On-Set "LOOK"'s, LUT's

[bcrc1]

With the understanding that the final look of the image is controlled in post, I have been hearing from a commercial DOP that he would like to see a controlled look on set that he and clients will trust will be the finished look. His vision is that it would be nice if the look created on set can be forwarded to the post house to repeat what he saw. I assured him that the meta-data does this. However, (in the current role of a DIT) , the LOOK adjustments of the RED ONE are limited, and cumbersome for an on-set atmosphere- where you work on the fly, adjust tones, highlights, etc. I would like to know if/when dual-link is available from the camera, if using a LUT box, or program on a laptop will enable this ability. Couldn't the LUT created be saved, sent to post house, and plugged into the footage like the current meta-data is now? Just like when DIT'ing a Genesis for example. If this can be possible, could we have LUT's that will emulate known results from any particular film stock?
Further, what is RED's intention to using the dual-link output? Will we just see RAW image, and then what? What will adjust it? Is there a RedLutBox?

 

[Andrew Walker]

I believe that's a future plan of Red. That might be right around the corner.

 

[David Battistella]

This is doable now. IN a round about way. Instructions from the top here:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13662

I think that going with or creating on set looks is not really the best way to expose a RED camera or get the maximum latitude out of the sensor.

Lighting to the monitor or creating onset looks should be done in conjunction with the person who is going to do the DI. Just calibrating an ON-SET monitor to match what the colorist is going to see can be a huge problem.

Part of the beauty of RAW is that none of this DATA is locked in. I could take your "look" and overhaul it in three seconds, but if you exposed for that "look" I might not have all the benifits and range that the RED can provide.

While I completely understand why people what to give the clients a "what you see it what you get" look on the set I am not sure it is the best way to approach things.

If you are looking to eliminate a CC step or something then that would be the only reason to lock in an on set look, otherwise, you are kind of defeating the purpose of even shooting RED at all. I also do not believe a "finished look" can be attained only on set. It does have to go through many more processes to be finished. That doesn't go for RED, it goes for every single camera from a panavision to a DVX-100.

Think of LUT's as great rough estimates of what you are going for but not the final "FINAL" look.

David

David

 

[Zack Birlew]

You know, I was actually talking to my brother about this a little while ago. He asked "Why wouldn't everyone and their mother buy a Scarlet?" I replied, "It's because of the RAW workflow and that you have to make the image in post through CC, it's not like HD where what-you-see-is-what-you-get". He then said, "Why couldn't Scarlet or RED do that?". I then thought about reasons why it couldn't and I was dumbfounded. Why couldn't you simply make your look(s) in pre-production and film the movie that way? There you go, RED WYSIWYG! But there doesn't seem to be a way to do that. If that could be done, ENG broadcast, indies, studios, and everyone else would get a RED, no problem. The RAW workflow is nice but maybe some people don't have a lot of time for CC in post, hence why HD is so big now, it's convenient.

 

[Florian Stadler]

I think that going with or creating on set looks is not really the best way to expose a RED camera or get the maximum latitude out of the sensor.

Think of LUT's as great rough estimates of what you are going for but not the final "FINAL" look.

I disagree with you David. The purpose of a monitor LUT would be that you can keep a flatter "Digital Negative", exposing everything the way you think gives you the best flexibility for manipulation and exhibition down the road, while being able to show your director and client what this "Digital Negative" will look like once it is color corrected. You would then have a starting point for dailies color correction which the ad agency when doing the online will most likely tweak and change anyways.

 

[David Battistella]

I disagree with you David. The purpose of a monitor LUT would be that you can keep a flatter "Digital Negative", exposing everything the way you think gives you the best flexibility for manipulation and exhibition down the road, while being able to show your director and client what this "Digital Negative" will look like once it is color corrected. You would then have a starting point for dailies color correction which the ad agency when doing the online will most likely tweak and change anyways.

At which point did I say that the LUT would not represent the final look. I just think it is strange to assume that ANY camera will record an image that does not need to be color corrected in the context of a FINAL production.

Anyone on earth who thinks that ANY image from ANY camera can make it all the way through a cut of a film or commercial, be "legal" and look it' s very best: I'm not sure that is the best way to go.

I just did a whole series of tests where I created a "best look" from the camera for the express purpose of good looking dailies etc, but that never meant that the FINAL look would be that EXACT look. very few images from the camera would pass a Broadcast safe evaluation without a CC pass and that is what I am talking about.

Maybe you could use these camera LUT's for a "straight to web" application but I have seen stuff (including stuff posted here) shot on RED that is in desperate need of a Color correction pass.

How is your "look" going to to survive a cut like this?

http://www.theredshooter.com/MSE6.mov

Can't you see how imbalanced many of the cuts are (in the first 20 cuts or so it's obvious)(no offense RGD films). They just do not match.

This is what I am talking about.

TO BE CLEAR

I AM NOT AGAINST LUT"S, just do not think that in a RAW workflow it is as important as in a tape workflow.

David