Question about RAW...

[DJK]

I'm new to professional camcorders, and the notion of shooting in RAW, and the more I read about it, the more questions I'm left with regarding the RAW format. I mean, I understand that when shooting in RAW, you avoid compression artifacts, which is great. But I've come across finished works shot on the RED ONE, with people exclaiming how good they look, and what a fine job was done in post by the colorist and such, and yet in one case, it wasn't even something with a specific 'look' – it was simply concert footage. This has left me wondering just how much work is required under all circumstances, in order to get the RAW footage looking good.


The thing is, I have a basic understanding of what color grading is, but I thought that, aside from very basic image enhancements, it's primary purpose was to create certain 'looks' for artistic purposes. I didn't think it was necessary just to achieve footage that looked crisp, natural, and realistic. So, is it? I'm interested in the Scarlet, and I realize that I'll have to buy an expensive editing program to work with the RED files, to edit them and convert them into other formats. But what else will I have to do? I mean, just what does the RAW footage look like to start out with? Is it possible for someone who's a pretty proficient computer user and a fast learner, but completely new to professional video and high-end editing programs, to get good looking results from RED's raw format if they have the right software? What is the right software? I'm on a PC...

 

[Kenneth Elkington]

Well there's a difference between full grading and doing a "one-light." Most of the time it's necessary to do some rough tuning to get closer to your ideal image, just by adjusting white balance, exposure, saturation...etc. This is just to make the picture display colors in the way that you want it to. But if you're not trying to create an artistic look it's not going to take you hours to get a good looking picture.

 

[Stephen Gentle]

You will probably be able to do everything you need with REDCINE-X - you can make RED footage look good enough with the curves tool and a bit of white balance adjustment. Grading is probably required if you want the full 'film look', but then again, that's a lot more about the skill of the colourist than the tools you have. And remember that the way you shoot the scene will probably make a bigger difference, so make sure you use lighting well, and if you're shooting narrative stuff, hire an audio guy (if you're not experienced or don't have someone experienced you can call on) and get good actors.

By the way, there are some shots of what well shot RAW footage looks like over here, with comparison shots of what they look like after colour correction.

 

[DJK]

You will probably be able to do everything you need with REDCINE-X - you can make RED footage look good enough with the curves tool and a bit of white balance adjustment.

OK, so is REDCINE-X a separate editing program, or an addon for an existing editing program, or...? Again, I'm pretty new to high-end editing programs.

...but then again, that's a lot more about the skill of the colourist than the tools you have.

That's what I'm afraid of, lol. I mean, I was watching a tutorial on color grading and such, using something called "Magic Bullet", and there seemed to be preset 'looks' that you could choose from, to start out with -- would those help when working with RAW? Because I looked at those samples, and there's a huge difference between the desaturated and washed out looking RAW footage, and the final, graded version. I mean, are the various tools in a high-end editing program simple and straight forward enough to get the image looking decent without being an expert? Also, could the RAW footage that the Scarlet will produce be expected to look similar to those samples from the RED ONE?

 

[Dan Hudgins]

Free REDCINE and sample R3D from REDRELAY

Free REDCINE and sample R3D from REDRELAY

You can download REDCINE and some sample R3D from REDRELAY and see what adjustments you can make to shots that way.

My full uncompressed DI system is freeish, and can be used with REDCINE to get more range to the grading maybe, as well as edit/cc/mix and output frames ready for the film recorder.

REDONE is not uncompressed RAW, it is long scale RGB with G being sharper than R and B and compressed maybe 10:1 at 24fps, the system is called REDCODE is uses wavelet compression, this reduces the disk space required for 4K images. The Bayer pattern data is apparently reordered into a large Green image and two smaller ones for the Red and Blue, that helps reduce artifacts caused by the compression since adjacent pixels are of the same color in the compressed images. But the images are kept RGB rather than Y with R-Y and B-Y etc, like some other video systems.

 

[DJK]

You can download REDCINE and some sample R3D from REDRELAY and see what adjustments you can make to shots that way.

Well, I just went to redrelay.net, and it says it will relaunch soon. Is there anywhere else that I can download that stuff?

My full uncompressed DI system is freeish, and can be used with REDCINE to get more range to the grading maybe, as well as edit/cc/mix and output frames ready for the film recorder.

What do you mean by "freeish"?

REDONE is not uncompressed RAW, it is long scale RGB with G being sharper than R and B and compressed maybe 10:1 at 24fps, the system is called REDCODE is uses wavelet compression, this reduces the disk space required for 4K images.

Well, I mean, it's close to being RAW, right? Because I'm seeing people referring to it as RAW.

 

[Dan Hudgins]

Sample R3D files to test with...

Sample R3D files to test with...

Well, I just went to redrelay.net, and it says it will relaunch soon. Is there anywhere else that I can download that stuff?

http://www.scarletuser.com/showthread.php?t=559

You can also search with google for *.R3D files.

What do you mean by "freeish"?

I am not chaging for the "beta test" program now, the main programs run under FreeDOS FAT32 Large disk support to 2.1TB which is a freeOS, or you can use ME rescue boot floppy, ME, or sometimes XP Home which you may or may not have so if you need to purchase those it would be your cost. Also you may need a copy of Magix deLuxe audio studio v7 which may cost about $10 on ebay, and you may need a Telcom T102 and JL Cooper PPS-2 etc, so those cost what you can find them used or new for. And as a "beta tester" you need to give feedback and report bugs etc.

Other than that, if you just want to grade and have a computer that is compatable there is not money involved for the most part, at least at this time. At some point I may port the code and charge a fee, but not soon.

I would think that FreeDOS would give better results than DOSBOX under Win7 but you can try it both ways maybe. ME is best so far as I know.

http://dosbox.com/

http://www.freedos.org/freedos/files/

VirtualDub is freeware and is good to use to make AVI from BMP and WAV mix to check the sound sync and to share edits while working on the project. Also you may need VirtualDub with the R3D plugin to extract the WAV sound for editing.

http://www.virtualdub.org/

Well, I mean, it's close to being RAW, right? Because I'm seeing people referring to it as RAW.

The data is closer to RAW than something like H.264 which has been white and black clipped before compression to reduce bandwidth, REDCODE keeps most of the tonal range for post, depending on if the K value is high or low. It records the unclipped sensor data and then that is clipped after de-compression, it takes more bandwidth that way but you have more to work with in grading. REDCODE is much better than H.264 from what I have had to work with for grading, you can under expose more and hold the highlights better.

 

[jake blackstone]

The thing is, I have a basic understanding of what color grading is, but I thought that, aside from very basic image enhancements, it's primary purpose was to create certain 'looks' for artistic purposes. I didn't think it was necessary just to achieve footage that looked crisp, natural, and realistic.

I find it amusing, that even today, the role of a colorist is still not clearly understood. IMHO, the most important role of a colorist is to help to tell the story in a consistent visual way. Said that, it's not a secret, that just like fashion or music, cinematic imagery constantly evolves and frequently, director or cinematographer may want to use a certain visual language cues to stay current and hip. Gimmicky use of tools, such as Magic Bullet, doesn't colorist become. Blindly applying the "look", without clearly understanding how it was created, leaves you at the mercy of "look" creator. Suddenly, everyone's videos have the same desaturated or super saturated- silver bleached bypassed-super contrast-crashed blacks-blown out and defocussed highlights look. And don't forget the need for a visual continuity. But, hey, if you're happy with it, then, no you don't need a colorist

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

First off, a good colorist working with their toolset of choice is certainly the best option for getting terrific looking footage. That said, getting reasonably clean balanced footage can be done with the free tools available at Red.com (RedCine, RedCineX, RedAlert) or with the Color app included in the Final Cut Studio bundle (suggest you cruise this forum for some valuable tips on working with r3d files in Apple's Color).

Point of clarification: for a long time the term RAW was used interchangeably with the term uncompressed - that is not what is meant by RAW in RED world. IF you have a newer, higher end digital still camera you may have noticed that it offers RAW or JPEG image types - in this world, as with the RedOne, RAW refers to uncorrected sensor data.

There are a number of advantages to having access to all the information the sensor originally captured, even though it may look flat and have a color cast (particularly with a Bayer pattern CFA, but let's not get too technical until you understand the basics). In order to turn this RAW data set into a pretty picture it needs to be de-bayered and (typically) turned into an RGB image that can be used in common editors and other image manipulation tools.

The cool part is that you get to have input into the specifics of that conversion process when "developing" the RAW data set into RGB rather than being stuck with a pre-determined matrix that simply makes a conservative "best guess". Beyond that, if you have mis-exposed footage or a less than perfect color balance you can adjust that with much less degradation of the image. You also have a much greater range of color and can execute creative "looks" with much greater precision and the ability to preserve specific aspects of the image while messing around with others.

For the record, RedCode is based on a wavelet codec and is compressed in the neighborhood of 10:1. One of the amazing things about the way Graeme and the Red Team have done this, is that the compression has very little negative impact on the image and makes the size of the files the camera creates manageable on newer desktop computer systems. Common and affordable tools like the newest Final Cut and Adobe Production Suites running on proper hardware (plenty of RAM, newer CPUs, decent GPUs, etc) can handle the job for less than $10,000 including a reasonably decent monitor (the HP DreamColor comes to mind).

The typical track for "roll your own" correction and post is to open the r3d files from the camera in one of the free RED apps (Red Alert is the easiest to learn or perhaps the recently released RedCineX), then play with the image until you like it and transcode it into a format appropriate for your NLE and project deliverables. There are better and faster (and more expensive and/or complex) ways but I suggest you start with the above and go from there. BTW, there are some tutorial videos and tons of information all over this forum so if you are serious and have some background in this field you can figure it out.

If you are interested in someone teaching you all this stuff, RED has recently started REDucation. If that doesn't suit you, there are a number of folks like myself who can be hired to tutor. Best of luck-

Cheers- #19

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I think the term itself has been a bit oversold. RAW is the monochrome Bayer-filtered image from the sensor before it gets processed into color (RGB), that's all it really means. Not processing it into RGB in-camera (except quick and dirty for a viewfinder image) has some advantages and disadvantages. For one thing, leaving the image in RAW form is a natural way of reducing the data to record by one-third (conversion to RGB triples the amount of data). And saving debayering until post means that you may be able to use better and more powerful processors that don't necessarily have to convert in real time (though some do.)

Not converting into RGB is one issue, the other issue is not recording it into some highly compressed and/or color subsampled format. Now in that regards, there is some compression applied to the RAW file in this case. But it's generally a better recording format than typical HD formats like HDV, AVCCAM, etc.

 

[DJK]

I am not chaging for the "beta test" program now, the main programs run under FreeDOS FAT32 Large disk support to 2.1TB which is a freeOS, or you can use ME rescue boot floppy, ME, or sometimes XP Home which you may or may not have so if you need to purchase those it would be your cost. Also you may need a copy of Magix deLuxe audio studio v7 which may cost about $10 on ebay, and you may need a Telcom T102 and JL Cooper PPS-2 etc, so those cost what you can find them used or new for. And as a "beta tester" you need to give feedback and report bugs etc.

Other than that, if you just want to grade and have a computer that is compatable there is not money involved for the most part, at least at this time. At some point I may port the code and charge a fee, but not soon.

I would think that FreeDOS would give better results than DOSBOX under Win7 but you can try it both ways maybe. ME is best so far as I know.

Well, I'm on Vista right now... not by choice. Long story, lol. But you said that I may need a "JL Cooper PPS-2" and "Telcom T102" -- like I said, I'm new to the world of professional camcorders and editing -- so, what are those, exactly? I mean, I just Googled them, and I see mention of timecode, etc, and while I have a vague idea of what all that means, I don't know much about it, and I was hoping to avoid dealing with stuff like that, at least in the beginning.

The thing is -- and I'm almost embarassed to say this, given the professionals who frequent these forums --but I'm not doing this professionally to start out with. Basically, it's more like a hobby that I have a serious interest in, but until now, I haven't been able to afford anything above a high-end consumer camcorder, or any expensive editing programs. But it looks like that's going to change soon, and thus I've been looking at the Scarlet as a way to get into this on a more professional level, and experiment for a while.

So basically, the first thing I need is to learn how to edit and color grade the footage that the Scarlet will produce. So to start out with, I only need what's required to do that. But don't get me wrong, I certainly want to do it the right way, and achieve very high quality, but I wouldn't be producing things for professional use -- at least not until I learn how to do all this, and decide if I want to pursue it professionally. Do you know what I mean? So basically, what I need to know is: what will I need to properly edit and color grade footage shot with the Scarlet?

...or with the Color app included in the Final Cut Studio bundle (suggest you cruise this forum for some valuable tips on working with r3d files in Apple's Color).

Unfortunately that's not an option, as I'm on a PC.

Point of clarification: for a long time the term RAW was used interchangeably with the term uncompressed - that is not what is meant by RAW in RED world. IF you have a newer, higher end digital still camera you may have noticed that it offers RAW or JPEG image types - in this world, as with the RedOne, RAW refers to uncorrected sensor data.

There are a number of advantages to having access to all the information the sensor originally captured, even though it may look flat and have a color cast (particularly with a Bayer pattern CFA, but let's not get too technical until you understand the basics). In order to turn this RAW data set into a pretty picture it needs to be de-bayered and (typically) turned into an RGB image that can be used in common editors and other image manipulation tools.

The cool part is that you get to have input into the specifics of that conversion process when "developing" the RAW data set into RGB rather than being stuck with a pre-determined matrix that simply makes a conservative "best guess". Beyond that, if you have mis-exposed footage or a less than perfect color balance you can adjust that with much less degradation of the image. You also have a much greater range of color and can execute creative "looks" with much greater precision and the ability to preserve specific aspects of the image while messing around with others.

Great explanation, thank you! But I guess my biggest concern here is this: I understand the benefit of being able to "develop" the RAW data yourself, but I'm still not clear on how difficult this process is, if you simply want clean, well balanced footage. I mean, if you're totally new at this, and to start out with, you simply want to achieve something that at least rivals what you'd get with a pre-determined matrix that made it's best guess... Do you see what I'm saying?

I mean, not that I'm not interested in learning how to achieve more -- I am. But in the beginning, I just want to be sure that one doesn't need to be an expert colorist to even "develop" the RAW data as well as a pre-determined matrix in another camera could. That's what I'm worried about, given some of the remarks I've heard made about footage from the RED ONE that simply looked well balanced and realistic. It seemed strange to me that it was considered such an achievement, given the fact that, with regard to being well balanced and realistic looking, other video cameras could automatically achieve that (while obviously lacking the resolution of the RED ONE, and compressing the footage more). But do you understand my concern? I mean, in RED's software, are there any sort of baseline image profiles to start out with (to simulate the results of a pre-determined matrix), that can then be adjusted further?

including a reasonably decent monitor (the HP DreamColor comes to mind).

I was looking through B&H's monitors, and I came across this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/542186-REG/LaCie_130780_324_24_Widescreen_LCD.html Would it suffice?

The typical track for "roll your own" correction and post is to open the r3d files from the camera in one of the free RED apps (Red Alert is the easiest to learn or perhaps the recently released RedCineX), then play with the image until you like it and transcode it into a format appropriate for your NLE and project deliverables.

Are those RED apps stand-alone programs, or plugins for other editing programs?

 

[DJK]

Anybody? :biggrin:

 

[Eric S.]

Yes, those RED apps are stand-alone programs. However, some third parties have been developing plug-ins for the applications that should aid "workflow" into other applications (basically things like exporting EDL's for conforming and such).

Here's the deal: it sounds like you're somewhat new to this. A standard HD camera might better suit your current needs. You're familiar with digital SLR's, right? You can typically shoot JPEG's or RAW. JPEG's are nice, quick, and easy. RAW images take time in post to fully finish, but ultimately allow much greater freedom in color grading (adjusting the colors) and setting your white balance / exposure.

That said, you can pick up the basics pretty easily. You don't have to be a colorist to tweak the look of your RED footage. You should, however, have some knowledge about cameras and the RED workflow. RED is producing professional tools, so it's not necessarily their mission to create the most newbie-friendly image acquisition and delivery system.

"It seemed strange to me that it was considered such an achievement, given the fact that, with regard to being well balanced and realistic looking, other video cameras could automatically achieve that (while obviously lacking the resolution of the RED ONE, and compressing the footage more)."

Even limited tools in skilled hands can produce good results, especially if used in conjunction with good content. Look at how much people accomplished with the DVX100, the HVX 200, or today's hot item, the Canon 5D MK II. However, there are many benefits that the RED ONE brings to the table. If you can't tell the difference between rolling shutter artifacts, compression artifacts, dynamic range, color rendition, and sharpness between different image acquisition systems, then by all means go for the choice that is most accessible to you.

A better place for you to really dive into this hobby would probably be the DVXuser message boards. RED has a fantastic community here, but it sounds like you might have a little research ahead of you before you're ready to tackle a RED ONE or Scarlet.

Hope that helps.

 

[DJK]

Here's the deal: it sounds like you're somewhat new to this. A standard HD camera might better suit your current needs. You're familiar with digital SLR's, right? You can typically shoot JPEG's or RAW. JPEG's are nice, quick, and easy. RAW images take time in post to fully finish, but ultimately allow much greater freedom in color grading (adjusting the colors) and setting your white balance / exposure.

Yes, I certainly am new at this, and no, I actually haven't worked with RAW, ever. But I've researched standard HD cameras, (I had actually settled on an EX1/3), but then I started to research the Scarlet, and it seems like it'll be better in every respect. I guess I'm under RED's spell now, because I no longer like the idea of only shooting in HD.

That said, you can pick up the basics pretty easily. You don't have to be a colorist to tweak the look of your RED footage. You should, however, have some knowledge about cameras and the RED workflow. RED is producing professional tools, so it's not necessarily their mission to create the most newbie-friendly image acquisition and delivery system.

Alright, I've experimented with REDCINE and some R3Ds I found on the Scarletuser forum. It's not really as hard as I was expecting. Messing around with all the settings was actually quite fun, and it's amazing just how much you can do with light levels using the curves tool. Granted, it seems like you can sometimes make something look decent in just a few seconds with the "shadows" slider, but playing with the luminance curves thing for a while gave me more precise control, and I think what I got looked pretty good. Here's what it looked like RAW, and here's the version I've messed around with (these were all in the RED color space and gamma) – are these acceptable results?

Before: After:

However, there are many benefits that the RED ONE brings to the table. If you can't tell the difference between rolling shutter artifacts, compression artifacts, dynamic range, color rendition, and sharpness between different image acquisition systems, then by all means go for the choice that is most accessible to you.

I didn't mean to dismiss the benefits of RED -- that's why I said that in terms of being well balanced and realistic looking, other cameras could automatically produce that result. I know that RED has many other benefits, and overall, it's going to produce better results.

A better place for you to really dive into this hobby would probably be the DVXuser message boards. RED has a fantastic community here, but it sounds like you might have a little research ahead of you before you're ready to tackle a RED ONE or Scarlet.

Well I definitely can't afford a RED ONE right now. So if I go with RED, it'll be a Scarlet. Which reminds me of another question -- I read that the Scarlet will have sound, but any idea if sound will be supported in REDCINE? Because if it is, then it would really be all I needed to turn out a quick video to post somewhere like YouTube, which I do a lot.