What does redspace do to the viewed image?

[Scott Mason]

Okay so I searched the forums for this answer and many have speculated but I have not seen anyone from red give definitive answers.

Redspace obviously applies some sort of curves and gamma shift to the image. Some have speculated rec709 is a 1.0 gamma and Redspace is a 2.2 gamma, but the difference in looking at the two images does not look that dramatic (I mean from 1.0 to 2.2)

So what is it doing? People say it is applying an S curve to the image to roll off the highlights and the lows. Some say it is boosting the mids (It does look like it is doing this). Can we get a definitive answer because one of my clients is asking the question. We have a film out (We know to use log) but his client will not be happy at video village watching the log output. So we want to leave it in redspace because it looks sexy, but we want to know exactly what it is doing to the viewing of the raw data so we can adjust accordingly, especially since we will not use Redspace for the film out.

Please understand we know it is meta data and it is not affecting the raw image, we know we have more stops of latitude in post, we know we can fix it later, but we want to know exactly what it is doing to the displayed image so we do not have to flip back and forth to the raw view and freak out the client every time. Yes we can work around it, but if we just knew (From Red) what it was doing we would be happy, and since most of the old timers from video know what rec709 is doing to the image we could compare it to that and I could get them to understand and feel more comfortable about the viewed image.

mahalo for any information about this that is definitive
scott

 

[Harry Capota]

Hi scott

I pointed a red at an even illuminated grey chart and had a hd sdi feed going straight to a rasterizer with waveform display
I watched the waveform in red raw an then switched to redspace without exposure compensation

[/IMG]

as you can see, in redspace there is a overall boost of about 20% IRE (more than one stop), the shape of the curve becoming nonlinear an a roll off in the highlights.

I find it difficult to expose with redspace view, because i am allways concerned about my highlights, which look clipped, but instead they still are in range...

 

[Stuart English]

REDspace v's RAW

REDspace v's RAW

I find it difficult to expose with redspace view, because i am allways concerned about my highlights, which look clipped, but instead they still are in range...

Actually that is exactly why you should NOT be worried about exposing for highlights when viewing in REDspace.

Even if they start to clip visually, there will still be some unclipped RAW data to recover them from.

Overall, think of REDspace as a REC 709 type of LUT optimized for the RED sensor / monitor paths.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Stuart, will this still be true with non-native WB?

gunleik

 

[Stuart English]

REDspace v's RAW

REDspace v's RAW

will this still be true with non-native WB?

Yes its still true

 

[Gunleik Groven]

So redspace is a dynamic thing? (Changing gammacurve according to WB settings) ?

 

[Stuart English]

REDspace v's RAW

REDspace v's RAW

No, I mean that its independent of WB settings

 

[Karl Roeder]

Overall, think of REDspace as a REC 709 type of LUT optimized for the RED sensor / monitor paths.

Stuart, why then would I choose monitor path image processing REC 709 ?

- Karl

 

[Harry Capota]

Actually that is exactly why you should NOT be worried about exposing for highlights when viewing in REDspace.

Even if they start to clip visually, there will still be some unclipped RAW data to recover them from.

Overall, think of REDspace as a REC 709 type of LUT optimized for the RED sensor / monitor paths.

hi stuart

yes, but I need to know the exact amount of recoverable information for my highlights. I cant rely on simply knowing ther is "some amount". So toggeling between raw view and redspace is the only way to judge. REC 709 gives me a more accurate look at the highlights but a darker impression in the midtones. Thats the way it is... http://www.reduser.net/forum/images/redsmilies/blush.gif

 

[Chris Bell]

Red Team,

We need a detailed technical explanation of RedSpace. Simply saying: "It's the best" is not adequate. Cinematographers rely on understanding how everything works, so we can deliver great images. Kodak releases detailed notes on how their film stocks work. We need this same info from RED.

 

[Joel Kaye]

hi stuart

yes, but I need to know the exact amount of recoverable information for my highlights. I cant rely on simply knowing ther is "some amount". So toggeling between raw view and redspace is the only way to judge. REC 709 gives me a more accurate look at the highlights but a darker impression in the midtones. Thats the way it is... http://www.reduser.net/forum/images/redsmilies/blush.gif

Yeah. RED is trying to keep people from overexposing because the camera goes into the shadows better than highlights, but I do think I've had a tendency to underexpose if I set ISO any higher than 320 and use RedSpace too. Really we'd be better off learning what perfect exposure looks like than being protected by RedSpace IMHO. Maybe we could get RedSpace Real... raw with a curve.

 

[Chris Bell]

Agreed. I prefer REC709 for exposure. It is much closer to the RAW. I do like the color in RedSpace.

 

[Karl H]

I dont know if it works well with old footage, but I opened up a B14 file in the new 'red alert' and chose to view it with Redspace. My highlights were all clipped and the image looked way too contrasty. When i went back to viewing as REC709, my highlights came back and the picture took on a more filmy, even look.

Not sure what this means because I can't shoot build16 with Redspace until my mount arrives (so I'll reserve judgement until I do) but I didn't like the look or clipping it applied to my older footage.

 

[Matt Uhry]

Red Space makes the monitoring / image path easier to understand and more coherent, but it also steers you away from the full potential of the camera.

I'd recommend using it initially with the camera, and when you feel comfortable do some extensive tests and see what works best for you.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

 

[Stuart English]

REDspace v's RAW

REDspace v's RAW

The combination of REDspace and RAW meter that debuts in Build 17 will address your exposure headroom question.

 

[Matt Uhry]

The combination of REDspace and RAW meter that debuts in Build 17 will address your exposure headroom question.

Sounds like a good solution.

By the way, it's getting a bit busy for my taste in the viewfinder. Could I disable the input wheel on the EVF and loose the white "OFF" clutter ?

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

 

[Jan Reiff]

i really feel like havin´a 35mm negativ on my mac - there are so many possibilities what you can do with the raw. it´s amazing.
i often try several "looks", redspace, rec709, redlog.

i am a pure director - with red i go back since a long time to be a DOP - and i am able to create images at my own mac that i was not able to produce one year ago with this effectivity. before i had to shoot film, had to go to develop it, had to go to a telecine, i had to book a operator for it.

at the moment i am grading some stuff of a model, and with rec709 its pure film. skin tone and DR are great. i had never such fun with grading with a digital medium.
with all known bugs and maybe some trouble: when you see the finished image, the camera is worth every cent.

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

i personally cant use redspace.
I feel much more comfortable exposing with rec709.

 

[Brian Broz]

Zakaree, I'm with you. Back to REC709 for me.
I've been trying Redspace lately but having consistency issues with the look I'm getting on location vs. post.
It seems that RedSpace is amplifying the signal (in camera and via outputs) a bit more than what I'm comfortable with.

 

[Stuart English]

REC 709, REDspace, RAW

REC 709, REDspace, RAW

Viewing choices are good.