, while trying to roll off lows and highs), but they do it after the fact.
Click to expand...


So... you basically like to underexpose by a stop ?
 
Adrian Jebef said:
So... you basically like to underexpose by a stop ?
Click to expand...

HA, yeah pretty much... Also, that's the whole reason RED suggest shooting/exposing at ISO800; you essentially set your physical exposure settings (f-stop, ND, shutter) "more aggressively" (compared to 320) protecting the highlights as a result ("lowering" 18% gray and effectively giving you more stops dedicated to highlights). What I'm saying is that by lighting according to ISO320 (or raw view; although it doesn't have colour), I'm ensuring I'll have the right amount of light so the sensor is never starved (by lighting for 800 and/or shooting a stop under, you'd be pushing 18% gray lower, and you invariably run into noise issues in the lows and mids/skins).

The other problem with shooting a stop under is, as I've said, I find the shadows lose colour/tonality (saturation?), so I'd like to avoid that by giving shadows ample light.
 
Last edited:
Mike P. said:
Another thing I've noticed about RED footage in general is that if you light for ISO320 (sensor native) but expose at ISO800 (highest clean SNR) you get a lot out of the image. That will essentially force your histogram to the right (ETTR at 800), whilst filling the entire frame with ample light (particularly the skin tones)... It's basically what checking your raw image during exposure forces you to do, too.
Click to expand...


I went over this in another thread.....

1) There's no "native" ISO, because we don't employ destructive analogue gain, and hence there is no "least gain / damage" setting, as all ISOs have the very same analogue gain and are all non-destructive

2) Each ISO setting over a wide range is equally valid

3) what we suggest as an ISO starting point is determined by highlight protection and noise

Graeme
 
Taking to DOP's who've used both Alexa and Epic, there does appear to be a common thread in that they think Alexa really nails skin tones. Feedback from colourists we've worked with also appear to back this up - they tell us RED footage is that little bit more difficult to work with than Alexa's.

That said, I would still pick our Epic over Alexa any day :o)

Keep up the good work Graeme - your magic sauce is almost there!

Scott
 
Thanks Scott. I know that R1, R1 M-X, Epic and Scarlet can produce great skin tones (as many people in this thread demonstrate) and when you watch a lot of movies (I saw a trailer for a movie the other day, and I'll leave it nameless, but it's skin-tones were awful. It was obviously digitally shot, but I was happy that IMDB didn't list it as shot on RED) there's some stuff out there that's oh-so-much worse than any decent digital cinema camera is capable of producing it's not funny. That said, I work on a principle of constant improvement and feedback, and I'm sure everyone will be happy with how we progress in the future. With that regard, the tone of this thread and supportive attitude is refreshing and helps, rather than hinders the process.

Graeme
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Thanks Scott. I know that R1, R1 M-X, Epic and Scarlet can produce great skin tones (as many people in this thread demonstrate) and when you watch a lot of movies (I saw a trailer for a movie the other day, and I'll leave it nameless, but it's skin-tones were awful. It was obviously digitally shot, but I was happy that IMDB didn't list it as shot on RED) there's some stuff out there that's oh-so-much worse than any decent digital cinema camera is capable of producing it's not funny. That said, I work on a principle of constant improvement and feedback, and I'm sure everyone will be happy with how we progress in the future. With that regard, the tone of this thread and supportive attitude is refreshing and helps, rather than hinders the process.

Graeme
Click to expand...

If there's a new color science for dragon will you release a version for mx as well ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top