FLUT Science...

[Steve Sherrick]

Ava, look what Santa Jim left in Dad's stocking. Santa Jim never disappoints.

Shot on RED of course.

 

[PatC]

This is wonderful.

 

[Michael Hastings]

I don't live in the US but still find it baffling that on one hand the US seems to be very open place and yet its laws seem to be extremely restrictive.

Why is it "restrictive" to have securities laws that promote fairness and limit the ability to manipulate stock prices? (Not to mention that many other countries have similar laws regarding their public companies.)

My larger point was that there is a lot of knocking of Sony/Pan/Canon on REDUSER for having business models that encompass widely varying markets AND that have restrictions on how they can promote (restrictions based on valid potential problems with large public companies). I'm a longtime RED fan, but the RED good/everybody else bad "fanboyism" is unrealistic and unnecessary. RED; the REDONE; and future Epic and Scarlet can stand on their own without the trash talking and it may actually undermine the credibility and perception of professionalism of the community - and to some extent spill over to the camera itself.

 

[Tom Lowe]

I'm now completely comfortable shooting ISO 2000 (M-X)... Graeme and the boys have done some recent magic.

Jim

Get outa' town!!?! Now we're talking!

:w00t: :cheers2: :thumbup1: :emote_happyhappy: :001_tt1: :beer: arty:

 

[Jannard]

Does that apply even at higher ASAs?

Yes.

Jim

 

[Ketch Rossi]

HA ha Tom, you crack me up buddy, but I do share your enthusiasm, as we know very well what this means, "LESS LIGHTING COST" even so proper lighting will be off course needed just the same as to create a particular mood and or effect, but that amount of it will be greatly decreased, and with it, so will your budget!

I'm sure will see more of this coming before Epic/Scarlet ship..

 

[Frank Weeks]

I just hope Red never goes public. Jim can remain open and Red's transparency will remain intact.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

I just hope Red never goes public. Jim can remain open and Red's transparency will remain intact.

I'm actually working with taking 2 companies Public, and you can always structure the company in such a way that no matter how many few Shares you actually keep, you remain the leading force in control of the company's decisions, I would not ever do it any other way, and I'm pretty sure, neither would Jim, we al can see how much He cares for RED.

 

[Milan Nikolic]

Thanks Jim and Marry Christmas to all of you in RED

 

[Derek Wan HKSC]

Some of this new science will go into a firmware build for the RED ONE. But a lot of this is "post science"... meaning it is just better with whatever you have shot or will shoot. EPIC and Scarlet have a bit more of the capability built in (FLUT Control)... but the RED ONE definitely improves with much of this.
Jim

So my earlier footage was shot with a "new camera" that doesn't even exist yet and they will look better later?

That's a wonderful thing. It's a news almost as good as that the Epic is shipping, just almost.

 

[David Battistella]

So my earlier footage was shot with a "new camera" that doesn't even exist yet and they will look better later?

That's a wonderful thing. It's a news almost as good as that the Epic is shipping, just almost.

Yep.

because of RAW it has been like this since day one with RED. I've got stuff on early builds 14 that looks better than the day it was photographed.

RAW is the power of RED.


David

 

[Brook Willard]

Yes.

Jim

Excellent. So tools like false color, waveforms and histograms will all read accurately at all ASAs! That'll be a fantastic update. Coupled with a reworked colorspace and what I can only assume to be more consistent video boards, it sounds like the HD output from the camera will be much more akin to a traditional HD camera [aka accurate, trustworthy] than what I often explain as a very good video tap! Can't wait.

 

[Scott Snare]

Exciting times to be sure. RAW has made it possible to shoot efficiently on set, quickly do a basic one light and really work the color magic in post. It has really helped control out production costs and allowed much greater flexibility. Can't wait for the new color science and cameras.

 

[Jannard]

Excellent. So tools like false color, waveforms and histograms will all read accurately at all ASAs! That'll be a fantastic update. Coupled with a reworked colorspace and what I can only assume to be more consistent video boards, it sounds like the HD output from the camera will be much more akin to a traditional HD camera [aka accurate, trustworthy] than what I often explain as a very good video tap! Can't wait.

You sure went around the block with that one...

Jim

 

[Pawel Achtel]

I have been on email all today and tonight with Jarred, Graeme, Deanan, and Rob working on color science stuff. We are hooked on this program. We are nuts. No question about it. But some of you are here also. What's your excuse?

Jim

My excuse is attached.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Crazy is just what the dull call those with inspiration to excuse their mediocrity.

You aren't crazy. Just motivated.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

I'm now completely comfortable shooting ISO 2000 (M-X)... Graeme and the boys have done some recent magic.

Jim

Does this mean that I may get usable footage even if I forget to take the lens cap off. :blushing:

 

[Brook Willard]

You sure went around the block with that one...

Jim

Took it for a run with the best possible intentions. While the output on the camera will always be one possible interpretation of RAW, being able to monitor with greater color and exposure accuracy [both of which are assumptions or inferences] will be of huge benefit to more HD-saavy DPs who are used to cameras like the Genesis and F35. If you thought I ran with it last time... here goes.

As a DIT, I'd love to be able to combine elements of different cameras.

When I do HD shows, I hate all the cable, tent, zillion dollar calibrated monitors, tape decks, etc. I have mixed feelings on live painting, but I do like things like the GDP that allow me to put an accurate, reproducible LUT onto the image. I don't like the wiring and nonsense surrounding it, but the simple concept of an accurate, reproducible and specific LUT is marvelous.

When I do RED shows, I love the simplicity of the camera setup, the untethered nature and the freeform style that stems from shooting RAW [light it, frame it, expose it, shoot it... do the rest later]. The in-camera painting [LUT preview, if you will] is limited by design, which is a mixed blessing. I love not having to use it [I always recommend shooting straight REDspace and grading afterwards], but I've been on shows where it is requested and there's no other workflow.

The bummer of that workflow [other than the difficulty of using the joystick to generate a LUT - something you guys have tackled with selectable looks on the RED ONE and the future options with the Epic] is the inherent inaccuracy. It's great as a broad-strokes tool in situations where people either want a basic LUT generated or the creative parties [DP/DIT] will be involved to the end of production and can have a final say in color correction... but there are situations where it doesn't work.

Since it lacks a "true" black point or a configurable white point [REDspace's shoulder when compared to linear, for example], it can be tricky to use for delivery [something that is often requested]. It also has a fairly coarse curve and basic color settings. The settings are also controlled on a computer monitor [instead of a truly calibrated broadcast monitor with hardware scopes] and is subject to all of the associated inaccuracies like gamma, viewing angle, 6-bit laptop displays, environment, etcetera. [note: while broadcast monitors are subject to some of these same obstacles, people tend to treat a $15,000 HD-SDI monitor differently than a MacBook]. Also keep in mind that different applications interpret the metadata/RSX/LUT/etc. data a little differently [particularly depending on what version of the SDK they're built around], sometimes resulting in potentially catastrophic gamma and color temperature shifts. Don't take this the wrong way at all, it makes perfect sense and is fantastic for what it is designed for! The bummer is that people hear "look on set" and "free" and run with it a little too far sometimes. It puts me in a tremendously difficult position as a DIT, because I'm asked to generate a LUT that may cause more problems than good if it's not handled properly... and I lack the types of control and accuracy checking I'm used to!

This type of approach works great on some projects as I've mentioned. The problem is when people who are used to another kind of on-set LUT expect the same iron-clad results... and they expect it for free on a laptop without the big equipment! On a commercial it's very tough, because the material leaves the DP's hands on the day with either no look or a relatively vague LUT that can be misinterpreted due to some of those variables. Commercials sort of are what they are though.

I've been involved in longer narrative projects [some very recently] that have elected to use that approach and in each case they had MAJOR post issues regarding color and communication from set to post. Now like I said in my post a few days ago, if you go into a project with the right knowledge, experience and workflow, you won't have a problem! The problem comes from people trying to stretch a workflow outside of what it was designed for... and expecting results/accurcy that can't be generated on a timeframe that wants yesterday on a budget that doesn't exist.

My current solution is to shoot in REDspace and generate accurate, reproducible LUTs on set [on a calibrated HD-SDI monitor using hardware or software scopes] using Gamma & Density's 3cp. REDspace serves as a terrific preview LUT at the camera and people accept it as a really awesome video tap. The real color action happens at the cart after the image has been shot. Each camera gets calibrated with a base LUT to remove any variation between sensors and very detailed LUTs are generated from within 3cp. You can create very complex looks on set and communicate them effectively, accurately and nondestructively to post. It can generate LUTs for just about any DI system, so it's all "standard" based and just sort of works. I've had wonderful luck with it

I've used this workflow to generate some very dramatic looks for certain shows. We used it on the second season of Southland [episodes will air on TNT in a few months] as an example. We actually expose "perfectly" at the camera most of the time. All of the harsh, gritty, desaturated color look comes from 3cp on set. Since that show was so freeform, we couldn't just use a few coarse LUTs and rely on them. Every setup was different and had a different challenge or goal. The sky, the lighting, the sun, the uniforms, you name it. The curve manipulation we did on that show [on set] was immensely detailed to get the look we intended. And at the end of the day, it saved us tons of money in post because we were able to bypass a supervised final color correction session because our looks were so effective on the day.

I've had success with that system on shows that have needed looks ranging from bleach bypass to saturated and sunny. It's pretty cool, and it just works. But my favorite part? No cables, no tethering, no tent, no live painting, no crap! We can shoot a show the way we used to do it with film and just spend a few minutes through the day dialing in a detailed LUT. And when it gets sent off with the "film break," it's nice to just know that what I saw on my monitor will show up at the post house, in editorial, on the DVDs and - eventually - on the screen.

[plus, since it works well with just about every digital camera out there including the Genesis and GDP, and has the means to calibrate a still camera to behave like Kodak and Fuji film stocks, it's a great tool for look management on multi-format shows... which so many shows are these days]

That's been my current approach to blend what I like about working as a HD DIT and what I love about working as a RED DIT. Take the pros of each and build a system that works. But the truth is that it doesn't need to work like that for every show. While I think longer narratives [features, television] can benefit greatly from that sort of workflow, shorter projects don't have the time to trust a relatively new workflow. They want a solution that works yesterday for free!

That's why I'm excited about what you're talking about. It sounds like a system that will bring some of the accuracies so many DPs and DITs are used to from the HD side of thing over to the RED side in a way that doesn't exist without stepping outside of the built-in RED workflow. These are all assumptions, so if I'm completely wrong... just take them as requests. But if I had to guess about what the purpose of FLUT [or perhaps the unnamed look system for the new cameras] is, I could only assume that it's designed to build upon what we already have. So to me, that would be a universal look that can travel from camera to computer and back again. It'd be a LUT that can stick with footage all the way through post. It'd be a LUT with more detail, more parameters and more consistency through the hardware and software. It'd be something between what I can do with RSX files [not a DIT's friend] and what I can do with 3cp. Knowing you guys, it'll probably be controllable via wifi from somewhere on set.

If it's anything like what I'm hoping for, it'll empower those shorter or less-budgeted shows with more accuracy and specificity! That's what I mean by combining the best elements of different cameras.

Even if I'm completely off the deep end with my assumptions [which this post is full of], take them as recommendations or merely the hopes of a RED and HD DIT who's been around the block with this camera a few times. :thumbup1:

Now if you'll excuse me, it's 4:11 in the morning and I've just done another one of those big Brook braindump posts.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Brook,

you are totally right just because F(flexible)LUT and 3cP are pretty good way to go.

Hope that lot of people would learn from that to shoot properly with R-1-M-X.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

So to me, that would be a universal look that can travel from camera to computer and back again. It'd be a LUT that can stick with footage all the way through post. It'd be a LUT with more detail, more parameters and more consistency through the hardware and software. It'd be something between what I can do with RSX files [not a DIT's friend] and what I can do with 3cp. Knowing you guys, it'll probably be controllable via wifi from somewhere on set.

I have been dreaming of this for a long time. Fingers crossed.