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 :)

tests - part 2 - B 30, workflow comparisons, signal chain comparisons + 5D

Luca Immesi said:
Thanks Gunleik, I was thinking about multiple secondaries.
Click to expand...

Me, too...

You can add a keyer/tracker/mask, add your color-tools, do your correction, add another under that, etc. That way you'll have multiple secondaries.

The ideal situation (as to the problems I see) is that the secondaries indeed took their info from RAW (after the redroom) and gave you access to that data (so you could recover highlights and lowlights in the secondaries).

As it works it is worst of two worlds. You pull your keys from the camera-metadata, and do your correction from the image out of the primary...

Uli... I couldn't find the cow-thread you mentioned...
 
Gunleik Groven said:
Have anyone done longform (+20 minutes acts) RAW grades in Color without major (bug) issues like:

These are bugs I have seen (but haven't tested the update for as I am particularily checking signal-chains)

Conform/TC - related
Grades of particular shots refusing to render right?
Making the secondaries work as you would expect?
(The color-picker seems to pick from the camera-metadata image and not the "after the red-room" image.)
Other randomnesses particular for RAW.
Click to expand...


Hi Gunleik,

First, thanks a lot for your testing! It's a great resource.

I am currently grading a 45+45 min show, RAW QT in Color 1.5.1. We're using the whitepaper L&T conform workflow. We are still using the old 2.9 RED plugin in Color, as we started grading with that one and the new looks a lot different, don't have time to start all over. But glad to hear you are getting good results with the new one.

And yes, there have been some issues. In conform FCP crashing a lot, then in rendering - color sometimes "randomly" renders another shot than it should, and some other small issues, like the secondary room. For me, the biggest concern is a sharpness issue with RAW. Color is rendering a slightly softer image than FCP. The preview to SDI is fine and sharp, but after rendering it's slightly softer. Even the offline-2K Prores 422 is sharper than output from Color (Prores 4x4 in our case).

There's a slight difference in chroma levels between FCP and Color in our setup, but it's really small, and could be compensated with a lut.

Timo Teräväinen
cinematograper/colorist
 
tteravai said:
For me, the biggest concern is a sharpness issue with RAW. Color is rendering a slightly softer image than FCP. The preview to SDI is fine and sharp, but after rendering it's slightly softer. Even the offline-2K Prores 422 is sharper than output from Color (Prores 4x4 in our case).
Click to expand...

It sounds like what you are describing may be the difference in perceived sharpness due to the difference between half and full de-Bayer. In default settings Color uses half de-Bayer while grading, and full for rendering. The additional aliasing in a half de-Bayer can make an image appear sharper.
 
Hi Nick,

In Color it's possible to choose between full and half quality preview and rendering, and half quality (=1/2 debayer) produces softer image in Color's case. Preview from Color (through SDI) is at best (and sharpest) at Full Debayer.

The thing that puzzles me is that Color produces its sharpest image during preview (same quality as when rendering from FCP) but output from Color is always slightly soft. Can it be GPU-related? Using ATI 4870 here. Of course, a sharpen node can be used, but I would suspect that a good quality debayering produces better results.

Gunleik, was this the thread you were looking for?
http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/223/15801

Timo Teräväinen
Cinematographer/Colorist
 
Thanks Timo.

That would be the thread...

So.... do you find the RAW workflow useable, or do you regret not transcoding to DPX?
 
Yes, I find the RAW workflow useable. Next time I would maybe try another RAW workflow, like conforming FCP timeline with Clipfinder. The FCP Log & Transfer conform is still not working too well with large projects.

The projects I'm working with are for TV, not film out, so DPX would perhaps be overkill..? Also I find working with RAW quite flexible. I like to experiment with metadata - ISO, gamma/colorspace etc - so the RED tab is a nice thingie to have. And of course if there are updates, like to the Color plugin, they are useable right away with RAW, no need to render new files.

Timo Teräväinen
Cinematographer/Colorist
 
I really appreciate this testing.

Can I ask a favour?

Rather than refer to the Color science as old new or new new can you call it B21 and B 30. It gets a bit confusing when reading through the test results.

Thanks so much for all of this work!

David
 
Yup David...


All of a sudden we're shooting like crazy, and no time for writing.
But finally I have managed to upload the test RAW files.

Mostly charts under daylight and tungsten, under different exposures.

I know these are usefull for me when I test different signal chains. I hope you find the same.

http://urhyp.org/b30test/testfiles.zip

The filesize is 940 MB, but there are more than 20 different shots in there.

Please enjoy!

(I would)

Cheers!

Gunleik
 
Due to bandwith issues, I won't let this link out in the open for too long, but I hope most of you who may need it have it in a week?

Then you can PM me for a link.

Sounds ok?

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