Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

Correct Gamma - Discussion about good communication practice in a production

Brian D. Goff

Brian D. Goff

REDuser Sponsor
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
967
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
57
Location
Switzerland
Website
www.actionproducts.ch
I'm at a studio grading session and noticed that the operator set-up the hole pre grading with Redgamma 4. I'm not a grader so I have no idea;-), but would you not normally set everything up in RedLog or so and take it from there to get the best results?

THX
 
That he should have a good reasons to do. Those do exist. But RedLogFilm would be a much broader and general advice. Especially if the footage is going to be graded into looks far from how they were shot...
 
Personally, I hate backseat drivers. How would you like, if behind your back your client was questioning your choice of lighting or lenses? If you're unhappy with what your colorist doing, please discuss it with him directly. He must have his own good reasons for choosing RG4. You said it yourself, you're not a colorist, so why not let the professional to do his job without second guessing him?
 
jake blackstone said:
Personally, I hate backseat drivers. How would you like, if behind your back your client was questioning your choice of lighting or lenses? If you're unhappy with what your colorist doing, please discuss it with him directly. He must have his own good reasons for choosing RG4. You said it yourself, you're not a colorist, so why not let the professional to do his job without second guessing him?
Click to expand...

I agree. If I were a client, I would only be asking myself one question: do I like what I'm seeing? How the professional in the chair is achieving it is not your concern. If you put 20 colorists in a room with the same footage, I would guess you'd wind up with 20 different approaches, but similarly good results. It's usually the do-it-yourselfers who concern themselves with canon and rules like "you should always use RedlogFilm." The fact is that to get a "proper," accurate greyscale from RedlogFilm either takes a properly designed LUT (something do-it-yourselfers generally don't have or understand the need for) or a LOT of experience and talent if one is going to use, say, custom curves. The redgammas are a very quick way of getting to a very reasonable starting point for a sensible greyscale, and for many colorists, a very sensible starting point, particularly if they like to work in a "video grading" environment.

This is a special day. Jake and I agree completely on something.... :emote_happyhappy:
 
Brian D. Goff said:
I'm at a studio grading session and noticed that the operator set-up the hole pre grading with Redgamma 4. I'm not a grader so I have no idea;-), but would you not normally set everything up in RedLog or so and take it from there to get the best results?

THX
Click to expand...

Depends on what the best results are. And which route is best to get to them.

"Correct gamma setting" terminology can be applied when referring to technical standards.
 
jake blackstone said:
Personally, I hate backseat drivers. How would you like, if behind your back your client was questioning your choice of lighting or lenses? If you're unhappy with what your colorist doing, please discuss it with him directly. He must have his own good reasons for choosing RG4. You said it yourself, you're not a colorist, so why not let the professional to do his job without second guessing him?
Click to expand...
I also agree 100% Well said. Indeed a special day...
 
M Most said:
This is a special day. Jake and I agree completely on something.... :emote_happyhappy:
Click to expand...

The love is real!

Totally agree as well. Runs away :)
 
M Most said:
This is a special day. Jake and I agree completely on something…. :emote_happyhappy:
Click to expand...
Hey Mike.I 'm pretty sure we also agreed once before in 2008… or was it 2009?:thumbsup:
Although it may seem we disagree a lot, I'm pretty sure we also agree much more often, even if we don't explicitly say it.
Anyway, I'd like to invite you to visit http://liftgammagain.com. The atmosphere there is a bit more collegial and it's dedicated to all things post, especially, as the name implies, color grading. Once in a while we could definitely use your sage advice. And as a bonus, there I even promise to behave:beer:
 
jake blackstone said:
Personally, I hate backseat drivers. How would you like, if behind your back your client was questioning your choice of lighting or lenses? If you're unhappy with what your colorist doing, please discuss it with him directly. He must have his own good reasons for choosing RG4. You said it yourself, you're not a colorist, so why not let the professional to do his job without second guessing him?
Click to expand...

I believe the original OP - using your analogy - is not so much back seat driving as much as he is wondering if the person behind the wheel even has a license. He's asking your help in whether he can trust that the person is a professional and thus can trust him with what he does best: color grading.

( I could be wrong :)
 
A choice of gamma, perceived and discussed out of context, does not present an information usable for determining a level of colorist's proficiency.
 
Richard Tran said:
I believe the original OP - using your analogy - is not so much back seat driving as much as he is wondering if the person behind the wheel even has a license. He's asking your help in whether he can trust that the person is a professional and thus can trust him with what he does best: color grading.

( I could be wrong :)
Click to expand...

Using your driving analogy, your driver for some unknown reason to you doesn't downshift, when he brakes. Based on that observation, you decide, that the driver doesn't really know how to properly drive or, for that matter, even has a license. What you neglect to notice is the car has an automatic transmission:)
So, yes, you're wrong...
 
I'm not saying the colorist is wrong or anything (although back in the red one days I ran into various situation were I was told by "colorist" that grading the proxies was the way to go.....)
Anyway, my understanding is that .R3D log is just like a film negative, and therefor the best way to start in grading. If for example my highlights are nearly clipping and i start grading using RC3/4, then they definitely clip beyond recover - or am I wrong?
Again, I am not questioning a pro colorists way to work, but I would like to hear opinions on what others think best way to go and why.

THX
 
You're right in that starting from RedLogFilm most likely will give you the most playroom. The other gammas are nowadays based on redlogfilm and if that is interpreted correctly, you are much better off "recovering" highs and lows from the "standard" gammas than we used to be.
That said, there is no ultimate "right" or "wrong". I would suggest that changing the gamma setting on clips that "don't behave" can sometimes solve issues though…
(can I say as much without overstepping Jake and M Most?)

Just as a friendly hunch from someone who has been called in to look at "difficult" shots a few times…

"Widest range of different possibilities in grade" doesn't always equal "best solution", though.
 
Brian D. Goff said:
I'm not saying the colorist is wrong or anything (although back in the red one days I ran into various situation were I was told by "colorist" that grading the proxies was the way to go.....)
Anyway, my understanding is that .R3D log is just like a film negative, and therefor the best way to start in grading. If for example my highlights are nearly clipping and i start grading using RC3/4, then they definitely clip beyond recover - or am I wrong?
Again, I am not questioning a pro colorists way to work, but I would like to hear opinions on what others think best way to go and why.

THX
Click to expand...

If highlights clip with RG then that gamma curve is not usable for that shot.

It may be useful when it fits shot's dynamic range distribution (for example if DP used it on set for preview and it affected exposure choices) AND if it is close to the look intent, in which case it may simply save time allowing more time and focus on priorities. When it is not just used as an easy way out.

RLF route is not just motivated by DR utilization, it allows more control and choices (if needed), and it is not unusual simply wanting to create own look from the scratch, not using a pre-defined gamma as a starting point.
 
jake blackstone said:
He must have his own good reasons for choosing RG4. You said it yourself, you're not a colorist, so why not let the professional to do his job without second guessing him?
Click to expand...

Jake, there are many Colourist out there who don't understand the Red SDK and hence use the user settings stored in the RDM file, often funky colours settings and a Rec709 gamma. Many cameramen got burned by incompetent colourists and funky clients screwing up their pictures. And they wonder why.

I find the question valid. In the modern times deeper knowledge of colour is a must for a good director of photography. Understanding of what is happing "under the hood" and being not totally dependant on the genius of a colourist is not a bad idea.

Hans
 
Hans von Sonntag said:
Jake, there are many Colourist out there who don't understand the Red SDK and hence use the user settings stored in the RDM file, often funky colours settings and a Rec709 gamma. Many cameramen got burned by incompetent colourists and funky clients screwing up their pictures. And they wonder why.

I find the question valid. In the modern times deeper knowledge of colour is a must for a good director of photography. Understanding of what is happing "under the hood" and being not totally dependant on the genius of a colourist is not a bad idea.

Hans
Click to expand...

I must say I recognize this description and reasoning!
 
Thx for the infos!
What happened hier is that my on set workflow is based an the assumption, that grading in a pro envoirment always starts with RAW, just like a film negative. So as I expose on set using the exposure tool (clipping is referred to raw) I would expect to see my highlights not overexpose while grading. Now that the hole show has been pre graded for weeks (without me) based on RG3/4, I have some clips looking not good. I only use RG3/4 as an on set video out for Director and clients. Often I will say "don't worry, nothing is clipping, all is there (it's RED after all;-), I'll bring them highlights back in post. So much to that for now, I screwed up, should have communicated better with post. Anyway most looks good and I'll do better next time;-).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top