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 :)

Phil Holland Weapon Test

Julio Quintana said:
I agree. I immediately jumped on the waiting list for the Standard OLPF when it was announced, but I might just cancel my order after seeing these tests. It doesn't look like there's enough of an improvement in the red orbs to justify using it over the LL OLPF.

Phil, do you agree?
Click to expand...

That's a very single minded perspective. There's more going on than the orbs. There is a slight color variance between the Standard and Low Light Optimized OLPF, that seems the actual focus. Slightly better in one direction and a bit cleaner than the Skin Tone - Highlight OLPF. STH is what you want if you are orb weary for sure. If a clean image at higher ISO ratings is your priority the Standard and LLO are likely more up your alley.


Antony Newman said:
Phil - amazing test.

OLPF : I am curious to hear more of thoughts comparing the STANDARD vs SKIN TONE.
There seems to be more saturation in the Skin Tone - and a feeling of depth (IMHO).

Pro Res : The refections of light on the models skin look less saturated - almost like a cooler light was being used compared with R3D.
Makes me feel like there is very very fine mist in the room.

Match test : The colour of the STANDARD vs SKIN TONE look very different to my eyes. Do you have thoughts on which seemed more accurate?

Thankyou,
AJ

<Caveat : Newly calibrated monitor, I may well be imagining all of the above!>
Click to expand...


Cheers Anthony. To answer your questions:

OLPF - Depth, no not really. There is more "richness" to the color on the STH and that's what the STH does so well. I think I said it in a post forever ago, but the STH is more accurate numerically and perceptually overall. And also it's very film-like in my mind. Which is more or less why it's been my preference.

ProRes - Remember that footage is shot at the same time using REDCODE RAW + ProRes dual recording, meaning both streams are being filmed at the same time and space. Running a diff on the frames there is no color variation whatsoever. Compression variation (edges mainly) can be revealed through dividing the frames. For all intents and purposes they are identical from a practical and workflow perspective.

Match Test - It's hard to truly judge color with matches. Chemicals burning produce different variations. You'll notice that if you go frame by frame. This is more "ISO 2000 Texture/Match Light" Test, which is a common narrative motif and test when it comes to cameras.



Just a few more notes on color. Like I said early, I spent a fair bit of time making custom 3D LUTs to match and explore differences between the Skin Tone - Highlight, Standard, and Low Light Optimized OLPF.

Here are examples of the DRAGONcolor/REDlogFilm image matched to color chart numerically with a light finishing LUT to provide perceptual contrast:






Things can be color balanced and matched further if need be, but you can get all of these OLPFs to play nice together if you are mixing and matching on a larger shoot.
 
Last edited:
Phil Holland said:
That's a very single minded perspective. There's more going on than the orbs. There is a slight color variance between the Standard and Low Light Optimized OLPF, that seems the actual focus. Slightly better in one direction and a bit cleaner than the Skin Tone - Highlight OLPF. STH is what you want if you are orb weary for sure. If a clean image at higher ISO ratings is your priority the Standard and LLO are likely more up your alley.
Click to expand...

I've never had someone rent my camera and call me to complain about a "slight color variance". I have had countless renters and Redusers complain about noisy shadows (STH OLPF) and "strange red flares" (LL OLPF). I think I was unrealistically hoping the Standard OLPF would eliminate both of those obstacles in one dream OLPF, but it looks like it just gives you a little of each obstacle rolled into one. I don't think either of these issues is a deal-breaker, I just think the Standard is maybe not useful for my particular needs.

Thanks for doing these tests, Phil. Very informative.

Julio
 
The 3 OLPF look color wise so different!
In the match test only the LLO looks natural. The Skin tone is yellow to greenish and the Standard looks pink.

Haven't you done any tweek to the color correction between them?

Phil Holland said:
MATCH TEST
Click to expand...



Thanks a lot for your test.

Pat
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Patrick Tresch said:
The 3 OLPF look color wise so different!
In the match test only the LLO looks natural. The Skin tone is yellow to greenish and the Standard looks pink.

Haven't you done any tweek to the color correction between them?

Thanks a lot for your test.

Pat
Click to expand...

This is exactly to chart. Meaning numerically or "robo match".

*edit, oh you meant the match test. Yes, it's just straight 2800K in camera, no adjustment. I lit about 50 matches and they all seem to produce different colors as the chemicals burned. Two of which were down right green.

Phil Holland said:
Match Test - It's hard to truly judge color with matches. Chemicals burning produce different variations. You'll notice that if you go frame by frame. This is more "ISO 2000 Texture/Match Light" Test, which is a common narrative motif and test when it comes to cameras.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Patrick Tresch said:
OK, so there wasn't allways the same RCX setting applied within a group of clips.
(ISO changes where needed is of course mandatory).

Thanks

pat
Click to expand...

That is all ISO 800, WB to chart, Color Matched outside of RCX to chart.
 
You and Skully done some work. Invaluable evidence that the believers made a sound financial decision. Can you offer any insight on the wifi front?
 
Thomas Akira Nakasone said:
You and Skully done some work. Invaluable evidence that the believers made a sound financial decision. Can you offer any insight on the wifi front?
Click to expand...

Well I used FoolControl to trigger the camera for the Match Test. Used it 2 other times prior to this. Works as expected. I'm on an iPad and set the Weapon to Ad-HOC, find the network on the tablet and connect to the camera, good to go. Haven't tested range yet, so there's one thing I should do I think.
 
Phil Holland said:
This is exactly to chart. Meaning numerically or "robo match".

*edit, oh you meant the match test. Yes, it's just straight 2800K in camera, no adjustment. I lit about 50 matches and they all seem to produce different colors as the chemicals burned. Two of which were down right green.
Click to expand...

Phil,

I love this Color Match issue, because now I can say that I cannot match the color, because the match color will not color match the other matches.

: )
 
Martin Stevens said:
Phil,

I love this Color Match issue, because now I can say that I cannot match the color, because the match color will not color match the other matches.

: )
Click to expand...

Lol. I'll whip out the butane torch and shoot something a bit more controlled. These new fangled "green" matches sort of suck on camera.
 
jake blackstone said:
What's a finishing LUT? And where is the emulation LUT from? And finally, why?
Click to expand...

Finishing LUT more or less is a tonal curve to bring things back to "perceived contrast". It's a consistent curve on all OLPFs in this case as the chart match brings them all together.

Emulation LUT is mine.

Why? Because I see or receive emails about people complaining about color 30 times a week. Maybe more. It's a common general look I see people "aiming at" these days.
 
Phil Holland said:
Finishing LUT more or less is a tonal curve to bring things back to "perceived contrast". It's a consistent curve on all OLPFs in this case as the chart match brings them all together.

Emulation LUT is mine.

Why? Because I see or receive emails about people complaining about color 30 times a week. Maybe more. It's a common general look I see people "aiming at" these days.
Click to expand...

Did you make those LUTs yourself? Was the image out of ""perceived contrast" whatever that means? I had never heard of needing such LUT. Do you feel RLF images need it instead of standard Cineon curve? Frankly, in order to cut it to to a chase, I feel, it would have been more productive and transparent, if you used industry standard curves, like Cineon, which RLF apparently is designed for. This way there can't be any questions about unknown curves and LUTs. Unfortunately, with your home made curves and LUTs I have no idea what I'm looking at, sorry...
 
jake blackstone said:
Did you make those LUTs yourself? Was the image out of ""perceived contrast" whatever that means? I had never heard of needing such LUT. Frankly, in order to cut it to to a chase, I feel, it would have been more productive and transparent, if you used industry standard curves, like Cineon, which RLF apparently designed in mind. This way there can't be any questions about unknown curves and LUTs. Unfortunately, with your home made curves and LUTs I have no idea what I'm looking at, sorry...
Click to expand...

I did and that's why I included them. That's the whole reason I show REDlogFilm and the REDgammas as they are known quantities. It's not about "need", it's about potential. I'm more or less "doing the rest" to show what I/you/others can achieve if aiming at that target, which is numerically sound and standard industry wide. The 3D LUT you are criticizing is matched to the color chart via DRAGONcolor2/REDlogFilm, which the graphic clearly shows. Perhaps I just should have labeled it "Custom LUT Match to Chart" for each OLPF? The slight curve I'm applying isn't random. It's very fashionably 709...... ish. People have been making LUTs to charts as long as LUT have existed as far as I recall.

For people like you and me seeing the RGs and the RLF tells most of everything.
 
Phil Holland said:
Finishing LUT more or less is a tonal curve to bring things back to "perceived contrast". It's a consistent curve on all OLPFs in this case as the chart match brings them all together.

Emulation LUT is mine.

Why? Because I see or receive emails about people complaining about color 30 times a week. Maybe more. It's a common general look I see people "aiming at" these days.
Click to expand...

Chef Phil's secret sauce ;-)
 
Phil Holland said:
I did and that's why I included them. That's the whole reason I show REDlogFilm and the REDgammas as they are known quantities. It's not about "need", it's about potential. I'm more or less "doing the rest" to show what I/you/others can achieve if aiming at that target, which is numerically sound and standard industry wide. The 3D LUT you are criticizing is matched to the color chart via DRAGONcolor2/REDlogFilm, which the graphic clearly shows. Perhaps I just should have labeled it "Custom LUT Match to Chart" for each OLPF? The slight curve I'm applying isn't random. It's very fashionably 709...... ish. People have been making LUTs to charts as long as LUT have existed as far as I recall.

For people like you and me seeing the RGs and the RLF tells most of everything.
Click to expand...

RLF is specifically designed to work with inverse Cineon curve. There absolutely no need to reinvent the wheel. Someone, who basically speaks on behalf of Red, shouldn't use a "secret" sauce. Red should issue company standard LUTs. they shouldn't be made by individuals.
 
jake blackstone said:
RLF is specifically designed to work with inverse Cineon curve. There absolutely no need to reinvent the wheel. Someone, who basically speaks on behalf of Red, shouldn't use a "secret" sauce. Red should issue company standard LUTs. they shouldn't be made by individuals.
Click to expand...

Really Jake? I know you're a colorist...and a good one, but let's at least be appreciative of the fact that Phil puts a heck of a lot of effort into these things, which he does for us btw, and rather than say he's doing something wrong, just be thankful. His grade, or the way he went about it, may not be your cup of tea, which is why grading is so subjective in the first place, but give him some credit. He did a great job and even provided the base image so colorists could gain what they needed to from that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top