Aaron michaels
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2015
- Messages
- 291
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
Well I've worked with Mike bay on all of the transformers from film to digital to grading and with Steven .S Indiana Jones, also the book of ELI
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Well I've worked with Mike bay on all of the transformers from film to digital to grading and with Steven .S Indiana Jones, also the book of ELI
Well I've worked with Mike bay on all of the transformers from film to digital to grading and with Steven .S Indiana Jones, also the book of ELI
They still have to pick the lens, set the exposure, and compose the shot. The camera does none of that. I once congratulated a DP on a beautiful car commercial I worked on, and he laughed and kind of shrugged and said, "it was all lit by god. This was just a case of picking the right kind of day, the right location, and putting the camera in the right place, then waiting for the light." But it was still the DP's judgement that created the shot. I would bet you could take five amateurs who would not be able to get a shot that looked that good in the same place with the same camera. The color correction on that particular spot probably didn't add more than 20% to what was already there.That argument is only partially relevant and does not apply in a lot of situations. Like a landscape shot of a mountain!
There is nature cinematographers that only work with existing light, no actors, no art department, no costume. There works looks stunningly cinematic and impressive.
Exactly. Very well-said, Mike.Even Stefan would say that his look creation techniques yield much better results when the basic look is done in production (he's told me that, and many others as well). And as a colorist myself I heartily agree. Nobody here is saying that grading is not important, or that it does not add value and creativity. Of course it does. But images are always best when you're enhancing what's already there, not when you're turning it into something it's not.
Bollocks. What is this "proper image" you speak of? A "proper image" is whatever looks good and you don't need a ISO standardized rec709 curve to achieve that. In fact 99.9% of REDUsers are working in sRGB which is a totally different curve from rec709. So if they grade on an sRGB computer monitor they *shouldn't* be using a rec709 LUT. It's doubly nonsense because RG4 *is* an "arbitrary contrast" curve. It's just a random curve that RED thought would look good. It's no more "correct" or wrong than any other.
We do that all the time. RLF image is a Cineon curve added to a linear light RAW image from the sensor and so is the RedGamma. Based on your theory, you should use contrast curve ONLY once and ONLY when working with linear light images, like in case of working with ACES, because that is the only instance, where you would apply curve only once without adding it to another...You know what you *shouldn't* be doing? Applying a contrast curve on top of another contrast curve. You can start to get odd blending issues where the two curves conflict and then you get either banding or else solarization. Starting from RLF is the most neutral curve you can start from. In fact the RG4 curve is relative to RLF as a starting point.
But is Gavin writing about s-type contrast curves? There's definitely issues stacking those, compared to using "simple" 3 point curves like LGG under a s-curve.