New Premiere integration

[Tom Dowler]

Don't really post on Reduser much these days, but wanted to make it 100% clear that the new Premiere integration, where all R3D files come in as RWG/Log3G10 no matter how they were set up/monitored on set, is the dumbest fucking change anyone has ever made in the history of changes.

Not sure if Red or Adobe is responsible, but clips should come in the way they were monitored on-set. End of story, period, the end. Anything else is stupid to a degree I didn't think was fucking possible.

 

[Chris Chitaroni]

I couldn't agree more. This seems like an absolutely insane decision.

I've been opening up an old version of premiere (2019) and importing all the footage into a project, then just closing 2019, and opening that project in 2021 and then the R3D files hold all the data the way it always did before. Dirty workaround.

 

[Mark A. Jaeger]

Tom,
So you're not happy with the change???

Just kidding - you made your position abundantly clear.

I wrote a similar letter today, keeping the expletives to myself, terminating a deal that had gone south. I really hope the Seller can read between the lines to understand my true feelings but as they're sensitive folk I felt I couldn't just tell them "FUCK YOU - I'M OUTA HERE" in spite of my considerable desire to do so. It is often stressful to NOT say what you really want to but I'm chillin' now.

 

[Robert Hart]

The old-old oftenchance story of "What goes in Adobe stays in Adobe." The change to C.C set me off properly cranky. They probably lost out on some with the subscription model but then return on subsequent investment for a lesser than potential client base than they otherwise would have attracted probably balances out for the company. I like so many have moved across to DaVinci Resolve and use Premiere CS6 only for MiniDV capture of archive these days. HDV capture is now broken. The choice of Sony cams has been severely culled. I guess the next step might be Adobe buying out Blackmagic Design and shutting DaVinci Resolve down.

 

[Dane Henry]

Sent footage to editor....response "Everything is LOG, didn't expect to have to start from scratch on Color". I don't understand, so I do some research...floored to find this out, guess this new change happened a month ago for CC.

I truly do not understand. And the worst part is you cant do a global change to the Master Settings of all the clips in the Project Bin....to at least change the Output transform Gamma & Colorspace.

To add to the frustration...Red Cine X is now totally useless besides exporting proxies or Prores for post (with an Adobe workflow). I use it as a one light grade, saved to RMD, before handing footage to Post.

The work around of creating a LUT in Redcine to apply to a Lumitri preset is a step backward, a joke really...it forces the Editor to not only create this LUT, but once applied it "red" render bars forcing a render to make viewable.

Wow, for delivering to adobe eiditors, this has blown up the workflow.

Are the other NLE's ignoring RMD?

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Perhaps the thread title should be Premieme dis-integration...

Cheers - #19

 

[Loren Simons]

Hi All,

This was my proposed change.

The previous implementation had multiple problems, the two main ones being;

1. People were working with reduced dynamic range image data, as they were making their Lumetri color changes ON TOP of essentially a baked Rec.709 SDR image, as opposed to working BEHIND the LUT and with the full dynamic range of the log image, as would happen in a proper color managed workflow or if you set the LUT as a creative LUT in a Lumetri Effects layer. This was a poor reflection of the camera’s capabilities.

2. The other goal here was creating consistency for how footage comes in across all NLE/post tools, so that a project that does round tripping between multiple pieces of software were all starting at a guaranteed common ground, something that has wreaked havoc on productions before.

I also made the assumption that in today’s landscape an editor recieving log footage wouldn’t be earth shattering, with every major camera at every price point offering a log image. We are hoping to get our LUT into Premiere so that a user won’t have to add it manually, and ultimately, yes a project wise color management / R3D decode In Premiere would be the dream.

But there are solutions for those of you (or your clients) who do not want to or do not have the ability to work in a color managed workflow.

For those of you who still want to work with an RMD workflow like Dane, that is still entirely possible as your RMD’s are not ignored. What is ignored is the display dependent output transform since a color managed workflow has been selected in camera.

Simply make all of your adjustments in RCX like you normally would, but instead of selecting your Output Tone Map and Highlight Roll Off under Output Transform, click “Bypass IPP2 Output Transform” - essentially disabling the Color Managed workflow. Then, create and import the equivalent Output Tone Map LUT in RCX (only have to do this once) and Apply it to the footage. This will then come into Premiere as non-color managed and looking the same (on your same monitor) as it does in RCX with all of your adjustments. You can do this in a batch manner in RCX as I show in the video below.

 

[Loren Simons]

If your workflow does not include RCX - you can still deliver your client a finished non-color-managed image directly from camera.

Simply set your camera’s Image Pipeline to the non-color-managed Output Color Space of REDWideGamutRGB, and apply a LUT in camera which brings your footage into your desired color space. This could even be an IPP2 LUT with your preference of output tone map and highlight roll off generated from RCX, or one of the new artistic LUTS we’ve put on our downloads page. These clips will now come in automatically as Rec.709, or whatever color space your LUT is taking it to.

I have uploaded a video demonstrating both of these workflows here.

I hope that helps clear up your workflows and explains the logic behind what some may have felt was a “stupid” decision.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Props to Loren for owning this choice. With workflows, more control typically means more complexity. There's also the built expectations of the community and the wide range of experience/knowledge levels in the workforce. Clear explanations in the documentation are crucial and changes in process should be prominently noted. Never changing is not a realistic option...

Cheers - #19

 

[Loren Simons]

Thanks Blair,

I still adamantly believe this is the right process, and I have received a lot of positive feedback on the change. And usually when I receive feedback like this, these explanations help make sense of it and assure people they still can maintain a similar workflow.

But - you are right - we should have rolled this change out with much clearer documentation on how to maintain the previous workflow like I’ve explained here. I will work on writing up an article for our support page this week.

 

[Chris Chitaroni]

Loren your logic makes sense to a very specific subset of shooters. I would argue that the vast majority of people shooting on REDs were happy with the original way of importing footage and having it set up the way we had it set on the camera.

I'm a one man band shooting team. I need quick turn around for corporate/commercial clients. Adding that extra step of going into RCX to change literally anything adds time to my workflow and creates a huge headache for me. I agree with the original poster that this is not just a really bad implementation but also a complete misunderstanding of how the majority of people use RED cameras.


But with that being said - a great workaround to this problem is to import your R3D files into an older premiere version (2019 or similar) save the project, and then import that project into the newer premiere - they'll come in as shot.

 

[Loren Simons]

Chris,

Are you using a DSMC2 brain? Because there is also a solution for in-camera implementation in my post, which is setup once and done, and requires no change to yours or your clients post workflow if this is how they want to work.

One fair caveat is that, yes, there is no simple in-camera solution for our older brains that do not support in-camera LUTs.

For those cameras, I think the REDCINE-X workflow is simpler than the previous version Premiere one, but to each their own. I have uploaded a 60 second video showing the pre-treatment in RCX, of which 13 seconds are actually spent in RCX and the rest is in Premiere demonstrating that side.

If you're handing off footage to a client this could be part of your good practice of checking the delivery drive to ensure all footage was copied over correctly.

This change wasn't made in a vacuum. The team and myself have had countless discussions just like this one but with filmmakers wondering why footage looks different across different software, or why images looked double lutted in Premiere sometimes, or why the footage doesn't "feel" right because they were unable to pull back the highlights they were expecting to since none of the RAW meters were clipped in-camera.

 

[Chris Chitaroni]

Again I see your logic but it’s a solution to a problem that many of us never had. And from my point of view after 8 years of working with RED projects to all of a sudden have premiere import footage in any manner other than the way I shot it on my camera is absolutely a horrible workflow.

I’ll give you an example of why.

I go and shoot an event. I’m handing the raw footage off to an internal editing team who has never used RED before. They get the footage and it looks grey and muddy. An experienced editor might ask questions, but an inexperienced one - which is common with corporate and government clients which are my bread and butter - they’ll just assume I shot it badly and they’ll probably have a bad experience and never call me again.

You say this wasn’t developed in a vacuum and that may be true but it sure seems like it was created in an echo chamber. The majority of your users are not working in a Hollywood pipeline. Most of us are independent contractors working solo or in very small teams where these concerns about image pipelines are not a thing.

Why not prompt users when they import to choose whether to import as shot or flat? Give us the option?

Or - I guess the option is to just stop using premiere because this is not an issue in FCPx or DaVinci.

 

[Chris Chitaroni]

And I’ve spoken to dozens of colleagues - pro shooters - who either own, have owned or have shot on RED in the past and not a single one of them things this is a good idea. I’ll take your word for it that you’re getting compliments on the decision but I assure you this is more of a hinderance to your average shooter than you think.

 

[Brian Timmons]

Why not prompt users when they import to choose whether to import as shot or flat? Give us the option?

Or - I guess the option is to just stop using premiere because this is not an issue in FCPx or DaVinci.

This could be a good easy option that should satisfy many.

I don't edit with Premiere but like Chris I do have to deliver footage to others that do.

There are many editors who are not colorist and DO NOT want to have anything to do with LUTs, looks, Color tabs, etc.
Many clients also do minimal to no color correction of the material handed to them.

I go through a bit of extra effort to give a good one pass on the RAW settings before handing off just so I know the footage will look as intended and halfway decent after editing.

It's a bit frustrating that adjuments on my end may not translate to the edit and output stage.

Like Chris said provide an option.

Loren- I look forward to any white paper you have regarding the ins and outs of this workflow so I can pass it on to others I work with.

Brian Timmons
BRITIM/MEDIA

 

[DJ Meyer]

Corporate/commercial shooter here.

Love the new change.

 

[Chris Chitaroni]

DJ - why do you love it? I’m curious. How does it improve your workflow?

 

[Loren Simons]

Why not prompt users when they import to choose whether to import as shot or flat? Give us the option?

Or - I guess the option is to just stop using premiere because this is not an issue in FCPx or DaVinci.

Chris,

I would love a project wide settings in Premiere like FCPx and DaVinci have. No objection here, but that is out of our control. Please make the feature request to Adobe.

I go through a bit of extra effort to give a good one pass on the RAW settings before handing off just so I know the footage will look as intended and halfway decent after editing.

It's a bit frustrating that adjuments on my end may not translate to the edit and output stage.

Brian are you doing your one pass in RCX before handing off footage to the client like Dane? Or somewhere else? If RCX, your adjustments can still show up exactly how you intend with no change needed by the Premiere editor. If you haven't already please check out the two videos I made for this thread.

\I’m handing the raw footage off to an internal editing team who has never used RED before.

In this example, are you handing them a MINI-MAG or a hard drive which you've offloaded footage on? Assuming hard drive, and I'm also assuming you review the footage on the hard drive briefly to make sure everything transferred over properly. It's at this point I would recommend reviewing that footage in RCX, just clicking through a few clips at 1/4 res to make sure it's all there, and before closing out, applying that Preset to all clips in your bin to bake in your look.


Ultimately, by defaulting footage this way we make the widest range of workflows accessible.

By coming in Log3G10, to get to 709, it's just an application of a LUT, which can be done with a single drag and drop of a Lumetri Preset to all the footage in your bin. You can even send the Premiere Lumetri Preset along with your footage to the client. I have pre-made this preset and a small graphic to send to clients who aren't technical.

But if the footage came in baked 709/BT.1886, there is no way to get to Log other than the manual clip by clip process, a quick drop-on LUT or Preset for that isn't possible. So if someone wanted to do proper color adjustments with Lumetri, they would have to manually change every clip to RWG/Log3G10 before applying their LUT and working with the footage properly - and that is the biggest complaint I received.

 

[Brian Timmons]

Chris,

Brian are you doing your one pass in RCX before handing off footage to the client like Dane? Or somewhere else? If RCX, your adjustments can still show up exactly how you intend with no change needed by the Premiere editor. If you haven't already please check out the two videos I made for this thread.

Thanks for the reply Loren.
The step by step should be helpful and I will forward it along.

Brian Timmons
BRITIM/MEDIA

 

[Chris Chitaroni]

Loren thanks for the reply.

Again - I totally understand where you're coming from. I can see how its harder to add a LUT than remove it - but it still creates an extra step in my workflow that has not been there for the past 8 years of using RED cameras and because the workflow you're describing is totally alien to me. I've never heard of anyone having the problems you're describing - that is why this seems so backwards. And I stand by it. I still - after reading your explanations, watching your videos and hearing your logic think that this is a terrible idea and it's a solution to a problem that a very small number of users were experiencing.

I try to avoid using RCX because its just an extra step in a workflow that until now didn't need to be done. My footage came into Adobe as shot (which is how I wanted it to be) and any time I needed to do any tweaking it was easy enough to do in the Red Source Settings right inside of Adobe.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. It's really just one more reason to finally abandon Adobe and move over to Davinci.