All the Epic/Dragon Vs. Alexa/Sony threads are belong to us...

[jake blackstone]

50 years ago Ansel would take his camera on a hike. He'd find some amazing vista at just the right time of day. He'd load his camera with his film of choice. He'd wait for just the right moment and then he'd take his shot. What f-stop did he use? What shutter speed? What film ISO? Did he meter the scene? How would he develop the negative? What solution? How long? Over or under developed? Dodge and burn? Ansel needed to take it all under consideration before he snapped the shutter. It was based on years of experience, a scientific approach to exposure, and his intentions of what his picture would ultimately look like.

It's interesting, that you'd mention Ansel Adams and his creative process. I saw exhibit of his work at Deyoung Museum, where they devoted large part of the exhibit to one of his most famous images "Moon over hernandez". Interestingly enough, he completely blew the exposure on that day. Sun was quickly setting, he had no time to read the meter and the image ended up significantly underexposed. At the museum they had the copy of the negative and four or five prints of that image by Ansel, showing his repeated attempts over the years to re-interpret the image. They even had overlays of his burning and dodging. His later prints were remarkably more developed in comparison to his earlier attempts. So, bringing this back to the subject of todays discussion. I'm always amazed, with todays technology how is it still possible to completely blow the exposure? Which brings me to the second point. Even though Ansel's exposure wasn't correct, he still managed to create a breathtaking image, because film can give you that fighting chance. That is what I hope to get from the camera, any camera- the forgiveness, the latitude, where I still can pull the image back from the disaster. Because mistakes happen even with the best. And on the side note, how many people these days take time to really work images in order to extract the best, like Ansel Adams did?

 

[Adrian Jebef]

Has the idea of RAW taken on a mythology beyond its actual value? In the industry as a whole, yep. FWIW, I think a lot of RedUsers have reprocessed old footy to find it much better rendered in more recent color science/algorithms so their enthusiasm is understandable, even if its a bit over the top.

Being able to see more of what the image could be on set is a fine goal, one I share. That said, it becomes a slippery slope very quickly;

1) Who chooses the default RGB rendering metrics? What would be the best gamma for review on set?

2) A more customizable output path might be ideal when a sharp DIT in on set to manage it. What if there's not?

3) How do you reconcile the competing goals of accurate (warts and all) representation - with pretty, confidence inspiring contrast-ier presentation?

4) How much DR would need to be crammed into the 8 -10 stops a set monitor can display to suit technical evaluation of exposure extremes? How valuable would that "look" be if it meant that the stops (zones) represented had distorted relationships with other density levels due to being modified to fit the monitoring DR?

Like you I relish these discussions and typically learn more from people whose opinions/ideas are different than mine than those who agree.

Cheers - #19

1 - RED would provide the transforms and the user would choose.

2 - Every shooter needs to be a "sharp DIT" if they want to get the most out of their camera.

3 - A Log-based workflow: camera outputs RLF and allows simple transforms to rec709 as well as added CDL manipulation that can track thru Post.

4 - It doesn't work like that. The human eye can only see what it can see. An on-set monitor can only display what it can display. Even if a camera could record 100 stops of DR there's no way to display it. We shoot and master for the display. Ultimately it's about the presented picture not about how much we started with. BTW: this sort of "issue" is exactly why Log-based workflows were introduced.

 

[jake blackstone]

4 - It doesn't work like that. The human eye can only see what it can see. An on-set monitor can only display what it can display. Even if a camera could record 100 stops of DR there's no way to display it. We shoot and master for the display. Ultimately it's about the presented picture not about how much we started with. BTW: this sort of "issue" is exactly why Log-based workflows were introduced.

While I agree about the mimicking of the human part bit, my understanding, that the second half for the reason to use LOG encoding was the need to introduce lossless compression, which in a way, LOG is…

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Actually...OLED technology is capable of displaying this DR.
In controlled light conditions.

 

[Adrian Jebef]

Even though I agree with you to a certain extent I think your approach kind of forgets that image processing is an artform in it self. As I see it the image is never finnished on set, you need to have the shots in an edit and feel how they intercut to be able to make such decisions. So still even if we do not work on film which we can not see while shooting, this new digital age does not really change things much. To me shooting is still about creating a fat negative.... A negative that can be processed to taste later.. I actually think having color calibrated monitors and such disturbs the shooting process, as those makes people look more at the picture then what they actually expose. Focus on the framing, the lightning and all the other stuff that can not be changed later and do the grading decisions in post is what I prefer.

You kind of say it your self: "You can dial in a "look" but often it may mislead you in your exposure choices to the point where it's more trouble than what it's worth." I do not think better menus or better outputs from the camera would change things to much. The Looks function is quite quick but if / when you start using it it's quite easy to loose track of what is actually going on. So I find it much better to work with light meters and histograms and possibly do so simple grading tests at the DIT station. But no need to have fully fledged color pipeline on set that, as I see it would just start confusion and slow things down.

When we grade an edited 30sec commercial usually the work takes about a full day for a top of the line colourist when he got the director, DP and clients full attention... if you would start to do the same line of work on set, who will then actually focus on whats being shot?

Image processing is an art form. It's one I want complete control of from set thru Post. I know I'm the minority here with pushing for greater on-set control. To each his own. Personally I do better work when I can mold the image directly from the set. My #1 most important tool on-set is a proper calibrated display. I shoot for display, not for capture, so that monitor becomes the picture. If I can't see everything the camera is giving me or I can't mold everything the camera is giving me then I can only offer up guesses to what the final image will look like.

Light meters are blunt instruments. They have a hard time defining a digital sensor's subtleties. Histograms IMO are too vague and general to be of much use beyond basic exposure help. I don't want digital to be like film. There's so much more you can do with digital that you could never do with film. I want to exploit everything that digital offers. But that's just me. I'm a selfish m-therf@cker...


BTW: the workflow I'm proposing/championing is only slow until you understand how to use it. Once you do you realize how efficient the entire process can be. I'm lighting fast today (of course I've had some experience, it takes time). But I'm also way more confident that I've got the shot the way it was intended. No guesses. That's the potential of shooting digitally.

 

[Adrian Jebef]

To me, this is the core understanding that many folks still haven't wrapped their head around. From the beginning Jim wanted to create a worthy replacement for film, a medium that always required the development step, not a better video camera. IMO, this approach looked at the RAW development step as an integral part of authoring the image. Like D I spent many an hour in the darkroom back in the day. I would experiment with different developers/temperatures/agitation methods, etc. I would try different papers and light modifiers when printing. Nowadays the darkroom is virtual and the toolsets far larger, but when crafting an image I still think about how choices during capture might serve particular processing options.

IMO the RED platform can support both the "virtual darkroom two-step" and the "WYSIWYG video line dance". Many of the difficulties and misunderstandings I see are when people mix and match these strategies without understanding the ramifications. Moreover, any methodology that relies solely on the signal sent down the monitoring path to SDI/HDMI output typically requires even deeper understanding of the camera system than the two-step approach. The kicker is, when folks with years of experience in WYSIWYG world assume that the RED cams will behave in the same manner as a video camera that puts the best image its capable of out over SDI. This "expectation failure" often leads to blaming the camera - few people in this business (or in general) have the stones to stand up and take responsibility for user error.

Several of my long time friends in the biz point to how easy it is to screw up RED projects as the biggest impediment to wider adoption. Sort of a corollary to "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM". This is where things like REDucation, proper pre-production and other ways of fostering understanding are so important to getting RED out on more jobs. In the higher end its typically more of a horses for courses evaluation. Once the Dragon ecosystem evolves a bit, I expect it will be chosen more often vs Alexa than it has been over the last 2 years - of course there may be new contenders come NAB…

Cheers - #19

Perhaps but he did create a "better video camera".

Those that grew up in the video side of things and are used to the WYSISYG approach also assume that a video camera gives its operator a true representation of the captured image via the HDMI/SDI output. If a video camera can't give a true representation of its image on-set is that a limitation of the camera or is it a limitation of a raw workflow just being too complex to properly interpret? Personally I don't care to place "blame". I just want it better. All I'm after is greater transparency between what I see on-set and what I get in Post.

 

[Adrian Jebef]

While I agree about the mimicking of the human part bit, my understanding, that the second half for the reason to use LOG encoding was the need to introduce lossless compression, which in a way, LOG is…

Basically log encoding is a way to transform linear sensor data (ie: RED raw) into a video image that still contains 95% of the original linear data. It's not so much about compression as it's about retaining dynamic range per a target gamma + gamut. In modern high-end digital cinema applications it's an intermediary step. The camera original files (negative) get transformed into a log-encoded RGB image (digital intermediate) before a final color pass is done (master). It's certainly possible to stay linear (read: raw) for most if not all of your workflow but that presents its own unique set of challenges and is usually reserved for high-end VFX work where 3D object and shading work better in linear space.

Here's an old but simple explanation of raw vs log vs video: http://thedigitalparade.blogspot.com/2010/03/video-vs-raw-log-vs-lin.html

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

1 - RED would provide the transforms and the user would choose.

2 - Every shooter needs to be a "sharp DIT" if they want to get the most out of their camera.

3 - A Log-based workflow: camera outputs RLF and allows simple transforms to rec709 as well as added CDL manipulation that can track thru Post.

4 - It doesn't work like that. The human eye can only see what it can see. An on-set monitor can only display what it can display. Even if a camera could record 100 stops of DR there's no way to display it. We shoot and master for the display. Ultimately it's about the presented picture not about how much we started with. BTW: this sort of "issue" is exactly why Log-based workflows were introduced.

1 - I'm basically OK with your concept, I really don't want to "dumb down" the monitoring path. That said, it becomes another user error risk point, something ideally avoided.

2 - You're preaching to the choir my friend, but I don't think that's the message the helps market penetration.

3 - I'd be fine with a log-based workflow, but still think the "default" monitor out should be one that looks like people are used to or it just makes the blowback worse. Fair or not.

4 - In theory I'm with you, in part because I understand the upsides. I still wouldn't make it the default choice since on set monitoring is typically done in high ambient light viewing environments that further wash out the already flat log look.

RED has added a lot of control to individual monitoring paths in more recent firmware and I join your request for even more options for those who wish to leverage particular methodologies. Bring it on. Most of what you're seeking would be great to have, the more precisely I can evaluate various aspects of an image while I still have the ability to make changes to things like lighting in the capture itself - the more I can control the result. I promise you I am 1000% in your corner on that.

Cheers - #19

 

[Björn Benckert]

Image processing is an art form. It's one I want complete control of from set thru Post. I know I'm the minority here with pushing for greater on-set control. To each his own. Personally I do better work when I can mold the image directly from the set. My #1 most important tool on-set is a proper calibrated display. I shoot for display, not for capture, so that monitor becomes the picture. If I can't see everything the camera is giving me or I can't mold everything the camera is giving me then I can only offer up guesses to what the final image will look like.

Light meters are blunt instruments. They have a hard time defining a digital sensor's subtleties. Histograms IMO are too vague and general to be of much use beyond basic exposure help. I don't want digital to be like film. There's so much more you can do with digital that you could never do with film. I want to exploit everything that digital offers. But that's just me. I'm a selfish m-therf@cker...


BTW: the workflow I'm proposing/championing is only slow until you understand how to use it. Once you do you realize how efficient the entire process can be. I'm lighting fast today (of course I've had some experience, it takes time). But I'm also way more confident that I've got the shot the way it was intended. No guesses. That's the potential of shooting digitally.

What ever works I guess, But to me having a calibrated or non calibrated monitor on set is a little bit not trusting what the captured files actually holds. The color difference between a over the counter screen and the best possible dolby screen around. is so slim so it's really something that is very possible to push right in post without getting even close to break the image. So to me I really see no need to stand and fiddle with 3% green, up or down in the lowlights and such on set. Why do that when you have a whole film crew around, the light is falling and you need to move on to the next setup very quick because the extras are about to be released any minute... Then I think it's way better to work out the details of colours from a sofa in grading suite with gray wall, locked conditions etc...

Did you know that if you calibrate your screen and then just dim your lamps just a few procent and calibrate again, then your calibration luts will look completely different... so with that logic in mind you would need to bring a gray walled room to set to keep your screens in, you would also need to go in there for at least 20 minutes or so before your eyes settles so you can see the colours right... so even if wanted, there is no real good or feasible way of having a "calibrated screen" anywhere near a film set.

 

[Brian Boyer]

Not that any of you care, but I was confusing the Chroma DuMonde chart with the Gamma & Density charts, which do show the gray values as f-stops. I still don't fully understand what the DSC grayscale steps are all about, though.

According to their website, they're revamping this chart and working on new ones.

 

[Adrian Jebef]

What ever works I guess, But to me having a calibrated or non calibrated monitor on set is a little bit not trusting what the captured files actually holds. The color difference between a over the counter screen and the best possible dolby screen around. is so slim so it's really something that is very possible to push right in post without getting even close to break the image. So to me I really see no need to stand and fiddle with 3% green, up or down in the lowlights and such on set. Why do that when you have a whole film crew around, the light is falling and you need to move on to the next setup very quick because the extras are about to be released any minute... Then I think it's way better to work out the details of colours from a sofa in grading suite with gray wall, locked conditions etc...

Did you know that if you calibrate your screen and then just dim your lamps just a few procent and calibrate again, then your calibration luts will look completely different... so with that logic in mind you would need to bring a gray walled room to set to keep your screens in, you would also need to go in there for at least 20 minutes or so before your eyes settles so you can see the colours right... so even if wanted, there is no real good or feasible way of having a "calibrated screen" anywhere near a film set.

For me it's about transparency. Both the ALEXA and the F65 are transparent cameras. What I see on-set I also see in Post. The R1 was as opaque as you can get. The DRAGON looks more and more promising every month. A waveform and a decently-calibrated display won't ever lie to you. Everything else can be misleading. When users shoot RED and end up with clipped highlights or noisy blacks is it because they haven't learned how to use the camera or is it because they couldn't actually see what they were capturing in the first place?

 

[Mike P.]

I think the fact that the new OLPF and calibration, as far as I can tell, basically takes a non-useful stop from the bottom and puts it on top where it's very much needed, is very telling. That's something I wish they could have done with MX if it was possible (and I think it was the case with Mysterium -- a more equal over/under ratio)

I have also always felt that it's fairly annoying to have to process (and/or expose) your footage in a non-intuitive way in order to merely match (not necessarily exceed) other camera systems on the market. There are real/logical reasons why Alexa is as popular as it is, and I don't think 'it's because people don't know how to properly use RED' is a good excuse by any means. Personally, I put up with the nuance because of price point and I think a lot of users are in the same boat.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

A waveform and a decently-calibrated display won't ever lie to you.

Well ... a waveform and a decently-calibrated display will tell you the truth about ONE THING - the signal created in a monitor path with a given ISO setting on the camera. But a waveform (from the monitor path of a RAW camera) can 100% indicate a clip on highlights when you are not in fact clipping, etc.

Now, you work as a DIT. You have expertise in setting up the monitor and waveform to "not lie" based on the ISO choice of the DP & specific camera systems and workflow. But ... let be honest here ... if all it took was to have a waveform and a calibrated monitor ... you wouldn't have a job. It requires expertise to make that "not ever lie".

You might think a light meter is a "blunt instrument that has a hard time defining a digital sensor's subtleties" - and I agree with that statement out of context - BUT - a light meter allows you to measure light ANYWHERE on the set - it allows you to light and tweak and shape your image with contrast ratios. When a DP shoots 35mm - he/she doesn't look to the light meter to "define the FILM STOCK subtleties" - they use the light meter to measure light and guide them to their aperture selection - factoring in their subjective choices and strategies for exposing for the specific film stock based on experience and testing.

It's also worth noting that color is one thing - but over all image processing and fidelity is another. Looking at full 6K debayer - scaled to 4K projection or a 4K monitor - is a very different animal with respect to noise and sharpening when compared to a less-than--full debayer on a scaled 1080 monitor path coming off a camera.

Not arguing here - because I appreciate almost every one of your posts Adrian - just chiming in with some perspectives that are usually not popular with DITs who make their living mostly on WYSIWYG workflows.

 

[George A.]

And, yeah, 3d LUTs in camera would be great.

+1000

 

[D Fuller]

Here's the thing: today we have the opportunity to "preview" the entire process on-set. Before, after, and during every shot. In real-time. No waiting. If this "preview" is capable of actually showing us the final shot then it will inform our approach to it.

There are many shooters who think this level of pre-visualization is overkill.

They are fine with lighting and exposing a scene by "eye" and the "stop lights". They know what looks good on set and they know they can make it look even better latter in Post. They have learned the process much like Adams did. But take a moment and consider what Ansel would do today. If he could, would he treat today's digital cameras just the same as he did with film? Or would he realize the inherent power in actually being able to preview the entire finished image, live, on the set, while he was lighting his subject? To me it is about control. I want total control.

My fear is that he'd have lost the shot waiting to see it on the monitor. Our working styles are very different. I have the misfortune of almost never working with a DIT of your caliber so additional control at the monitor usually slows us down. And I have the good fortune to have a great deal of control over the post process on my work, so knowledge of where the image can go in post lets me shoot with confidence and move on. But I expect that if I were working in your environment, I'd want very much the same things you are asking for.

What I want is a full range log output from the DRAGON. I want to be able to see all of the highlight and shadow range the camera is capturing during the scene. I want proper 3D transform LUTs that I can turn on and off in the camera that will take that log output and conform it for a TV broadcast (rec709) or the cinema (P3). And I want CDL (Color Decision List) support built into the camera and RCX so I can begin to create my final image properly while I am shooting it.

You wouldn't believe the possibilities.

I can absolutely see the value in this, especially in workflows that require the footage to pass through many hands.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

+1000

I'm pretty damn sure that the EPIC does not have the hardware required to display a 3D lut in the signal path. I could be wrong - but I suspect that's a hardware limitation. But yeah ... there's this - http://www.fujifilm.com/products/motion_picture/image_processing/is_mini/

I do know that the camera DOES have the hardware ability to support CDLs in the camera - since it can add/alter the lift, gamma, gain and saturation right now - so ... CDL support is all about firmware and RCX support.

CDL support is MUCH more important than 3D LUT support and needed BADLY. But yeah ... RED needs to get serious about both CDLs and 3D LUT support asap.

 

[Adrian Jebef]

Well ... a waveform and a decently-calibrated display will tell you the truth about ONE THING - the signal created in a monitor path with a given ISO setting on the camera. But a waveform (from the monitor path of a RAW camera) can 100% indicate a clip on highlights when you are not in fact clipping, etc.

Now, you work as a DIT. You have expertise in setting up the monitor and waveform to "not lie" based on the ISO choice of the DP & specific camera systems and workflow. But ... let be honest here ... if all it took was to have a waveform and a calibrated monitor ... you wouldn't have a job. It requires expertise to make that "not ever lie".

You might think a light meter is a "blunt instrument that has a hard time defining a digital sensor's subtleties" - and I agree with that statement out of context - BUT - a light meter allows you to measure light ANYWHERE on the set - it allows you to light and tweak and shape your image with contrast ratios. When a DP shoots 35mm - he/she doesn't look to the light meter to "define the FILM STOCK subtleties" - they use the light meter to measure light and guide them to their aperture selection - factoring in their subjective choices and strategies for exposing for the specific film stock based on experience and testing.

It's also worth noting that color is one thing - but over all image processing and fidelity is another. Looking at full 6K debayer - scaled to 4K projection or a 4K monitor - is a very different animal with respect to noise and sharpening when compared to a less-than--full debayer on a scaled 1080 monitor path coming off a camera.

Not arguing here - because I appreciate almost every one of your posts Adrian - just chiming in with some perspectives that are usually not popular with DITs who make their living mostly on WYSIWYG workflows.

This is all related to the camera's ability to show you what it is capturing. If it can show you "the truth" then you can monitor "the truth" with a display and a waveform. Perhaps this is why most RED shooters tend to favor the histogram and "stop lights" over a waveform. Again, it's about the fundamental question: can a digital camera that shoots raw ever show you a true representation of what you are capturing? If anyone has shot with the ALEXA or F65 then the answer is clearly "Yes".

I don't post on these boards because I like to take jabs at RED. I post here just like almost everyone else because I want to see their cameras get better. When the company and the R1 was initially announced I thought, like a lot of other industry professionals, that it was an elaborate joke. A total ruse. The fact that RED actually produced a camera and sold it for that initial price-point was nothing less than amazing. The fact that it was such a PITA to work with aggravated the hell out of me. But it got better. The users asked for changes and RED listened. They produced a better camera month after month. Then on to the MX. Then to the EPIC. And now to the DRAGON. It's not a joke anymore. It's actually quite awesome. I firmly believe that what I am asking for will be standard features on every RED camera within 3 years (probably much less). Such is the pace of technology. I also firmly believe that the young ones who buy into the cameras sold here will eventually shape RED as a company as well as the future of the motion picture business. I'd prefer that those that do have a firm understanding of the process instead of just chalking it all up to magic, conjecture, and special sauce.

I work as a Digital Imaging Technician. Before that I was a Camera Assistant. It's my day job. I suppose I should just keep the technical understanding I've gleamed over the years to myself. It's better job security. But I have a problem shutting up. I'm in it for the image. I'm in it because I like to shoot. It's my passion. It's what gets me jazzed. Every evolution of camera tech that could potentially make me obsolete doesn't scare me. It thrills me. I relish it. I want more. Perhaps the DRAGON will mature to the point where I leave my day job altogether, buy the damn camera already, and finally shoot that Gunleik-inspired NSFW short I've always wanted to make...

 

[David Battistella]

This is a great discussion but it covers one kind of shooting style, big sets with Dits and monitors.

Theres miles of r3d shot everyday in small setups, remote setups, where much of the apparatus is not needed.

Armed with a light meter, a color checker passport chart, knowledge of the system and the onboard exposure tools it's amazing the kinds of images that are being made.

I understand the importance of monitoring paths on sets where there is tension about the "final image" so it would be good for red to implement some kind of support for these environments.

Battistella

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Adrian, for once we disagree a bit

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Again, it's about the fundamental question: can a digital camera that shoots raw ever show you a true representation of what you are capturing? If anyone has shot with the ALEXA or F65 then the answer is clearly "Yes".

The fundamental answer to that fundamental question lies in ones definition of the word "true" within the context. A digital RAW camera can display MANY representations of what you are capturing. What is "true"? Define "true". Is a Rec. 709 image derived from a RAW sensor more "true" than a P3 one? Does that fact that the EPIC only outputs SMPTE and not FULL make it's live representation "untrue"?

I'm certainly not going to defend RED's engineering specifications with respect to monitoring and signal paths. It's the weakest thing about the camera. (well .. make that the second weakest thing after connectors) If they ever make another camera - I hope they ask me what I would do specifically in this respect - as, like yourself, I very much understand the nuances of how these things CAN be leveraged.

But ... I gotta tell you ... as a guy who has shot tests with the ALEXA and F65 and F55 and other digital cameras that shoot RAW ... the answer to your fundamental question is far from "clearly "Yes"".

I also firmly believe that the young ones who buy into the cameras sold here will eventually shape RED as a company as well as the future of the motion picture business. I'd prefer that those that do have a firm understanding of the process instead of just chalking it all up to magic, conjecture, and special sauce.

And that is why I also post here. That's why I'm responding to your post.

I suppose I should just keep the technical understanding I've gleamed over the years to myself. It's better job security.

Don't be silly. The best chefs in the world publish cook books. Doesn't hurt their job security at all. In fact, the opposite happens.

Perhaps the DRAGON will mature to the point where I leave my day job altogether, buy the damn camera already, and finally shoot that Gunleik-inspired NSFW short I've always wanted to make...

I can only assume that isn't a condescending cheap shot at Gunleik's expense - because I think most of us have at least one good NSFW short film in us I sincerely look forward to seeing yours.

Adrian - for the record - I want the exact same things you want. I have respect for WYSIWYG workflows and they have their place - I just don't think they are the best choice for all projects and I am a bit bias against them because I feel that this younger generation is skipping a solid understanding of the fundamentals of exposure, dynamic range, ISO, etc. because they get seduced into thinking they just look at a monitor and shoot. And yeah ... they CAN do that. But the results will be mixed at best unless you understand the fundamentals.

YES - we should be able to drive the camera with WIFI - in a CDL mode - which locks down all RAW parameters except white balance (K + tint) and ISO and outputs a LEGAL(SMPTE) OR FULL signal down one of TWO independently processed monitor paths. We should be able to swing the CDL values (Offset, Power, Slope & Saturation) with an iOS app in realtime and see the results on a 17" well-calibrated monitor on a C-stand near the camera for the DP. We should be able to load CDLs into the camera via WIFI and pull them off via WIFI. The CDL values should be stored in the RAW metadata header and the RMD.

YES - we should have 3D LUT support in the camera - whereby the camera can insert a 3D LUT into one of TWO independently processed monitor paths. We should be able to load 3D LUTs into the camera via WIFI.

YES - we should be to export a RLF DPX file from RCX in "Redlog4LUT" mode - locking out all RAW parameters except white balance (K + tint) and ISO and then hit a button - and have RCX create a 3D viewing LUT from an RDM look file. (Translating RED RAW color parameters into a 3D LUT that when applied to the RLF DPX or EXR image with the given WB & ISO - the image appears the same as RAW file + RMD). Every VFX company on the planet would rejoice. Bigtime.

How much of this can RED pull off with the current Dragon?

I suspect that can't give us FULL out the HDSDI - or they would have already done that. So ... most likely a hardware limitation and that could fuel a resistance to 3D LUT support. I don't know for sure. Further .. I don't think we will get 3D LUT support in the current camera without a module that adds that hardware. Obviously - that can be done if RED wanted to do it. The board is here - http://www.fujifilm.com/products/motion_picture/image_processing/is_mini/

It could be added to the PRO IO 2.0 WIFI Module that I am praying RED makes I'm sure Fuji's price is based on the amount of units they expect to sell ... I'm sure that if RED OEM'd that board - it would be WAY less than MSRP of $1300 - and it's HD-SDI passthrough - so it would not require any firmware development.

But proper CDL support should be 100% doable with current hardware.