Phil Holland Weapon Test

[Phil Holland]

Yeah I watched it again on a few different browsers. There is definitely a colour problem just viewing youtube in different browsers.


PHIL: Have you found colour issues with youtube in the past? Any reason you choose youtube over Vimeo?

Nope, not particularlly. I did however upload it on both:

https://vimeo.com/142927160

This video color discrepancy is going to be an X-Files episode. It's spooky.

 

[PatrickFaith]

Phil is sharing his knowledge in his own way. Let's try and discourage him so he doesn't do it again.

/s

Agreed, when I was in the high bays with things like the space telescope I noticed serious arguments between two distinct personality types, one I call the scientific gaggle and the other a marine. A good weapon example is where scientist would create arcane complex test that would cost more and more while not representing field operations, while the marine would simply drop the weapon in the mud and fire it at a target while everyone was arguing (functional field test). It's basically impossible doing a repeatable test on actors - where you can repeat the test at two different locations at two different times and get the same results - because people change. Phil is doing solid field testing and it's just not arguable (i.e. you want to have random luts applied to a color spaces on peoples faces to see if it will break something) and you want to do this on actors and/or matches because that is what is shot in the field even though faces and matches are not repeatable. Scientific testing really needs to be done by RED and controlled facilities, it requires detailed telemetry from the processor, which then needs to be interpreted by people like Graeme, producing reams of data which should be used to modify camera production and workflow processes after long complex reviews.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Professionals don't use their own "secret" LUTs, they use industry standard tools, that are available to everyone.

Almost every major show (ALEXA, Dragon, F55, Varicam) that shoots here in NYC to does NOT use a "industry standard" LUT. Almost every show uses a custom rec.709 (delog) LUT that is "tweeked to taste", typically by the DIT and the DP - sometimes with a colorist from the post facility and DP do it during prep. CDLs graded under the delog (typically only used for dailies and thrown out for final DI/color - which still uses the custom delog LUT). The trend of DPs leveraging custom LUTs for a baseline creative look is becoming more and more popular.

So ... just for the record "professionals" do use custom LUTs and so do post production facilities. Every single day.

 

[Phil Holland]

Thank you Kris @ RED for pointing out this:

RED 1D LUT KIT

https://www.red.com/downloads/560050d0f01b302637007029

Those were made publicly available a month ago. Just no huge announcement.

 

[Corey_O]

LUT would be similar to TEC in film I'm guessing?

Color charts are nice to see in front of the camera any time ………… but hey I'm old school.

 

[Stacey Spears]

This video color discrepancy is going to be an X-Files episode. It's spooky.

Some browsers may apply an ICC profile while others do not. Sometimes this is also done at the OS level. Same goes for color space conversion, happens in different spots with different browsers. (in the browser or at the OS level) Some browsers may use SW decoding and some HW, which carries over to the color conversion to RGB as well. And then there are different encodes on YouTube for different browsers / platforms. If they transcode your content, on the server side, that may introduce color issues.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Good notes Stacey, I knew some of those wrinkles already - but not all. I suppose expecting the viewer to see the same image on whatever screen they are looking at, as I do in the color suite, is an even bigger crapshoot than it already was. I guess that's an even better reason to master to a known spec and hope someday that color management will catch up to new encoding/distribution avenues.

What we really need is an ACES-like mechanism where each device has an ODT (output device transform) of sorts to match back to the intended color. Back in my pre-press days we would run a color/density strip in the bleed area (the part that gets trimmed off at the printer) to check how evenly the ink was running, etc. What I'm suggesting is a parity patch, or other known value reference, that the display can use to match back to the original color - no matter what the file has been through along the way.

Cheers - #19

 

[Brian Boyer]

Some browsers may apply an ICC profile while others do not. Sometimes this is also done at the OS level. Same goes for color space conversion, happens in different spots with different browsers. (in the browser or at the OS level) Some browsers may use SW decoding and some HW, which carries over to the color conversion to RGB as well. And then there are different encodes on YouTube for different browsers / platforms. If they transcode your content, on the server side, that may introduce color issues.

All true, but it's pretty weird to have that much of a discrepancy in the same browser window in separate tabs, which leads me to believe it's due to the different players in this case.

 

[sam karr]

It's a lot nicer on Vimeo now. I'm really surprised by the Standard OLPF in this test. It's not pretty compared to STH. Are the matches responsible?

 

[Phil Holland]

It's a lot nicer on Vimeo now. I'm really surprised by the Standard OLPF in this test. It's not pretty compared to STH. Are the matches responsible?

Yeah. I might just take a small torch and redo that. The matches burned weirdly and are not color stable. Look at the Dayiight and Tungsten tests for more precise results.

 

[jake blackstone]

Almost every major show (ALEXA, Dragon, F55, Varicam) that shoots here in NYC to does NOT use a "industry standard" LUT. Almost every show uses a custom rec.709 (delog) LUT that is "tweeked to taste", typically by the DIT and the DP - sometimes with a colorist from the post facility and DP do it during prep. CDLs graded under the delog (typically only used for dailies and thrown out for final DI/color - which still uses the custom delog LUT). The trend of DPs leveraging custom LUTs for a baseline creative look is becoming more and more popular.

So ... just for the record "professionals" do use custom LUTs and so do post production facilities. Every single day.

Yes, professionals do use "creative" LUTs, but using those types of LUTs is not a normal type of operation. Yes, in those situations creative LUTs are created for very specific creative reasons- the need to convey an unusual saturation, color cast, etc. Once more, if this test was creative to show pretty pictures of skin and highlight roll off, then I have no issues with this grading methodology. But this test is introducing a new camera images to a wide public, so to speak. This thread is introduced by Jarred and shot by someone who had been very closely associated with Red. Based on those two things, this test could easily be interpreted as an endorsement by Red. If Phil had used a standard Cineon LUT, then there would be nothing to complain. Grading in itself is subjective and you'd never see me criticizing someone else's grading. But for a proper camera test, it is imperative, that standard tools are used for repeatable results. We need some kind of a standards, at least when it comes to a camera test. Moreover, I feel, that only offsets, contrast and pivot should be used for grading such tests. Those tools are the most linear and happened to be the only standard tools across all grading software, that are directly relate to film density. In other words, 5 points of red is exactly the same in Resolve, Baselight, Nucoda or Lustre. Or better yet, just use ACES and the whole viewing LUT, Cineon curve etc is not even an issue.

 

[jake blackstone]

Had to check and go back a few pages to see if anything was deleted. And no, nothing was. I haven't touched this thread or deleted a single one of your posts.

My apologies, yes none of my posts were deleted. I was looking at the in the wrong place, my bad.

 

[Christopher*Seguine]

This video color discrepancy is going to be an X-Files episode. It's spooky.

Has Red said not to, or could you please post just a single R3D frame from each of the chart sequences?

There is what like 100 or so weapons out there now, and there is just a single noisy weapon r3d buried in an old thread, seems odd.

For those of us who never shoot anything targeted for web viewing it would be very useful to look at r3ds is our target color space - p3/2020/etc - and avoid all of the variables of youtube compression/browser decode gamma/color shifts.

On a side note, in Resolve12, with 6k FF 3:1 r3d, on a 4k DCI 24fps timeline, how many FPS playback do you get with 16bit/Full debayer r3d settings ? and on what cpu? On our dual 14core setup I get 24fps at 6k 5:1 out to a 4k DCI projector but I suspect 3:1 is going to be to much cpu overhead.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Yes, professionals do use "creative" LUTs, but using those types of LUTs is not a normal type of operation.

I don't understand "not normal". Like I said - here in NYC - it's MORE common for show to use a custom LUT than not.

But this test is introducing a new camera images to a wide public, so to speak. This thread is introduced by Jarred and shot by someone who had been very closely associated with Red. Based on those two things, this test could easily be interpreted as an endorsement by Red.

Jarred highlights tests and work of many REDUSERS. But it's not a "technical statement" from RED. It's one persons test based on the methods chosen by that person.

But for a proper camera test, it is imperative, that standard tools are used for repeatable results. We need some kind of a standards, at least when it comes to a camera test. Moreover, I feel, that only offsets, contrast and pivot should be used for grading such tests.

That is your opinion. And you are entitled to one. But just so you know - not everyone has the same opinion you do.

I have been a part of of more camera tests than I can count - including some major ASC members and two Academy Award winners - and not ONE of those camera tests was "standard" or the same.

I test all the time - lots of pre-release hardware and software from lots of manufacturers - mostly because I'm passionate about it. But also because I like to draw my own conclusions based on MY own methodology. I don't share as much as I want too - because of exactly what this thread has turned into.

I do understand and respect what YOU want to see in a test - and it's valid. But so are many other approaches.

And for what it's worth - you could have expressed your opinion is a more respectful, decent way IMO. Maybe it's a "internet forum thing" - but your tone read to many, including me, as being rather condescending to Phil.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/condescending

 

[Corey_O]

I do understand and respect what YOU want to see in a test - and it's valid. But so are many other approaches.

And for what it's worth - you could have expressed your opinion is a more respectful, decent way IMO. Maybe it's a "internet forum thing" - but your tone read to many, including me, as being rather condescending to Phil.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/condescending

Well said.

Sharing is caring and points can be made in private instead dancing around and trying to upstage a hardworking person giving his time and energy to better this community.

Thanks Phil.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

I get the sense that Jake is more miffed that RED appears to be using Phil as a proxy so they can put images out into the world showing how great the Weapon is, while still having an escape hatch if people find flaws. I don't happen to see it that way, but Jake seems intent on calling RED out for not using official channels, offering manufacturer blessed LUTs, ...

I certainly don't condone Jake's targeting Phil, who seems to be doing a heck of a lot of work that benefits the entire community. That said, Jake has added some valuable perspective and notes on RedUser over the years so IMO he deserves some leeway. I'm not a moderator, but I think Mark has it right - with a little rephrasing Jake could still make his points, without coming across as hostile.

Now, back to learning more about Weapon!

Cheers - #19

 

[Ketch Rossi]

When I first got to work with Jake on "Carly" my first Fashion Film, I and him and a nice talk, and I understood immediately the type of STRAIT ON type of fellow that Jake was, and I hesitated not in giving him charge of my precious first fashion film...

Jake is not the kind of professional that sugar coats things, and I like this about him...

He has a very strong point, and He has made it over the years, I been that I also do business in Europe and have to deal with Arri very HARD fans, more so then any one would ever let any one to believe, and then they call me a RED FANBOY... So in this environments I find myself discussing at length what is a RED Look, and what is a real LUT, and while I have never been nor do I intend to be a Professional colorist, I have had and continue to have my great share of Coloring session with some pretty great Colorist on every project I Direct or DP or Produce...

So I in this notes really appreciate Jake's point in trying to make...

Having said this, and having already said that Jake doesn't sugar coats things... I do wish that He would have approached a more diplomatic path in talking to Phil, as I also happen to know, and I just love how this fellow filmmaker, not matter how busy, finds the time to time after time, go ahed and put time and effort, and I am sure MONEY of his own pocket, to do test after test that He has so generously shard with all of us...

Tests, which myself I had more then once referred to on some jobs where my not perfect english and personal approaches to technology needed a little help...

So what I am trying to say is that we do need "Jake" like professionals where they push for standard to be recognized and refer to, as well as we definitely need "Phil" like to continue to share with this great community his findings, which are also done professionally and with a great deal of detail.

So I hope that this gets cleared out amongst Phil and Jake, as they are both great contributors of this community and I am happy also to call them both friends.

 

[Stuart Graham]

As this is aRED forum RC2/3 & 4 are all known to us all..The tests were great IMO, I can see what Phil shot means to him & I.

I used Jeff's WEAPON #68 this week on a commercial here in London & it was a breath of fresh air..changing from 25fps @5.5K to 100fps @4.5K & 125fps @3.5K was a 10 second task, no black shading required!
The extra highlight headroom is very apparent...I do feel though that this chip could do with RC5 being developed as I felt RC4 let highlights that were all there in detail were on fire on my Red PRO 7". 9" & the old 5" too, RAW check toggle showed all the detail..the highlights were 5.5 stops over 18%..impressive! & this was with the LLOLPF (& yeah no traffic lights)
As you all know or have read, it's a little smaller & lighter too, mini mags are still tough to get out when warm, miss the SIDE HANDLE A LOT!
30 second boot is the same as DRAGON but a lot quieter, we were doing 2 & 3 min takes with sound & I only heard the fan once in a 30/85 degree set but the sound dept. couldn't 1.2Tb's later we rapped.

Jeff Brown added ACTION PRODUCTS rear parts which gave us battery hot swap, 4 x HD SDI's & also a block battery XLR option too...roll on Off Hollywood's OMOD please!

Overall: A great improvement! as Jeff B wrote this morning: DNXHD 36 would be a welcome second recorded format alongside RAW & a SIDE HANDLE please.

The shoot was like most a little sensitive to R3D's being uploaded to the net, another reason Phil's test is just great!

 

[Stuart Graham]

I would also like to have some kind of cover for the unused monitor/eye piece connections...there's nothing in the case & I pointed this out to RED at NAB this year..tape kinda looks trashy.

 

[Brett Harrison]

Stuart - I think you should be using the DC2 (Dragon Colour 2) gamut with RED gamma 4 (or the others, but I think 4 is killer). To my eye, RC4 generates more chroma and is calibrated to the MX sensor. There was a split when DC1/2 and RC4 and RG4 came in.

As this is aRED forum RC2/3 & 4 are all known to us all..The tests were great IMO, I can see what Phil shot means to him & I.

I used Jeff's WEAPON #68 this week on a commercial here in London & it was a breath of fresh air..changing from 25fps @5.5K to 100fps @4.5K & 125fps @3.5K was a 10 second task, no black shading required!
The extra highlight headroom is very apparent...I do feel though that this chip could do with RC5 being developed as I felt RC4 let highlights that were all there in detail were on fire on my Red PRO 7". 9" & the old 5" too, RAW check toggle showed all the detail..the highlights were 5.5 stops over 18%..impressive! & this was with the LLOLPF (& yeah no traffic lights)
As you all know or have read, it's a little smaller & lighter too, mini mags are still tough to get out when warm, miss the SIDE HANDLE A LOT!
30 second boot is the same as DRAGON but a lot quieter, we were doing 2 & 3 min takes with sound & I only heard the fan once in a 30/85 degree set but the sound dept. couldn't 1.2Tb's later we rapped.

Jeff Brown added ACTION PRODUCTS rear parts which gave us battery hot swap, 4 x HD SDI's & also a block battery XLR option too...roll on Off Hollywood's OMOD please!

Overall: A great improvement! as Jeff B wrote this morning: DNXHD 36 would be a welcome second recorded format alongside RAW & a SIDE HANDLE please.

The shoot was like most a little sensitive to R3D's being uploaded to the net, another reason Phil's test is just great!