Dual waveform for HDR-X?

[Corrado Silveri]

Wondering about a dual waveform color coded in Redcine-X just to tweak out the best from HDR-X images..
What's your thoughts?

 

[jake blackstone]

Completely unnecessary, because you don't tweak individual A and X streams.

 

[Corrado Silveri]

Ok, but anyway you can check visually the amount of data that you're actually using of the "X" stream.
Or I'm completely wrong?

 

[jake blackstone]

Ok, but anyway you can check visually the amount of data that you're actually using of the "X" stream.
Or I'm completely wrong?

Exactly, visually. What would the WFM tell you, that you can't see yourself? Do you want to start using the WFM monitor on every single keyed matte too, while grading? Completely unnecessary complexity.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

What would the WFM tell you, that you can't see yourself?

In the POV of the camera tools used to meter HDRX.

Do you know what we can actually see in the view finder when using the HDRX? My understanding (wich is not yet much...) is that you can see A track as usual and make a "guess" on the amount of X you want...

Why don't you see a combined WFM, showing A & X on top of it, as usefull? Like 0 to 100% for 12 or so stops and from 100% to XXX% the dialed in stops of the X track.

Curious how the metering of HDRX is done in camera.

Pat

 

[Corrado Silveri]

Ok, I get your point. And I have to admit that, when I grade on Pablo with a right Projection or calibrate monitor I rarely check the wfm, just for a final check of the shot.

Unfortunately, I use RCX only using the desktop preview. So I found myself continuosly checking the wave.

Anyway, I can check the composite of the two stream, without worrying about where the "X" start working, Ok.
Just, why not?

 

[jake blackstone]

Ok, I get your point. And I have to admit that, when I grade on Pablo with a right Projection or calibrate monitor I rarely check the wfm, just for a final check of the shot.

Unfortunately, I use RCX only using the desktop preview. So I found myself continuosly checking the wave.

Anyway, I can check the composite of the two stream, without worrying about where the "X" start working, Ok.
Just, why not?

Anything is possible, but if I was the developer, this would be so low on the list, that I would never get to it Output WFM is all you ever need.

 

[jake blackstone]

In the POV of the camera tools used to meter HDRX.

Do you know what we can actually see in the view finder when using the HDRX? My understanding (wich is not yet much...) is that you can see A track as usual and make a "guess" on the amount of X you want...

Why don't you see a combined WFM, showing A & X on top of it, as usefull? Like 0 to 100% for 12 or so stops and from 100% to XXX% the dialed in stops of the X track.

Curious how the metering of HDRX is done in camera.

Pat

You can see A and X separately, if so desired, as they alternate in the video stream. Well, at least that WAS possible, not sure on the latest RCX versions...

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Why a waveform?

Well if you are a colorist in studio, yeah, definitely just look at the picture.

If you are a poor colorist, like me, then you have crap to monitor with, and you have to really keep your eye on the scopes to make sure you aren't making one of several trillion errors your monitoring can cause.

Or, if you are working on a "strange system" like say a rented system for location.

Or ... if your viewing conditions aren't optimal. Like on location in changing sunlight. (Hey ... it happens!)

Here is the thing about RCX ... it supports cutting edge features of the Red system often well before other software developers. So, Red needs to do it "right" - and usually they have!

I would really like to see a WFM and Vectorscope added to the RCX systems ... and you should be able to monitor the A and X streams separately ... or have them overlaid. Probably a 3 way software toggle. (A by default, X on first click, A+X on second click, A on third click etc. A little indicator on the button itself should display what your scopes are looking at.) Maybe this setting could affect all the scopes in RCX simultaneously - or each scope could have its own button and "HDRx State"

Its not as much of an edge case as you may think- so I hope all these features get added in soon.

I'd also like to see in camera options as well that allow you to monitor the X signal, and possibly some basic linear blend of the two channels. (Doing that during recording would be asking a lot though!)

 

[jake blackstone]

Why a waveform?

Well if you are a colorist in studio, yeah, definitely just look at the picture.

If you are a poor colorist, like me, then you have crap to monitor with, and you have to really keep your eye on the scopes to make sure you aren't making one of several trillion errors your monitoring can cause.

Or, if you are working on a "strange system" like say a rented system for location.

If you're working with crappy monitor or you're working on a "strange system", then I think you have a bigger fish to fry, than to worry about monitoring the X stream on the WFM monitor

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

If you're working with crappy monitor or you're working on a "strange system", then I think you have a bigger fish to fry, than to worry about monitoring the X stream on the WFM monitor

Flip, possibly even pithy. Not useful.

Sure, I may have bigger fish to fry when you look at the big picture - but since I can't afford a nice skillet from Sur la Table then maybe you could at least let me get a nice flat rock slab I can heat up? You can fry up a great meal on a hot rock. They way you put it, I'd think you meant that I should just starve instead.

I shouldn't call my setup crap, its actually decent, but it could definitely be improved. I've definitely had to correct Red footage on crap systems though. My first Red jobs were done on a client's Mac Pro with Apple 30" monitor. That's it - no other monitoring, and no calibration other than Apple's. Actually that job also covers the bad viewing environment too - mixed tungsten, fluorescent and daylight with puke green walls.

And as for your comment on "strange systems" I think perhaps you may not know that entirely too many productions are not hiring the DIT cart and instead bringing their own computer for the DIT to work with. Also, there are DIT carts for rental without a DIT ... and often production won't pay for preproduction on those- just the minimum time to pick it up and get it to set. Heck ... did I say DIT? A lot of those productions assign a PA to offload data.

As camera kits go Red One is on the cheap side- there are still lots of 2/3" ENG bodies that cost more than a ready to run Red One kit.

There are lots of people from that world playing with Red, and they don't really get what they are buying into. There are a ton of others who are just starting out with Red and need the help.

From experience I can say that I can grade acceptably with all these disadvantages if I have scopes ... they don't even have to be particularly good.

Note I said "acceptably." Its far from my best work of course, and when I've seen some of that material later on systems better equipped for monitoring I've seen issues - but overall I can reliably push things in the right direction, and I can put the image pretty close to where I want it with surprising frequency, using just scopes.

Of course I bet you can do all that too - even though you probably have the luxury of never doing so.

If you haven't tried it lately, you should. Just power off all the monitors & projectors most of us covet, power down any hardware scopes, and set your computer monitor's calibration to its default. Drag a tungsten light source and a cheap fluorescent in the room and give it a whirl.

Now turn off your software scopes too and try again.

Every little bit helps of course, but as the system set up gets worse and worse, the value of the scopes goes through the roof.

Also, I know I've been talking about this as a colorist ... putting on my DP hat, having the scopes to allow me to look at both streams let's me know what I'm accomplishing. Shooting HDR is pretty new - revolutionary even. Sure, I can just think of it as 18 stop film and use my light meter ... but why limit what the DP can see? (or what the DIT can show them) If my A WFM is thick and the X WFM is thin ... well I could probably improve my exposure a bit. Why not have a look?

 

[Mauro Andreini]

Wondering about a dual waveform color coded in Redcine-X just to tweak out the best from HDR-X images..
What's your thoughts?

Redcine is not necessarily the best sofware for blending and /or grading HDRx files.

Take a look at this: http://vimeo.com/24636714

Unfortunately the cost of programs like Scretch are a little over what we would like to pay but just loking at this tutorial helps getting ideas for better manipulation of the data.
Full description given here, third video down the page.

http://blog.localheropost.com/

Not sure if the latest Eyeon Fusion supports all of the Red files but I’ve heard sombody is using that as well.