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 :)

Helium 8K "The Underdog" Post Workflow

E

Edward Khoma

Member
Joined
May 16, 2016
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hey guys!

It's my first time posting on here but I'm excited to bring you my writeup on the workflow for The Underdog.
We were fortunate enough to be able to put together this short film with such a short turnaround.

Hope you all enjoy my blog post! Would love you hear some feedback.

http://www.abandonvisuals.com/blog/underdog

Cheers!
 
Thank you! I didn't do much hands on shooting with it other than rigging it to various setups. But it was amazing! We own the Scaret W and the DSMC2 body style is a game changer. It was second nature to shoot with the Helium because of how similar it was to our Scarlet W until you realize you're recording 8K! The sensor is next level.
 
I think it is a great write up and I think it is awesome that you guys used some "canned LUT's" to create the look and that you managed to do it all in Premiere Pro. The fact that you guys pulled this off so quickly is a testament to how much the whole RED ecosystem has matured.

Thanks a lot for sharing.

David
 
Nice writeup. TL;DR: they wasted no time with Helium.

Good to see Adobe Premiere worked for you under such pressure. After so many terrible experiences last year, I'm still a bit gun-shy. But what little I've used the new release, it does, finally, seem production-ready.
 
Did you notice any difference with the helium in low light/noise handling compared to your S-W dragon sensor? Other than the obvious resolution/crop difference. I realize it's apples to oranges;) just trying to find out how this helium handles the light. Did you use a lot of lighting on set too?
 
Brody_B said:
Did you notice any difference with the helium in low light/noise handling compared to your S-W dragon sensor? Other than the obvious resolution/crop difference. I realize it's apples to oranges;) just trying to find out how this helium handles the light. Did you use a lot of lighting on set too?
Click to expand...

We didn't have the luxury of extra time to experiment with various ISOs. But we shot the night scenes in ISO 2000 and I played with pushing it to 6400 for testing in post and the noise was less than what I'd expect to see from our S-W. ISO 2000 is impressively clean with the S-W though. Just about every scene was lit with either artificial light all around or bounce lights, depending on the scene mood. In the blog you can see a few before and after grade still that show how bright the scenes actually were.
 
Really nice write up/article - and a great finished piece.
 
If I can offer a dissenting word: I feel like too much of the post feels like a commercial for the $59 LUTs featured in the story.

I mean no criticism to the filmmaker, and the pictures are fine, the lighting is fine, the editing is terrific, and the idea for the short is very good. Clearly, Edward is a talented guy.

But don't assume that going with so-called "look LUTs" is the right way or the only way to go. It's possible to make the same or better pictures with more control with real color-correction software like Baselight or Mistika or Nucoda or Pablo or Resolve. A LUT is not a subtitute for a look that's been specifically crafted and tailored for a real-world project from scratch... which is what an actual colorist does. (And trust me, I've done short-turnaround projects with horrific deadlines before. It just takes experience and the right gear.)

There are three dozen companies out there on the net selling $29.95 LUT packages, and make no mistake: they're all different, they're all made with questionable color science, they all alter the picture in unpredictable ways, and they are not so much color correction as they are color changing. They are not a replacement for keys, windows, masks, layers, complex secondaries, defocus, and the kind of manipulation you can only do in actual color correction. The same thing is true for sound, VFX, and editing: there is no plug-in that does these things automatically. That's my only objection to the article.
 
Marc Wielage said:
If I can offer a dissenting word: I feel like too much of the post feels like a commercial for the $59 LUTs featured in the story.

I mean no criticism to the filmmaker, and the pictures are fine, the lighting is fine, the editing is terrific, and the idea for the short is very good. Clearly, Edward is a talented guy.

But don't assume that going with so-called "look LUTs" is the right way or the only way to go. It's possible to make the same or better pictures with more control with real color-correction software like Baselight or Mistika or Nucoda or Pablo or Resolve. A LUT is not a subtitute for a look that's been specifically crafted and tailored for a real-world project from scratch... which is what an actual colorist does. (And trust me, I've done short-turnaround projects with horrific deadlines before. It just takes experience and the right gear.)

There are three dozen companies out there on the net selling $29.95 LUT packages, and make no mistake: they're all different, they're all made with questionable color science, they all alter the picture in unpredictable ways, and they are not so much color correction as they are color changing. They are not a replacement for keys, windows, masks, layers, complex secondaries, defocus, and the kind of manipulation you can only do in actual color correction. The same thing is true for sound, VFX, and editing: there is no plug-in that does these things automatically. That's my only objection to the article.
Click to expand...


Hi Marc,

Thank you for your input and kind words. In no way shape or form do LUTs replace the need for a colorist. If we had the luxury of sending the film to a coloring house, we would have. But we were very limited on time so it was the fastest way to achieve the looks in house. I have tried dozens of other LUTs from other companies and a lot of them aren't good. I understand LUTs are made based off the footage you shoot so expecting random LUTs to just work isn't right. These LUTs are all solid and allowed us to bring the desired emotions of the scenes. So I felt the needed to mention them in my blog because it was a part of the post production that I figured everyone should know about and I speak passionately about products I believe in. I had no intention of discrediting any colorists because they are very valuable on all projects.
 
Marc Wielage said:
If I can offer a dissenting word: I feel like too much of the post feels like a commercial for the $59 LUTs featured in the story.

I mean no criticism to the filmmaker, and the pictures are fine, the lighting is fine, the editing is terrific, and the idea for the short is very good. Clearly, Edward is a talented guy.

But don't assume that going with so-called "look LUTs" is the right way or the only way to go. It's possible to make the same or better pictures with more control with real color-correction software like Baselight or Mistika or Nucoda or Pablo or Resolve. A LUT is not a subtitute for a look that's been specifically crafted and tailored for a real-world project from scratch... which is what an actual colorist does. (And trust me, I've done short-turnaround projects with horrific deadlines before. It just takes experience and the right gear.)

There are three dozen companies out there on the net selling $29.95 LUT packages, and make no mistake: they're all different, they're all made with questionable color science, they all alter the picture in unpredictable ways, and they are not so much color correction as they are color changing. They are not a replacement for keys, windows, masks, layers, complex secondaries, defocus, and the kind of manipulation you can only do in actual color correction. The same thing is true for sound, VFX, and editing: there is no plug-in that does these things automatically. That's my only objection to the article.
Click to expand...

I don't know whats worse. Promoting a lut package in one single post, or promoting your own services in just about every post you make. :)
 
Steven Borja said:
How did you create the bloom effect during the flashbacks? in-camera using crystal in front of lens?
Click to expand...

The DOP used various diopters in front of the lens for the in camera lens distortions. You can also use crystals or any other glass element.
 
Nice movie. Great job guys. Its really impressive that you could do the movie so quickly, haha, I can't believe it :D
Hope to see more... in 8k of course ;)
Best wishes,
Andreas
 
Björn Benckert said:
I don't know whats worse. Promoting a lut package in one single post, or promoting your own services in just about every post you make. :)
Click to expand...
Naaa, I'm not promoting anything. Edward is up in Sacto and can use anybody he wants anywhere in the country. I'm just one guy. This is no different than simply pointing out that there's many different ways to accomplish jobs like this. LUTs are kind of a symptom of companies who are trying to hoodwink well-intentioned filmmakers into thinking there are easy ways to get certain looks. The reality is that cinematography is hard, sound mixing is hard, editing is hard, VFX is hard, and color correction is hard. There are no easy ways, there are no automatic buttons, and there is no plug-in for talent.

Edward and I have had some pleasant, non-confrontational conversations in email, and I think he's a good guy who does good work. I would have zero problem if he or his crew learned Resolve or any other program and just color-timed their show themselves. I think they would see very quickly that LUTs are very, very limiting. I have far more problems with the 189 people on the net selling LUTs, basically promoting a false shortcut for $39.95.
 
Marc Wielage said:
I have far more problems with the 189 people on the net selling LUTs, basically promoting a false shortcut for $39.95.
Click to expand...

I think if you were honest with yourself, you'd admit your main problem is knowing how many filmmakers out there are actually perfectly happy with the results they get from using LUTs and tweaking. There are plenty of projects where that approach makes far more sense than using a colorist. And vice versa. A colorist is essential for many jobs too. But the approach can work (this project is one just one example that it does work) and it's not just the exceptions anymore. It's pretty common depending where you look. Don't get me wrong. The internet is littered with disasters. But they made the right choice here based on what was said and the result they got.
 
When a LUT or any other color correction is performed on proxy files in Premiere, how and when do the changes make it into the R3D files? Are these changes made at the metadata level or in some kind of sidecar file for CC? I would think that a LUT might impact a R3D differently than it would a lightweight ProRes file.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top