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 :)

I just 'FLUT-ed' my pants.......

Dylan Macleod said:
It seems what we are talking about here already exists. no?

I can create looks and input them in to the camera.

Those looks (depending on the workflow) will travel with the footage and be applied to the dailies in a non destructive way (i.e. metadata). Then stripped away for the final color correct?
Click to expand...

yes. We can do all of this now.

We can do all of this already and I can see the point of creating a good look that all departments can sort of count on.

I think the FLUT will carry much more detailed information and mostly a lot more META DATA information to carry through the whole process.

This could mean detailed notation on looks and setups, lens data, t-stop, focal lengths, everything would always stay with the file so that when footage goes off to many different departments, the information will be contained in metadata.

META DATA is everything. The whole world and most very complex image science (sea dragon for example) totally relies on metadata. IT's not just podcasts and blogs.

So if the FLUT brings this kind of functionality to motion pictures then you can only start to imagine the possibilities. Best takes, log notes, scripting, it's endless all within one file.

David
 
FLUT could be abbreviation of Flexible Look Up Table.

Flexible LUT that you can carry back and forth between application and camera

or up and down between diverse "instant made" looks taken from the third parties, app and camera...

at the end it will appear in your final graded image ready to conform.

Flexible also means that you are always ready to start again from the basic RAW image...

and also something that is always ready to be adjusted by user, DP, colorist, etc,..

all people responsible for image look... it's not fixed, it's flexible,...

FLUT could be a "beauty queen" of New Color Science that was announced.
 
yeah dylan, you CAN do it now, but in a 'clunky' kind of way (haven't you wished - for what seems like years now - to be able to save the look in red alert to sd card and simply import it into camera). and it is not possible to carry over to other applications. hopefully the FLUT addressed both these issues.....and more.
 
If it's a 3D floating point LUT then we can feed it film response/saturation/color curves. Hopefully they'll ship with some stock response curves for film and give it a dual achronym as Floating/Film LUT.
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
If it's a 3D floating point LUT then we can feed it film response/saturation/color curves. Hopefully they'll ship with some stock response curves for film and give it a dual achronym as Floating/Film LUT.
Click to expand...

Interesting.

All you favourite film stock curves in a digital file that can be read from the RAW sensor data.

That would open up the digital creativity pool in a whole new way and it would bring the gap between film and digital even more.

David
 
If I decide to keep my Red One, and upgrade to the M-X chip, will there be a firmware upgrade to support FLUT looks?

If I keep my R1 and upgrade the chip, I want to make sure that the footage cuts nicely between the R1 and Epic-X on a 2 camera shoot. I don't want to be A/B-ing the client monitor and have to explain why the two images don't look alike... and that it's all Raw, and will look the same after the grade, etc..
 
Chris Parker said:
yeah dylan, you CAN do it now, but in a 'clunky' kind of way (haven't you wished - for what seems like years now - to be able to save the look in red alert to sd card and simply import it into camera). and it is not possible to carry over to other applications. hopefully the FLUT addressed both these issues.....and more.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Currently, you can NOT go into a post environment, with a colorist, grade some RAW R3D files, and create a look file and then load it into the camera.

Yes, I know you can manually input the tone values, etc. - I've done all the "hacks" and what we all want and need is - create a look in a post app - load it into the camera. It's really that simple and I am sure we will get that from RED sooner or later.
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
Exactly. Currently, you can NOT go into a post environment, with a colorist, grade some RAW R3D files, and create a look file and then load it into the camera.

Yes, I know you can manually input the tone values, etc. - I've done all the "hacks" and what we all want and need is - create a look in a post app - load it into the camera. It's really that simple and I am sure we will get that from RED sooner or later.
Click to expand...

I'm from a post background so I understand this thinking but what is the ultimate point. To pre-color everything? To make the client happy? To give dos creative choices?

I like the idea but I think there are are few pitfalls. One grade on one shot is a guideline, that's it and that means a specific grade can make a shot look bad when it could be salvaged.

I like the raw part of red and to me this feels like defeating the purpose a bit by bakng in a look. Like you would on an f35 or tape base digital camera.

I think it's important for film makers to understand the characteristics of the sensor, like you would a film stock, instead of focusing on looks that could limit the way you expose.

I will say that I love the creative possibilities it opens up and I am all for the evolution of this feature. In the wrong hands. Disaster.

David
 
Chris.

On controller sets you are absolutely correct. It's the cowboys I worry about. Those cowboys that end up blaming RED for their lack of knowledge.

In your, mine, or Marks hands it's a dream, but we can't pretend everyone understands the depth of this stuff.

It's about educating the clients and certain dp's as well. I mean you and I know that certain places in town are just transfering all their RED footage to Sr and then going back to the tape finish.

That's what I worry about.

David.
 
understood. and your worry then in NOT unwarranted.

the NUMBER ONE and GOLDEN RULE should always remain.....set exposure now, worry about color later......

for those in the advanced program, step this way and let us tell you about FLUT.....
 
Yeah

and finish R3D as that is th effing point of shooting Raw.

Course now, they'll be asking for the 1080p with the SONY FLUT out if the side if the epic to a tethered SR recorder.

It's to frustratingto talk about.

What is it about stupidity that makes everyone so stupid?

David
 
David Battistella said:
I like the raw part of red and to me this feels like defeating the purpose a bit by bakng in a look. Like you would on an f35 or tape base digital camera.
Click to expand...

But this is the magic of non-destructive color workflows. You don't have to "bake in" a look.

You can display the look on set, have the ability to make a quick minor tweek if desired, have more control over the look of the dailies, etc.

You are ADDING information. You are not giving anything up.

With respect to exposing correctly ... and "in the wrong hands" .... well ... you can apply that to anything and everything.
 
Mark

I totally agree with you, but we've seen some pretty messed up stuff here in TO, as in the wrong counter intuitive way of doing things.

I totally welcome thus technology. My main concern is the one I have had since the outset. One giant mess up affects all RED owners.

Client education, by people like me and you, has been a massive part of helping people see and understand the benefits of shooting RED. This is a pretty conservative town and, as I stated, places here are treating red mags as a film role, putting RED footage to SR and then never revisiting the R3D.

My experience has been that while we really understand this stuff and can explain it well to people, many other interests can be threatened and thwarted by misinformation.

I don't mean to stray. Believe me, I totally understand this and agree with you.

David.
 
And to answer my own questions.

Why do I care if other people are messing up the way RED footage can be processed. I know that I will do my homework and do it the right way for me and for my clients.

Seeing or hearing about retardo workflows is a pet peeve of mine.

Bring on the FLUT!!!!

I can handle it, I'm a big boy!

David
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
Exactly. Currently, you can NOT go into a post environment, with a colorist, grade some RAW R3D files, and create a look file and then load it into the camera.

Yes, I know you can manually input the tone values, etc. - I've done all the "hacks" and what we all want and need is - create a look in a post app - load it into the camera. It's really that simple and I am sure we will get that from RED sooner or later.
Click to expand...

Now THAT is what I'm talkin' about!
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
But this is the magic of non-destructive color workflows. You don't have to "bake in" a look.

You can display the look on set, have the ability to make a quick minor tweek if desired, have more control over the look of the dailies, etc.

You are ADDING information. You are not giving anything up.

With respect to exposing correctly ... and "in the wrong hands" .... well ... you can apply that to anything and everything.
Click to expand...

Exactly. We don't have to bake it in. Just give us a better system to help it be better managed in post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top