On RED after talking with industry veteran.

[Rudi Herbert]

Hey all,

A few ruminations about RED after meeting with Mike Most (our familiar "mmost" member) at his facility Cineworks here in Miami. Mike was gracious enough to give me a couple of hours of his time to discuss RED based workflows and ideas for an upcoming project of mine I want to shoot on RED. For whatever is worth it, here are a few of my impressions after this meeting, some of which have just cimented thoughts I already had and others I just realized. Also, note that these are MY thoughts based on the conversation we had, not Mike's. In no particular order:

- Mmost, like Mark from Ofhowllywood or Gibby and others is an industry veteran, generous enough to share his knowledge with many of us who, at best, can aspire to reach that level some day. It would serve us well to listen carefully when these guys talk instead of jumping to defend our views right away. They are a great source of technical knowledge, not just ardent fanboys.

- Scratch is an AMAZING tool, not only for RED but for anything else. Mike's facility has a fully fledged Scracth suite, including the proverbial kitchen sink, hooked to a 2K projector and that was something worth experiencing. Scratch is akin to RED, a fraction of the cost of what a Da Vinci or an Inferno are, offering basically the same performance. Yes, it's not affordable for the Indie producer, or is it? Working a feasible deal with one of these facilities sounds more possible than not, and if you come to a color grading session having done your homework and know exactly how you want your scenes to look, I would argue the time savings would result in amazingly affordable prices. But yes, of course, there's also the After Effects, Color, Color Finesse, etc, way that many of us will continue to use for many a project, just be aware of what your options are before conceding that you can't "afford" it.

- RED produces amazingly clean footage, but this camera does clip highlights very, very, very, very much. It is one of its limitations, so if you're set on using it, accept it, and be prepared to deal with it. You will HAVE to expose for the highlights plain and simple, and be ready to use plenty of fill light on exteriors (lots of bounce cards should do the job if you want to stay the affordable way) and either light up interiors or night shots a LOT more than film if you don't want noise or be prepared to crush your blacks. Then again, the footage does look amazing, but the exposure needs to be cared for like a newborn.

- Wathever we hear, say or think, the truth is that RED is geared mostly towards Apple and FCP, plain and simple, at least, editorially speaking. Scratch does run on PC yes, but I have a feeling Scratch can run RED natively only because they were involved in writing the REDCINE and RED Alert software, but that's basically where the windows connection ends. This is bad news for those of us who are comfortable and happy working with Windows, or more precisely in my case, with Premiere and Adobe products. Right now, the only people doing anything about it are Cineform, but I really don't know what level of exactitude and reliability their from-redcode-to-cineform offering has since it is mostly untried and is basically designed without any help from RED whatsoever. And as you know if you've tried, working with Quicktime files on Windows based programs, though posible in theory, doesn't really work all that well all the time. So, at this moment, PC and Windows users have a rough patch ahead of them, where either you'll have to become a maverick and transcode, transpose and permutate files through different formats or basically bite the bullet and buy an FCP system. Which in my case, admiring as I am of Apple and their credo, I refuse to do because why should I be forced to start form scratch on a platform/program that, ardent fanboys aside, is not any better than that which I've taken years becoming ccomfortable with and proficient at?

So there, that's what came to mind after this visit with Mmost, and for what is worth, RED is here to stay and nothing will ever be the same. Now, if only certain kinks could be ironed out by the time the moment comes to decide whether to shoot that life defining project on RED...Why not, everything is subject to change, right Jim?

 

[BASSAM MSSALATIE]

i dont know that if you are thinking loudly honestly or what ?
i am not an expert at all by compare to Mmost,Ofhowllywood or Gibby
from what you are saying that i understand that Red has too much negative points especially thos about highlights clipping it is very scary:shiftyph34r: idea ,, i want confirmation from some experets here ..
2nd fear is about workspace this is realy nightmare . .
suppose red will work fine with indies productions and fillmakers ?:wacko:
how it will be indie and until now you can not do it by indie way ?:waaa:

 

[Tom Lowe]

Can you explain exactly what highlight clipping you are talking about? I'm not a DP so could you explain this to me? Does it basically mean blowing out skies and other bright areas? Is this essentially a question of dynamic range?

Sorry for the noobish question!

 

[M Most]

Hey all,

A few ruminations about RED after meeting with Mike Most (our familiar "mmost" member) at his facility Cineworks here in Miami.

Thanks for the kind words, Rudi. I really enjoyed meeting you as well.

One correction, just in case anyone is getting the wrong impression: Cineworks is not "my" facility other than the fact that I work there. The owners are Vinny Hogan and Tony Maiorana, both of whom I have tremendous admiration for.

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

I belive he means that the RED blows out the 110% IRE white more like a digital video camera vs film, which can still retain SOME linear detail in the highlights.

I personally would like to see a side by side with the RED and some nice Kodak Vision stock.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, bright areas clip faster than when shooting color negative. It seems that the RED is similar to other digital cameras (including DSLR's) in that particular regards, no surprise. You can control it to some degree with ND grads, polas, or exposing more to favor the brightest areas in the frame.

 

[Rudi Herbert]

Can you explain exactly what highlight clipping you are talking about? I'm not a DP so could you explain this to me? Does it basically mean blowing out skies and other bright areas? Is this essentially a question of dynamic range?

Tom,

First off, lest I incurr the wrath of the DRF's (Defenders of the RED Faith), like you, I've put a lot of hopes on RED to be the tool I need to bring a few of my dream projects to fruition. I want this camera to work, plain and simple. So, is what I saw a question of dynamic range? Technically, yes, it should be, but maybe not so. I don't doubt that under certain circumstances the camera is able to resolve 12, 13 stops, whatever, but judging from sample footage I saw today projected at 2 K, as well as clips I've been looking at since Crossing the Line, yes, skies blow out quite easily as do other areas of the image that are nowhere near the maximum of the exposure.

I don't know who, when, where, with what lenses and exposing how the footage I saw was shot, and ultimately it doesn't matter really, but the image was an exterior shot including slightly overcast skies over a beach and pier. On one particular grab, the frame was showing people fishing on a pier with just the slightest smidgeon of sky on the top of the image (overcast) and the histogram was shot way upwards, showing noticeable clipping. Now, I would understand this if you have very bright sunlit areas in the shot but this wasn't the case, and the image didn't look particularly overexposed otherwise because the minute Mike showed me his correction of the "problem", all other areas darkened up considerably. Maybe the image was overexposed, but if so, not by much. Was the image saveable? Yes, with a couple of strokes Mike brought it back and it looked fine at 2K, but was the clipping there? You bet. So, I'm no technician either but what I saw today reinforced my belief that the RED tends to clip highlights quite easily. So, I'm already planning to use LOTS of fill light even in exterior shots and more so obviously on interiors and low light, because save for that, the 4K resolution and the cine style DOF of the RED (not to mention the price) are worth any quirks to me. But hey, as it stands today, and for what my untrained but impartial eye can see, RED is not as flexible in latitude out in the field as it is shooting charts.

 

[Rudi Herbert]

It seems that the RED is similar to other digital cameras (including DSLR's) in that particular regards, no surprise.

And for whatever it's worth, I feel that this problem is worse with the RED than with DSLR's, which I've shot ad nauseum in the past five years and always had more headroom than this.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Silicon sensors are very linear. This is good, as linearity means for good colorimetry that doesn't change with level of light input. It also means that once a pixel saturates, you can get no more out of it. Clipping is therefore all or nothing. As you get brighter and brighter, there is no compression, no loss of detail (and due to a linear A-to-D process, actually you get more and more detail per stop as you get brighter and brighter, not less and less).

What does this mean? Well, you don't expose the same as a medium that is non-linear. You can put that non-linearity in yourself afterwards, which means it can be done after you've done your colorimetry, which means for better colours. However, for every stop of nice highlight curve you put in at the top end, you've effectively got to brighten the rest of the image a stop, which means noise is one stop more visible. It's a trade, but at least with digital (and what I've said above applies to every camera I know of) that trade off is under your control, and not fixed.

Graeme

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Default processing on DSLRs tend to brighten up the data and put in a curve into the highlights. This actually gives you less DR, but makes for a pretty image. With RED you've got to learn how to develop raw, and that's not hard, but it does take practice.

DR and highlights are not easily judgeable by eye - they eye is of course, terribly non-linear It's something that's best measured, with care, under controlled conditions.

Graeme

 

[Tom Lowe]

Rudi, don't apologize for posting the truth.

I have assumed all along that the RED would perform in a manner very similar to DLSRs, and specifically crop DLSRs. The fact is, that we will have to deal with the camera as it is. Having a "moving" DLSR-style CMOS capture device is all I ever thought I would get, so that's great with me! Plus we get DLSR-style RAW, which is awesome.

Skies and highlights are going to blow out. As David said, there are ways to deal with it, whether that be reframing, grad NDs, or as I have been thinking about lately, sky replacement in some shots.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

With RED you've got to learn how to develop raw, and that's not hard, but it does take practice.

DR and highlights are not easily judgeable by eye - they eye is of course, terribly non-linear It's something that's best measured, with care, under controlled conditions.

Graeme

read this three times. slowly.

guys that shoot lots of HD like to expose off of a monitor (with their eye) and a waveform - we have had to beat them over the head NOT to shoot Red that way.

read Graeme's post one more time.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

So, Mark, what is the best way if you are shooting quickly to watch your highlights when exposing? The onboard's false color and histogram? There is only so much time on a set to make exposure decisions, so what is the best method? Spot meter?

 

[Joel Kaye]

As David said, there are ways to deal with it, whether that be reframing, grad NDs, or as I have been thinking about lately, sky replacement in some shots.

Letting the sky blow out and replacing in post is not a bad idea. They replace boring skies all the time in movies. If you've got a locked off shot you could always shoot 2 exposures of your scene and comp those together.

I'm kinda curious if DigiCon style filters actually help with dynamic range. Also, new DLSR lenses that are low contrast may help.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Here is a DLSR shot in Yosemite. Look how much I need to bring down the exposure in RAW to keep the sky from blowing out.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Letting the sky blow out and replacing in post is not a bad idea. They replace boring skies all the time in movies. If you've got a locked off shot you could always shoot 2 exposures of your scene and comp those together.

I'm kinda curious if DigiCon style filters actually help with dynamic range. Also, new DLSR lenses that are low contrast may help.

Joel, did you see my example in that Lake Powell thread?

Here is Powell shot on the HV20 CMOS sensor:

And here is a super cheesy and quick photoshop comp with sky replacement:

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

So, Mark, what is the best way if you are shooting quickly to watch your highlights when exposing? The onboard's false color and histogram? There is only so much time on a set to make exposure decisions, so what is the best method? Spot meter?

David -

At the risk of putting my foot deep inside my mouth answering a question about exposure from you - I would say this:

I think it depends on the experience of whoever is setting the exposure.

I personally like false color, but just like a light meter, experience tells you how to "adjust" for specific situations.

I have also worked with some guys that nailed every shot on a RED with a light meter set at 320 and shootin' as if it was film.

On our feature that is shooting now, they are have "dialed in" their onboard monitor (with waveform) based on a series of tests.

So, can you just expose by eye? Sure. I would just really make sure you set up your EVF and/or monitor - and even then - you are much better off using false color IMHO.

 

[Rudi Herbert]

Mark,

Thanks for chiming in. I don't know who shot the test footage I saw and how well metered it was, what I do know is that once the clipping in the brighter areas was recovered, a lot of the other areas became noticeably dark. And this was a shot of a myriad people on a pier, where you just could not use fill light to keep them balanced, so it felt to me that either you would have to deal with loss of detail in the shadows and dark areas to keep the sky from whitening out or be prepared to change your framing to a closer perspective where you could use fill light. That said, I'm sure that people with experience AND access to the RED camera on a daily basis (such as your lucky self) must have figured out ways to deal with this. But I must base my assumptions on what I have seen so far.

 

[Shawn Nelson]

I find myself going to False Color repeatedly for high con outdoor shots. It's fast and precise as well as giving a fairly good intuitive feeling to the whole bit.

 

[Shawn Nelson]

hey dudeman, I have shot wildlife but not dynamically using those things. I feel the false color would be ideal for dynamic use, but not so much the focus assist, at least not in the current form. It's best used for static shots when you dont have a focus tape handy.