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 :)

Raw is Magic

Björn Benckert

Björn Benckert

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
7,423
Reaction score
74
Points
48
Age
52
Website
www.syndicate.se
While I'm out on vacation with my boat I figured I could bring the camera and capture some archipelago stockshots. Only brought the epic, canon FD 24mm f1.2, and some batteries and ssd's. I must say the epic still amazes me, the DR is insane even when shooting in normal mood I'm able to aim straight for the sunset and get full exposure in the deepest blacks and still keep the sun from burning. With HDRx I get more than I even need.

When I get into a debate where clients thinks that shooting Raw is cumbersome and not needed,I find it nice to have frames like this.

Then changing the iso up and down to show the coverage both in the sun and in the blacks, and sliding the kelvins back and forth... after that they usually stops arguing for how easy it it is to work with baked camera files :)

No grade / 800iso in camera and a simple rcxp grade...


PastedGraphic-4.png


r3d: http://www.syndicate.se/Files/~usr/hawk/sunset.zip
 
Yup Bjorn,

first, enjoy the boat. :)

second. Every year that goes by since my first RED one M sensor on 758, I am happier and happier everything I shot in these past six years is Raw and a minimum of 4k.

post like this remind me of how good that feels.

Baked in is so, like, 2013 (for about every company other than RED)

cheers,
david
 
See? I get the same easy results sometime but then I read where I have to have this expensive monitor and that specialized software and specialized skills, otherwise this is just no good. Well, I guess it's true you need the specialty items to insure continuity among all the scenes in a movie or other content, and of course for VFX work... and I guess to insure content plays well on various projectors etc., but sometimes you look at something like this and just say, well, that really looks good.
 
Very nice Björn.
 
Beautfiul work Bjorn. If you have to get this video on DVD how would you go about it?
 
David Battistella said:
Yup Bjorn,

first, enjoy the boat. :)

second. Every year that goes by since my first RED one M sensor on 758, I am happier and happier everything I shot in these past six years is Raw and a minimum of 4k.

post like this remind me of how good that feels.

Baked in is so, like, 2013 (for about every company other than RED)

cheers,
david
Click to expand...

Agree, I also think r3d stock footage will be huge when UHD really takes off. As it's kind of the only raw format in the given resolution that is packed enough to work for downloads.


Elsie N said:
See? I get the same easy results sometime but then I read where I have to have this expensive monitor and that specialized software and specialized skills, otherwise this is just no good. Well, I guess it's true you need the specialty items to insure continuity among all the scenes in a movie or other content, and of course for VFX work... and I guess to insure content plays well on various projectors etc., but sometimes you look at something like this and just say, well, that really looks good.
Click to expand...

I agree, I do not care so much about monitors. We got calibrated screens at the office and if I grade something on any of our uncalibrated screens or on my macbook air or any other half ass computer screen it might show up slightly more contrasty or slightly tinted differently on the calibrated screen, but the difference is usually not that big, usually less than what the clients will even notice if they do not see the two screens at once. Mostly when there is trouble it's that quicktime lift / gamma correction feature that is embedded into quicktime that is causing the errors. I find the cinema displays and the other mac screens to be good enough for eyeballing most pictures on, they are 8 bit and not 100% correct but then again they are far better than what was used by industry professionals not to many years ago, and there has been quite a few good looking movies made even when color timing was a lab process and the dials where much much less accurate than what we have in this digital age. Usually when color accuracy and screens are talked about it tend to be professional colorists that screams the loudest and dare people to fiddle with the colors without a top of the line signal chain... Personally I think that is partially just professionals that protects their profession.

Dave_S said:
Beautfiul work Bjorn. If you have to get this video on DVD how would you go about it?
Click to expand...

Good question, as it was a very long time ago I made a DVD as all is files these days. But I would probably output a pal 8bit proress file and then download some osx DVD making program (if there is not such program included in osx... in my macbook air I do not even have a drive for DVD's...) , I actually do not even remember what the name of the DVD program that I used a lot in the past.... I think it was "DVD studio pro". I guess somebody else here has a more straight answer.
 
Encore is an Adobe product for DVDs... there is also Toast Titanium. Both are capable of DVDs and Blu-Rays... RedRay is where its going though.
 
Hi Björn.
Im enjoying the Norwegian coast, but my epic is at home. Nice to see some footage from the Swedish coast.
I have to agree that I find raw magical. We did some shots of skiers in the Mountains up in he fjords with very flat light and the sky was an unison grey. Or at least until I pushed some curves around in redcine x and all this different shades of grey came to life and turned the sky into something really dramatic looking. I couldn't believe all the detail that was hidden in the highlights
 
Björn Benckert said:
While I'm out on vacation with my boat I figured I could bring the camera and capture some archipelago stockshots. Only brought the epic, canon FD 24mm f1.2, and some batteries and ssd's. I must say the epic still amazes me, the DR is insane even when shooting in normal mood I'm able to aim straight for the sunset and get full exposure in the deepest blacks and still keep the sun from burning. With HDRx I get more than I even need.

When I get into a debate where clients thinks that shooting Raw is cumbersome and not needed,I find it nice to have frames like this.

Then changing the iso up and down to show the coverage both in the sun and in the blacks, and sliding the kelvins back and forth... after that they usually stops arguing for how easy it it is to work with baked camera files :)

No grade / 800iso in camera and a simple rcxp grade...


PastedGraphic-4.png


r3d: http://www.syndicate.se/Files/~usr/hawk/sunset.zip
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting the r3d... amazing what a few basic adjustments can pull out of raw images.
 
The truth is... I bought into raw, not because I'm so skilled and want more control... but because I'm unskilled and need the flexibility raw affords. Raw doesn't scare me. Having to get EVERYTHING right (iso, white balance, etc) before hitting record scares me. I know that is an over simplification and that everything can't be fixed in post, but still... baking in vs. raw is a no brainer for those with less skills... go raw.
 
Andy Roberts said:
The truth is... I bought into raw, not because I'm so skilled and want more control... but because I'm unskilled and need the flexibility raw affords. Raw doesn't scare me. Having to get EVERYTHING right (iso, white balance, etc) before hitting record scares me. I know that is an over simplification and that everything can't be fixed in post, but still... baking in vs. raw is a no brainer for those with less skills... go raw.
Click to expand...

Haha!! Yep, I agree with this wholeheartedly! Same here! I'm not a DP by trade, I'm a tech guy, and the DP isn't a tech guy. So, I need to make sure that whatever he is doing, I can adj in post to suit the project, as we shoot a lot of run & gun that doesn't leave time for light metering and ISO tests, etc. Finally got him used to looking at a RAW picture and shooting to that, instead of REC709 or something.

I think this describes one type of the 2 types of shooters out there. First are they people that need the tech to help them to be more confident shooting, being able to fix things later that can't be figured out on set. That's us. The other half is the people whose skills are so advanced that they use the tech to push their own skills further. These are the tweakers that can see EVERTHING and push the tech farther and harder to the limits, then figure out the cool workarounds to make it do what they want.
 
Björn Benckert said:
Agree, I also think r3d stock footage will be huge when UHD really takes off. As it's kind of the only raw format in the given resolution that is packed enough to work for downloads.




I agree, I do not care so much about monitors. We got calibrated screens at the office and if I grade something on any of our uncalibrated screens or on my macbook air or any other half ass computer screen it might show up slightly more contrasty or slightly tinted differently on the calibrated screen, but the difference is usually not that big, usually less than what the clients will even notice if they do not see the two screens at once. Mostly when there is trouble it's that quicktime lift / gamma correction feature that is embedded into quicktime that is causing the errors. I find the cinema displays and the other mac screens to be good enough for eyeballing most pictures on, they are 8 bit and not 100% correct but then again they are far better than what was used by industry professionals not to many years ago, and there has been quite a few good looking movies made even when color timing was a lab process and the dials where much much less accurate than what we have in this digital age. Usually when color accuracy and screens are talked about it tend to be professional colorists that screams the loudest and dare people to fiddle with the colors without a top of the line signal chain... Personally I think that is partially just professionals that protects their profession.



Good question, as it was a very long time ago I made a DVD as all is files these days. But I would probably output a pal 8bit proress file and then download some osx DVD making program (if there is not such program included in osx... in my macbook air I do not even have a drive for DVD's...) , I actually do not even remember what the name of the DVD program that I used a lot in the past.... I think it was "DVD studio pro". I guess somebody else here has a more straight answer.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you say on Reduser, but here I disagree. If one is doing precise work, it is important to know that one is always correcting the footage itself, not compensating for display errors. If you charge $$ for your work, you are cheating your client if you use substandard displays. On-set monitoring, on the other hand, when shooting RAW, does not need to be anything special - just a good gage of sharpness and framing.
 
I think Bjorn is right on the benefits of Raw capture. If the standard of production requires quality images it the most viable option and getting easier to implement workflow.

One aspect hasn't been mention yet is if the cameraman has a contract offering residual sales from footage from the production, we do this a lot with Wildlife photography features. Raw make much more sense for future proofing rushes.

There's also a comfort zone think in that if you've not run work via a Raw pipeline, it can be thought of as something of a black art to be avoided. Its actually not so hard but you do need to get comfortable with it and work out your workflow so as to avoid the man traps. Id much rather have Raw capture if you have the post pipeline in place.
 
Dustin Veneman said:
Hey Bjorn,

What adapter do you use for your FD lens?
Click to expand...


The 500USD one from ebay. Do not know if it's "red approved" but it works like a charm and has noting touching the electronics of the camera so I do not really see any risk using it.

Robert Ruffo New said:
I agree with most of what you say on Reduser, but here I disagree. If one is doing precise work, it is important to know that one is always correcting the footage itself, not compensating for display errors. If you charge $$ for your work, you are cheating your client if you use substandard displays. On-set monitoring, on the other hand, when shooting RAW, does not need to be anything special - just a good gage of sharpness and framing.
Click to expand...


Yes ofcourse if your client is picky and got the cash it's easy then just to bring them what they ask for, top of the line / state of the art equipment for every instance of the production chain. However, a lot of clients tend not to have the needed budgets to do so. Then I think monitoring is not the most crucial part as it can always be altered, where as the lights, lenses, camera, crane etc that was used is something that is very final. The grade difference between a half decent monitor, like a cinema display without calibration for example, and a perfectly calibrated screen is usually so little so it's just a small tweak to get it right. So I still think it's all right to grade a short film with low budget on just about any monitor and then if it's shows to be very off, then to run it trough a grading suite with proper monitor calibration and a slight adjustment to get it as wanted. Needless to say though, it's allways nicer to get it right the first time but I'm not bringing a color grading suite to sea thats for sure. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top