Pretty easy to understand...

[Patrick Grossien]

I think he means, that makes REDRAW 'NOT' a good choice...

Hehe stupid me! Thanks!

 

[Gunleik Groven]

I've never worked on any show that was exclusively Red material. I don't think I've ever even encountered one.



The logic of grading directly from R3D files makes sense only if you happen to be conforming on the same box you're grading on. In most facilities - especially in television - this is rarely the case. Shows are usually conformed on Avid equipment, be that Symphony or DS, primarily because that's the best way to deal with the things editors do today. Keyframed speed changes, Sapphire plug in effects, multiple panels on the screen - these are all things we now see in abundance in just about every show we do. The only sensible way to conform such shows is to do it on a system that doesn't require deconstructing and recreating all of these things, because to do that is, quite frankly, much too time consuming. And that's time that the clients refuse to pay for. The most common way of working is to "conform" on Avid, and use the output of that on the color systems, along with a simple EDL to cut it up. Now, I should also point out that in television, we're almost always dealing with the Alexa as the "A" camera these days, so this approach really doesn't have a downside. But even on a Red show, the same requirements apply.



I don't know how many VFX vendors you've dealt with, but we've found that just about every VFX vendor, from the most established to the newest, seems to come up with their own way of dealing with the files you give them, and what you get back is almost never what you sent, even when you specify exactly what you want and/or need. Since these things are so unpredictable - regardless of how many phone calls or meetings you have to go over it - you're better off not depending on specific results, and not expecting seamless matches.



R3D is not really any more problematic in itself, but it does allow the user to reinterpret its results by changing a few settings. Therein lies the heart of what I just referred to. Some vendors use the camera settings, whatever they happen to be. Some insist on using an "in house" recipe of, say, Redcolor and Redgamma. Others use Redcolor 2 and Redgamma 2. Others use, well, you get the picture. And it doesn't seem to matter what you tell them to use, they all have what "they like" whether it matches what you're using or not. RedlogFilm should have been the great equalizer, but it hasn't worked out that way because far too many people (and vendors) have little to no understanding of a proper processing pipeline for log images, so they either treat them like video gamma images (crushing lots of detail and creating an odd greyscale in the process), or invent their own curve corrections that have no standardization and no relation to anything other than what "they like."

That's SOME of what I meant by "inconsistencies...."



Split screens, multipanel shots, speed ramps (often with keyframes), odd color effects, plug in effects - these are some things we see. In abundance.



The times I use the original files are usually when it's a job I'm doing on my own and can make my own choices. In my "day job" none of this is the colorist's choice. But even if it was, I would probably opt for what we do if it is a television project, because the combination of turnaround requirements and client expectations (they expect to watch a fully conformed and finished show in real time, without playback hiccups of any sort, in the color room - in fact, we play out to the master tape delivery element from the color systems...) make it the best approach. On a "side" job, especially one that is a DI, I might go with original files, or I might not. It really depends on the material, the amount of non-original material that will be integrated, and the particular client's expectations as to what they want to see and in what environment. Every DI I do seems to be a bit different and really demands a bit of rethinking as to a proper finishing path.

Mike.
We have appeared to disagree, quite often.

This post... shows me... That in many ways, we do agree... On a few points. At least.

Kinda...

Cheers!

G

 

[Patrick Grossien]

Ah... Typo...

as in "not"

As M Most is refering to, a "RAW" grade is not allways the best solution, and RLF has made life a lot easier for non-RAW onlines...
We do RAW now, mostly because of diskspace, not quality, really. But the stations needed for doing that are rather costly, actually...

And it is a bit irritating in that respect - to know that a lot of the computing overhead is going into de-encryption and not image processing.

How can I say that?
Well...
We kinda had good speeds on the redRAWs before the encryption was introduced. I do understand and respect why it was introduced, but it is an achilles heel of the system for a lot of applications.

Oh ok! Thank you!
Why was the encryption built in? Because of the competition?

 

[M Most]

Mike.
We have appeared to disagree, quite often.

But always in a mutually respectful way. The way it should be... :cheers2:

 

[Brad Allen]

Awesome post Mike! Really appreciate your time explaining some of the issues and solutions you are facing - thankyou

I've never worked on any show that was exclusively Red material. I don't think I've ever even encountered one.

I think I've realized that parts of why we are disagreeing is because I'm not exclusively thinking about TV episodic content. That and my experience in episode workflows is practically nil - hence all the questions for you . Having said that, when I said "Red exclusive projects", I was considering our industry as a whole - things like TVCs, Music Videos, Live Concerts/Performances, Short Films, Feature's, Webisodes, Coperate jobs etc. There will be exceptions to many of these too - but there are also many cases where the vast majority of material shot (if not all) originates from Red.

The logic of grading directly from R3D files makes sense only if you happen to be conforming on the same box you're grading on. In most facilities - especially in television - this is rarely the case. Shows are usually conformed on Avid equipment, be that Symphony or DS, primarily because that's the best way to deal with the things editors do today. Keyframed speed changes, Sapphire plug in effects, multiple panels on the screen - these are all things we now see in abundance in just about every show we do. The only sensible way to conform such shows is to do it on a system that doesn't require deconstructing and recreating all of these things, because to do that is, quite frankly, much too time consuming. And that's time that the clients refuse to pay for. The most common way of working is to "conform" on Avid, and use the output of that on the color systems, along with a simple EDL to cut it up. Now, I should also point out that in television, we're almost always dealing with the Alexa as the "A" camera these days, so this approach really doesn't have a downside. But even on a Red show, the same requirements apply.

Ahh - this explains a lot and why bringing raw through to grade would add a lot of time to your current workflow. I didn't realize that conform was done before entering the grading system. This is different from workflows I have been involved with - thanks for filling me in on this.

I don't know how many VFX vendors you've dealt with, but we've found that just about every VFX vendor, from the most established to the newest, seems to come up with their own way of dealing with the files you give them, and what you get back is almost never what you sent, even when you specify exactly what you want and/or need. Since these things are so unpredictable - regardless of how many phone calls or meetings you have to go over it - you're better off not depending on specific results, and not expecting seamless matches.

Ok - I understand that the results from VFX houses can be unpredictable, but I don't understand how converting all your non-vfx material to the same format as the vfx house fixes this for you? It seems like it would be preferable to try and bring that vfx footage up to match the non-vfx footage rather than change all of your non-vfx footage to match the effects? I feel like I've missed something here?

R3D is not really any more problematic in itself, but it does allow the user to reinterpret its results by changing a few settings. Therein lies the heart of what I just referred to. Some vendors use the camera settings, whatever they happen to be. Some insist on using an "in house" recipe of, say, Redcolor and Redgamma. Others use Redcolor 2 and Redgamma 2. Others use, well, you get the picture. And it doesn't seem to matter what you tell them to use, they all have what "they like" whether it matches what you're using or not. RedlogFilm should have been the great equalizer, but it hasn't worked out that way because far too many people (and vendors) have little to no understanding of a proper processing pipeline for log images, so they either treat them like video gamma images (crushing lots of detail and creating an odd greyscale in the process), or invent their own curve corrections that have no standardization and no relation to anything other than what "they like."

That's SOME of what I meant by "inconsistencies...."

This seems like advocacy for staying in raw all the way through to the grade!

In all serious though, if raw was preserved all the way through to grading (apart from vfx shots and others which are forced to bake in a look), then it doesn't matter how it's been originally shot (again, with exceptions), it doesn't matter if someones screwed up the RedLogFilm proxies by crushing your blacks prematurely, it doesn't matter if incorrect white balance has been set or if people have used RedGamma instead of RedLogFilm etc - all of this is correctable and should result in some of the best matching footage because of it's malleability. Obviously this doesn't work so well with your workflows for various reasons (as you have explained), but it's interesting to note that what you regard as a problem for R3D files is an advantage in my mind

Split screens, multipanel shots, speed ramps (often with keyframes), odd color effects, plug in effects - these are some things we see. In abundance.

Ahh I see - I've just regarded these as VFX shots - even if they are done by the editors. As software has grown in features over the years there has grown more crossover in which departments do what.

The times I use the original files are usually when it's a job I'm doing on my own and can make my own choices. In my "day job" none of this is the colorist's choice. But even if it was, I would probably opt for what we do if it is a television project, because the combination of turnaround requirements and client expectations (they expect to watch a fully conformed and finished show in real time, without playback hiccups of any sort, in the color room - in fact, we play out to the master tape delivery element from the color systems...) make it the best approach. On a "side" job, especially one that is a DI, I might go with original files, or I might not. It really depends on the material, the amount of non-original material that will be integrated, and the particular client's expectations as to what they want to see and in what environment. Every DI I do seems to be a bit different and really demands a bit of rethinking as to a proper finishing path.

Isn't that the truth! Your opinions have only opened my eyes more in this regard - so, thanks

Regarding a colorist not deciding what files they are given, I completely understand this, however I would have thought a post-production supervisor would have tried to create a workflow that hands them the best possible files to work with (I'm not sure if you work in this role, so this isn't a jab at you). Given what you have explained, I understand why passing a colorist R3D's in a TV episodic environment is not always (if ever) feasible. Still seems a bit of a shame to me though.

On another note, is 4k re-release in the mind set of TV content at the moment? If so, how is this being provisioned for? Are 4k ProRes proxies being used? I guess the fact that the "A cam" Alexa is shooting 1080p Prores, probably answers some of my question. I guess this is another area where maintaining an R3D pipeline seems advantageous - it would enable a really simple re-release in 4k down the track - but it seems that such a pipeline is not easily integrated into standard workflows. Maybe NAB shall shed some more light on where the industry is headed. Maybe we'll see Arri's 4k solution - who knows

 

[Marc Wielage]

Having said that, when I said "Red exclusive projects", I was considering our industry as a whole - things like TVCs, Music Videos, Live Concerts/Performances, Short Films, Feature's, Webisodes, Coperate jobs etc. There will be exceptions to many of these too - but there are also many cases where the vast majority of material shot (if not all) originates from Red.

To echo Mike's comments: my experience on at least the commercials, music videos, concerts, and shorts is that the schedule is even faster and more budget-conscious than episodic TV. That means getting it conformed quickly and having a basic "technical grade" already applied -- which is one way of looking at RedLogFilm -- is even more important.

Bear in mind that we worked with film for 20-30 years prior to going all digital. In the case of film for TV, we generally work(ed) with "best light" scans that essentially compare to RedLogFilm: images that are relatively balanced in terms of RGB levels, nothing crushed or clipped, in log space (or something approaching log space). A simple overall correction or LUT brings it into Rec709 color space and allows color correction relatively quickly, depending on the complexity of the look the client wants.

I understand that the results from VFX houses can be unpredictable, but I don't understand how converting all your non-vfx material to the same format as the vfx house fixes this for you? It seems like it would be preferable to try and bring that vfx footage up to match the non-vfx footage rather than change all of your non-vfx footage to match the effects?

This is a time/money issue that generally can't be done as quickly or as easily as you might think. Look at a major motion picture, for example, that has maybe a 3-week schedule (at best) for color timing, with VFX coming in from 7 or 8 vendors in different countries. I guarantee you, all the effects will look completely different and will require effort to drop into the movie without major changes. In some cases, I've had situations where I've had to change the look of the scene because the visual effects were so far off, and there was just no time available for the VFX company to change the grade on their end. I once had a situation where the VFX company went out of business after they delivered the effects, so they couldn't even change them if they wanted to -- they no longer existed!

This seems like advocacy for staying in raw all the way through to the grade!

Not for time and money's sake in a longform project, no. My advice would be to go to NY or LA and sit in on an 8-hour color-timing session for a major TV show, and note how quickly the crew has to work in order to get a one-hour network show done and delivered. Typically, the colorist works by his/herself on the first day, timing the entire show. The second day, the client comes in and watches the show in real-time and makes notes and changes. If many alterations are needed, this session might go long. At the end of the session, the colorist outputs the final delivery version as a file or to tape, depending on the client's needs.

Note, BTW, that even Social Network and Girl with the Dragon Tattoo were not done directly from the R3D files -- they went from intermediate DPX files instead, just to speed up the workflow and conform, and lighten the processor load on the color-correction system. Michael Cioni has gone into detail about this in past posts on his blog and here on Reduser.net.

On another note, is 4k re-release in the mind set of TV content at the moment?

Nobody cares yet. I bet 4K will be commercially viable about the time that 100% of every American cable channel is available in 1080 HD -- and we're a long way from that happening. My guess: maybe 7-10 years for 4K broadcast, but a lot will depend on the economy and what the networks and studios decide to do.

 

[Jannard]

Marc... I hope you don't mind if I disagree with you. On many points.

Jim

To echo Mike's comments: my experience on at least the commercials, music videos, concerts, and shorts is that the schedule is even faster and more budget-conscious than episodic TV. That means getting it conformed quickly and having a basic "technical grade" already applied -- which is one way of looking at RedLogFilm -- is even more important.

Bear in mind that we worked with film for 20-30 years prior to going all digital. In the case of film for TV, we generally work(ed) with "best light" scans that essentially compare to RedLogFilm: images that are relatively balanced in terms of RGB levels, nothing crushed or clipped, in log space (or something approaching log space). A simple overall correction or LUT brings it into Rec709 color space and allows color correction relatively quickly, depending on the complexity of the look the client wants.


This is a time/money issue that generally can't be done as quickly or as easily as you might think. Look at a major motion picture, for example, that has maybe a 3-week schedule (at best) for color timing, with VFX coming in from 7 or 8 vendors in different countries. I guarantee you, all the effects will look completely different and will require effort to drop into the movie without major changes. In some cases, I've had situations where I've had to change the look of the scene because the visual effects were so far off, and there was just no time available for the VFX company to change the grade on their end. I once had a situation where the VFX company went out of business after they delivered the effects, so they couldn't even change them if they wanted to -- they no longer existed!


Not for time and money's sake in a longform project, no. My advice would be to go to NY or LA and sit in on an 8-hour color-timing session for a major TV show, and note how quickly the crew has to work in order to get a one-hour network show done and delivered. Typically, the colorist works by his/herself on the first day, timing the entire show. The second day, the client comes in and watches the show in real-time and makes notes and changes. If many alterations are needed, this session might go long. At the end of the session, the colorist outputs the final delivery version as a file or to tape, depending on the client's needs.

Note, BTW, that even Social Network and Girl with the Dragon Tattoo were not done directly from the R3D files -- they went from intermediate DPX files instead, just to speed up the workflow and conform, and lighten the processor load on the color-correction system. Michael Cioni has gone into detail about this in past posts on his blog and here on Reduser.net.


Nobody cares yet. I bet 4K will be commercially viable about the time that 100% of every American cable channel is available in 1080 HD -- and we're a long way from that happening. My guess: maybe 7-10 years for 4K broadcast, but a lot will depend on the economy and what the networks and studios decide to do.

 

[Will Keir]

agreed, keep up the good work and get some friggin sleep, you guys must be beyond overtime now.

 

[Erich Ocean]

I think people are only looking at the distribution methods we have today, without considering how that could change in the future. So far, the Internet has barely even touched cinema distribution.

I know that's going to change. It already is, not just on the high end (RED) but on the low end too. No one is going to be "waiting" on the broadcasters or cable; instead, new companies will route around them.

RED is part of making that happen. And 4K is where we want to be when it does (soon).

 

[Marc Wielage]

Marc... I hope you don't mind if I disagree with you. On many points.Jim

Not a problem, Jim. I enjoy the fact that Red pushes the envelope, and one thing on which I think we'll both agree is that things do change over time. The real question is "how much time" for the change to happen.

If I'm wrong about Social Network or Girl with the Dragon Tattoo being done from DPX files, perhaps I misunderstood Michael's lectures and blogs. One thing I will add is, in some cases, we get in DPX files for color correction that are "dodgy" and require rescanning (or reoutputting, in the case of digital files), just to give us more range. As long as it's a true log file -- like a RedLogFilm file -- it generally will work, though my preference is to start off with a balanced correction. I don't mind seeing the temp onset correct as an additional file to refer to, and a corrector like Baselight does allow dragging along two simultaneous files, using one for a "match to" comparison. But much too often, the DP will say, "just use that as a general ballpark -- don't match it 100%," and we wind up discarding it.

Congrats on the laser projector, BTW. I have no doubt there are many nervous Sony and Christie executives at the show. If you can get this out for $10K by the end of the year, it'll spread like wildfire in Hollywood.

 

[Spike Baumann]

Is there a "Like" button?

 

[Nuka Wølk]

Congrats to Jim, Jarred and the rest of the entire RED-crew on the orgy of "NAB"-announcements! Can't wait to get a hold on some of that awesome stuff!!

Keep pushing beyond the technological boundaries!!

 

[Ben Jackson]

It is really hard to listen to this stuff. What are people thinking?

Jim

I know how it makes you feel Jim. What I would say, from a general 'emotional' point of view. The majority of people have unhealed emotions about worthiness. People don't want to feel the underlying grief associated with some dark and deep emotions like these. So they justify their positions and choices to help maintain the facade that they are NOT unworthy and are 'awesome' and clever and great and intelligent, all the feelings about themselves they never got to feel when they were a child.

For many, not being able to afford a Red Epic is a trigger for this unworthiness. I'm not trying to make generalisations, but it is at least a factor for some.

I'm not making any judgements on the cameras (or people for that matter) but you cannot take what people say as a true belief because of their unhealed emotions influencing them. In most cases, the people fighting for these points of view are not willing to look at their own feelings. See it this way, if a person doesn't feel like they deserve a camera that costs $50,000 but they don't choose to be humble with this and deal with these feelings through grieving, and instead project those feelings onto others, then they will justify why a cheaper camera is 'better' and there's nothing you can do to change it. Those who CAN see that an Epic is clearly going to give a better picture than a 7D but still can't afford one, are simply more humble and truthful about it, and take responsibility for their feelings.

It's a bit Jedi, but those things are helpful. "Own your feelings" etc. Or like Anakin, choose to not face the pain of your mother dying and be condemned to attract more of the same pain and fear of the new girl you love dying too. And end up as Darth Vader haha

Understanding a little (and becoming sensitive to people's true underlying feelings) helps us to not only access our own unhealed emotions, it also helps us to ignore detractors who are clearly saying stuff that doesn't make sense. Our fear and then our frustration/anger about these kinds of things only hints at our own grief and pain we have to face, which has it's origins in very early childhood experiences of our parents making us feel 'not good enough' or judged etc. Very common feelings.

 

[DJ Meyer]

Alexa has a pretty image, but it's not a real alternative to Red due to the price of a bundle with Raw-recorder... BUT, about listening... Red should not underestimate the factor of taste and nuances. Red footage looks great, but in terms of natural look and feeling on highlights and skin-tones, film still has an edge in my opinion. A film like Drive looks amazing, shot on Alexa with HDcam deck. The Last Circus - shot on F35 also has an incredible look: http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/thelastcircus/

Anyhow, I hope Dragon will bring an even more natural looking and pleasant image to the eyes. This is so much more important than more resolution and a larger sensor in my opinion.

I watched Drive on Blu-Ray and remember thinking how inconsistent it looked. Some scenes looked good, then you have the violent bathroom scene that was clearly digital and blow out.

 

[Brett Clements]

I know how it makes you feel Jim. What I would say, from a general 'emotional' point of view. The majority of people have unhealed emotions about worthiness. People don't want to feel the underlying grief associated with some dark and deep emotions like these. So they justify their positions and choices to help maintain the facade that they are NOT unworthy and are 'awesome' and clever and great and intelligent, all the feelings about themselves they never got to feel when they were a child.

For many, not being able to afford a Red Epic is a trigger for this unworthiness. I'm not trying to make generalisations, but it is at least a factor for some.

I'm not making any judgements on the cameras (or people for that matter) but you cannot take what people say as a true belief because of their unhealed emotions influencing them. In most cases, the people fighting for these points of view are not willing to look at their own feelings. See it this way, if a person doesn't feel like they deserve a camera that costs $50,000 but they don't choose to be humble with this and deal with these feelings through grieving, and instead project those feelings onto others, then they will justify why a cheaper camera is 'better' and there's nothing you can do to change it. Those who CAN see that an Epic is clearly going to give a better picture than a 7D but still can't afford one, are simply more humble and truthful about it, and take responsibility for their feelings.

It's a bit Jedi, but those things are helpful. "Own your feelings" etc. Or like Anakin, choose to not face the pain of your mother dying and be condemned to attract more of the same pain and fear of the new girl you love dying too. And end up as Darth Vader haha

Understanding a little (and becoming sensitive to people's true underlying feelings) helps us to not only access our own unhealed emotions, it also helps us to ignore detractors who are clearly saying stuff that doesn't make sense. Our fear and then our frustration/anger about these kinds of things only hints at our own grief and pain we have to face, which has it's origins in very early childhood experiences of our parents making us feel 'not good enough' or judged etc. Very common feelings.

Huh? What happened to discussing mechanics here. No wonder there is a push for a paid site. Dude. It's about the F stop.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Huh? What happened to discussing mechanics here. No wonder there is a push for a paid site. Dude. It's about the F stop.

Cut him some slack, he's in West Hollywood. This kind of understanding is key to staying off of the Samaratans hotline, particularly when you are surrounded by head cases. It's relevant. :biggrinjester:

 

[Brett Clements]

Cut him some slack, he's in West Hollywood. This kind of understanding is key to staying off of the Samaratans hotline, particularly when you are surrounded by head cases. It's relevant. :biggrinjester:

Get out while you can.