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 :)

Grading in REDLOGFILM vs Gamma3

This is all fine and good. Unfortunately, let's talk about the reality.
An overwhelming majority of users, grading Red RAW are the Resolve users. So, we open our project, select RLF gamma and we go into the viewing LUT selection. We're looking and looking and looking... but where is the RFL2Rec709 LUT??? I see ARRI's LogC2Rec709 there, but nowhere is there a LUT for working with Red RLF. Yeah, yeah, I heard numerous times, that RLF is a Cineon curve, so just go ahead and use Cineon2Rdc709 LUT. From where? Where do you propose an average user get it? I bet you, an overwhelming majority of users just give up and use ARRI's LUT. Do you think that's a good idea? Do you mind, that because Red failed to provide correct, universally accepted LUT, like had been done by ARRI, the Red files look all over the place? Colorists using whatever LUTs they can find, so are the VFX people. Could that be the reason why Red has such a poor perception in the market? Grame, please do everyone and Red a favor and RELEASE PROPER LUTS!!!
Thank you.
 
jake blackstone said:
This is all fine and good. Unfortunately, let's talk about the reality.
An overwhelming majority of users, grading Red RAW are the Resolve users. So, we open our project, select RLF gamma and we go into the viewing LUT selection. We're looking and looking and looking... but where is the RFL2Rec709 LUT??? I see ARRI's LogC2Rec709 there, but nowhere is there a LUT for working with Red RLF. Yeah, yeah, I heard numerous times, that RLF is a Cineon curve, so just go ahead and use Cineon2Rdc709 LUT. From where? Where do you propose an average user get it? I bet you, an overwhelming majority of users just give up and use ARRI's LUT. Do you think that's a good idea? Do you mind, that because Red failed to provide correct, universally accepted LUT, like had been done by ARRI, the Red files look all over the place? Colorists using whatever LUTs they can find, so are the VFX people. Could that be the reason why Red has such a poor perception in the market? Gramme, please do everyone and Red a favor and RELEASE PROPER LUTS!!!
Thank you.
Click to expand...

Which suites have the Cineon to 709 LUTs then?
 
jake blackstone said:
Obviously you missed the point. There is none to use with RLF in any suite.
Click to expand...

Nuke has a log2lin according to the user manual. Doesn't Scratch Assimilate handle R3D directly to Rec709 also?

edit:

How 'appropriate' are these solutions for handling RedLogFilm? Is there anyway to know without Red commenting officially?

I guess this gets to my greater point: isn't it down to the Colorist's eye; IOW, shouldn't a good colorist be able to glance at a grade and tell you if the right LUT was used (or not at all), and if not, why is the use of a LUT so crucial?

Are LUTs training wheels for colorists, an efficiency for professionals, or essential artistic tools?
 
Last edited:
Yes that would be a fantastic addition to davinci
 
Brett Harrison said:
Nuke has a log2lin according to the user manual. Doesn't Scratch Assimilate handle R3D directly to Rec709 also?

edit:

How 'appropriate' are these solutions for handling RedLogFilm? Is there anyway to know without Red commenting officially?

I guess this gets to my greater point: isn't it down to the Colorist's eye; IOW, shouldn't a good colorist be able to glance at a grade and tell you if the right LUT was used (or not at all), and if not, why is the use of a LUT so crucial?

Are LUTs training wheels for colorists, an efficiency for professionals, or essential artistic tools?
Click to expand...
Please read my corrected response Brett. Yes, Nuke.
On the other point, it is obvious, that you're not a colorist by trade:-)
No colorist can decide what LUT to use by simply looking at the LOG image. Viewing LUTs are not creative LUTs. They are precise tools, that must be used for grading LOG images.
Without standard LUT for RLF there is present state of affairs in red post- complete anarchy.
On the other hand, ARRI shows how it's done properly.
 
jake blackstone said:
Please read my corrected response.
On the other point, it is obvious, that you're not a colorist by trade:-)
Without standard LUT for RLF there is present state of affairs- complete anarchy.
Click to expand...

Sorry Jake you did a ninja edit - I hit reply on your original response and then went googling while you edited.

I am trying to learn. No professional would ask fundamental questions about the craft and call oneself professional - but I never made such a claim. I am hoping to learn something from you and other professionals.
 
Brett Harrison said:
Sorry Jake you did a ninja edit - I hit reply on your original response and then went googling while you edited.

I am trying to learn. No professional would ask fundamental questions about the craft and call oneself professional - but I never made such a claim. I am hoping to learn something from you and other professionals.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I though about your question and realized my mistake. Apparently, not fast enough:-)
This is exactly my point. I can't understand, while confusion with missing LUTs continues and not a peep from Graeme. Good move Red.
I'm sure Dragon will make it all better...
 
jake blackstone said:
Yeah, I though about your question and realized my mistake. Apparently, not fast enough:-)
This is exactly my point. I can't understand, while confusion with missing LUTs continues and not a peep from Graeme. Good move Red.
I'm sure Dragon will make it all better...
Click to expand...

I am hoping the new color science work will provide a general purpose solution will bring with it a more robust solution to this problem.

Was certainly hoping you would entertain my naive questions though in the mean time. ;-)
 
Brett Harrison said:
I am hoping the new color science work will provide a general purpose solution will bring with it a more robust solution to this problem.

Was certainly hoping you would entertain my naive questions though in the mean time. ;-)
Click to expand...

Sorry Brett. It doesn't work that way. It's not a problem. Every Log image operates this way. It's Red's unwillingness to do what they must, just like any other camera manufacturers, that's the problem.
It would take an hour or so for Graeme to cook proper LUTs, may be less? Why this has not happen already is complete mystery to me.
 
jake blackstone said:
No colorist can decide what LUT to use by simply looking at the LOG image. Viewing LUTs are not creative LUTs. They are precise tools, that must be used for grading LOG images.
Click to expand...

In fairness that's not what I said.

I'll rephrase: can a colorist look at a finished image and tell if a LUT was or was not applied to RLF (I don't mean an untouched RLF file, just in case you're thinking that - I mean of course a RLF that was graded, tweaked etc, curves applied in the suite)?
 
Brett Harrison said:
In fairness that's not what I said.

I'll rephrase: can a colorist look at a finished image and tell if a LUT was or was not applied to RLF (I don't mean an untouched RLF file, just in case you're thinking that - I mean of course a RLF that was graded, tweaked etc, curves applied in the suite)?
Click to expand...


The answer is still no.
 
Brett Harrison said:
You're toying with me now :-) You said you can't tell by eye if a grade of RLF had a LUT applied or not.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be coy. It's just fundamental to use a proper LUT. You can get a decent looking image without using Log2Lin LUT, but it will never be as good as the one, that uses correct LUT and it will take you a lot of time. And more important, you'll never get a proper skin tones without using proper LUT using Log images. Which brings us back to the original question:
Where can we get one?
 
Brett Harrison said:
Which suites have the Cineon to 709 LUTs then?
Click to expand...
Built into Baselight, for another. Cineon itself has a converter built in -- provided you can find somebody who still has their viewer software (which I think Kodak has let lapse in terms of patents).

jake blackstone said:
It's just fundamental to use a proper LUT. You can get a decent looking image without using Log2Lin LUT, but it will never be as good as the one, that uses correct LUT and it will take you a lot of time. And more important, you'll never get a proper skin tones without using proper LUT using Log images.
Click to expand...
At three different companies, we just came up with internal log -> lin LUTs by trial and error, looking at scopes, and checking on calibrated monitors. The LUTs didn't come up overnight; they were developed over time. Most of the stuff I've done has been with Truelight, and they've got this stuff down extremely well.

My usual thing is to drop a LUT in as the initial layer, then apply a curve on top of that to kind of bring the rest of the image into a general balanced range. One can make parallels to the old days of having log film scans then having a "one light pass" to just even out the exposure to get it 50% into the ballpark, still not hitting D-Min or D-Max. To me, dealing with a digital camera Raw file is just a higher-tech version of the same thing.

Not only is a log transfer anything you make of it, I could make the argument that a LUT is anything you make of it. As long as it steers you in the right direction and puts the images in the area you need it to be, then it works. I know a top engineer at a company I won't name who has often joked that a color-corrector could be regarded as "a continuously-variable LUT." He's not exactly right, but he's not exactly wrong, either.

I agree with your general observation that starting off with the right initial LUT makes the color correction that much easier, since you're not having to fight the basic image that's there.
 
jake blackstone said:
It's Red's unwillingness to do what they must, just like any other camera manufacturers, that's the problem.
It would take an hour or so for Graeme to cook proper LUTs, may be less? Why this has not happen already is complete mystery to me.
Click to expand...

Ah ok, now I understand why I never found one :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top