Dan Hudgins
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,369
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Location
- San Francisco, CA USA
- Website
- www.dancad3d.com
Can one size fit all?
Can one size fit all?
The notion of light having a single K value is false for most artificial light sources, and even many daylight sources.
When an object is near other objects they reflect light onto each other, so the light picks up colors that act like bandpass filters.
When films were shot under studio lights the DP did not have to deal with the time of day and weather issued of Daylight, and did not have to deal with odd artificial light sources on location.
To do a good job of Grading one needs to look at the shot and try to find a setting that works for all the frames, since you do not want the Grading to change during a shot most of the time.
Grading is not a substitute for good lighting, although as can be seen from the two frames above, it can pull usable detail out of footage that is less than optimum as far as exposure.
Since true RAW data is not output by the RED ONE, the results are subject to changes in the "Builds" of the de-mosaic (de-bayer) software and REDCODE firmware etc. If you have a true RAW camera the data quality is independent of the camera revisions.
In other words, you cannot avoid artifacts of REDCODE and the other software used in the sensor data path at this time. If true RAW data was output then you could write your own software to process it to get the look you want within what data the sensor can produce.
Light interacts with the dyes and colors of the subject and each combination interacts with the dyes in the sensor's filters. Your eyes interact with the type of monitor used, or the dyes in the filmout. Some people see colors not quite the way others see them.
You can Grade the same shot many ways...
Art is not a test chart.
An artiste needs to pick the colors for his palette.
Three strip Technicolor had issues with colors not looking in the print like they did on the set, so they did tests and used colors on the set that would end up the color you wanted in the print later. To some extent that is still true, you need to light, costume, paint, and grade to work to get the colors right in the film out print on a particular film stock, no LUT can make up for all the variables and still give full use of the total gambit the film print stock can display. A LUT can align the center part of a monitor gambit to a print, but that does not deal with the subject's colors and camera artifacts.
Today a DP's job is harder since there are new ways for images to be recorded and exhibited, you do not have time to learn how to control the medium like you could when there was one camera film and one printstock for many years, and you could work with a LAB to get to know how the grading would turn out.
Without true raw data free of build dependent changes, and a stable 3200K tungsten studio lighting, I think you just need to deal with the pixel values in each frame as best you can... you cannot "one light" grade location footage.
My software can batch process frames, and can record the CC from one shot for use with other shots, but there will need to be shot to shot adjustments to optimize the corrections for the subject and lighting interactions... how could it be otherwise?
Camcorders try to normalize footage with "automatic exposure" but that is not Digital Cinema, Digital Cinema is the control of exposure by the DP, full manual exposure, full RAW data, full grading control in post...
Sorry for the long answer, but there are reasons not to look for a push button answer to making a work of art, in addition to the things we cannot change about the early part of the workflow.
Can one size fit all?
Do think it will be possible to create a filter or process that can be applied to RED footage generically?
The notion of light having a single K value is false for most artificial light sources, and even many daylight sources.
When an object is near other objects they reflect light onto each other, so the light picks up colors that act like bandpass filters.
When films were shot under studio lights the DP did not have to deal with the time of day and weather issued of Daylight, and did not have to deal with odd artificial light sources on location.
To do a good job of Grading one needs to look at the shot and try to find a setting that works for all the frames, since you do not want the Grading to change during a shot most of the time.
Grading is not a substitute for good lighting, although as can be seen from the two frames above, it can pull usable detail out of footage that is less than optimum as far as exposure.
Since true RAW data is not output by the RED ONE, the results are subject to changes in the "Builds" of the de-mosaic (de-bayer) software and REDCODE firmware etc. If you have a true RAW camera the data quality is independent of the camera revisions.
In other words, you cannot avoid artifacts of REDCODE and the other software used in the sensor data path at this time. If true RAW data was output then you could write your own software to process it to get the look you want within what data the sensor can produce.
Light interacts with the dyes and colors of the subject and each combination interacts with the dyes in the sensor's filters. Your eyes interact with the type of monitor used, or the dyes in the filmout. Some people see colors not quite the way others see them.
You can Grade the same shot many ways...
Art is not a test chart.
An artiste needs to pick the colors for his palette.
Three strip Technicolor had issues with colors not looking in the print like they did on the set, so they did tests and used colors on the set that would end up the color you wanted in the print later. To some extent that is still true, you need to light, costume, paint, and grade to work to get the colors right in the film out print on a particular film stock, no LUT can make up for all the variables and still give full use of the total gambit the film print stock can display. A LUT can align the center part of a monitor gambit to a print, but that does not deal with the subject's colors and camera artifacts.
Today a DP's job is harder since there are new ways for images to be recorded and exhibited, you do not have time to learn how to control the medium like you could when there was one camera film and one printstock for many years, and you could work with a LAB to get to know how the grading would turn out.
Without true raw data free of build dependent changes, and a stable 3200K tungsten studio lighting, I think you just need to deal with the pixel values in each frame as best you can... you cannot "one light" grade location footage.
My software can batch process frames, and can record the CC from one shot for use with other shots, but there will need to be shot to shot adjustments to optimize the corrections for the subject and lighting interactions... how could it be otherwise?
Camcorders try to normalize footage with "automatic exposure" but that is not Digital Cinema, Digital Cinema is the control of exposure by the DP, full manual exposure, full RAW data, full grading control in post...
Sorry for the long answer, but there are reasons not to look for a push button answer to making a work of art, in addition to the things we cannot change about the early part of the workflow.