Raw vs 709

[Saba mazloum]

Hey,

Sorry for asking this question, I'm having a hard time trying to convince our director how its a no brainer to shoot raw vs 709. He claims it'll be a headache later in post because the colour timers in Asia aren't as good and never manage to get the same look on the set. I know i can set a LUT on set and confirm with him what he likes and later use that LUT in post. Still I'm having trouble convincing him, its not even a budget issue, its a mid~big budget film in china.
was wondering if anyone had some good comparison footage of Raw vs 709 with before and after the colour timing.

thanks!

 

[Saba mazloum]

Hey,

Sorry for asking this question, I'm having a hard time trying to convince our director how its a no brainer to shoot raw vs 709. He claims it'll be a headache later in post because the colour timers in Asia aren't as good and never manage to get the same look on the set. I know i can set a LUT on set and confirm with him what he likes and later use that LUT in post. Still I'm having trouble convincing him, its not even a budget issue, its a mid~big budget film in china.
was wondering if anyone had some good comparison footage of Raw vs 709 with before and after the colour timing.

thanks!

 

[ericyoung]

With Red you don't need to choose! Red cameras always record RAW, with any look you have being metadata. The RC3/RG3 is a Rec709 approximation which can be kept through the post workflow or discarded in favour of working with the RAW. The point you have to decide is if they transcode to a baked in format, and never go back to the Red R3D files.

 

[Saba mazloum]

Well actually we are shooting with Alexa xt.

 

[Adrian Jebef]

Well actually we are shooting with Alexa xt.

Shooting Arriraw or ProRes? Either way I'd suggest you shoot raw or ProRes Log C and use Arri's standard log to rec709 conversion LUT as a starting point to grade from during the finish. It's quite simple. Just make sure your 709 transform is in-chain as an output LUT instead of an input LUT.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Sorry for asking this question, I'm having a hard time trying to convince our director how its a no brainer to shoot raw vs 709. He claims it'll be a headache later in post because the colour timers in Asia aren't as good and never manage to get the same look on the set. I know i can set a LUT on set and confirm with him what he likes and later use that LUT in post. Still I'm having trouble convincing him, its not even a budget issue, its a mid~big budget film in china.

There are some great colorists in China, and it's not that big a deal. You can either just drop in the factory Alexa LUT to go from LogC to Rec709, use a custom LUT, or just use curves to approximate the same look. I've done all three here in LA, and each can produce effective pictures. The end result is the only thing that matters. My usual thing is a custom LUT that deviates about 20% from the Arri factory LUT, usually affecting less of the shoulder/highlights and not quite as extreme in the mids, but it's close.

Shoot some tests and look at it for yourself. The LogC workflow for Alexa is not rocket science -- it actually looks very good, and I think the colorimetry in particular looks excellent. No way would I use a Rec709-only workflow for a feature. You can argue ArriRaw vs. LogC, but the expense of the recorders on ArriRaw is quite a bit higher (as are the data requirements) compared to, say, ProRes444 2K.

 

[Saba mazloum]

There are some great colorists in China, and it's not that big a deal. You can either just drop in the factory Alexa LUT to go from LogC to Rec709, use a custom LUT, or just use curves to approximate the same look. I've done all three here in LA, and each can produce effective pictures. The end result is the only thing that matters. My usual thing is a custom LUT that deviates about 20% from the Arri factory LUT, usually affecting less of the shoulder/highlights and not quite as extreme in the mids, but it's close.

Shoot some tests and look at it for yourself. The LogC workflow for Alexa is not rocket science -- it actually looks very good, and I think the colorimetry in particular looks excellent. No way would I use a Rec709-only workflow for a feature. You can argue ArriRaw vs. LogC, but the expense of the recorders on ArriRaw is quite a bit higher (as are the data requirements) compared to, say, ProRes444 2K.

Marc,

thanks for your logical comforting comment Haha , yes there is no way I'm shooting 709. My last feature film was shot with log c and I loved it, since now I have more budget on this feature the logical thing would be to shoot raw, and I'm shooting anamorphics on the Alexa xt 4:3 so it would be a no brainier to shoot raw to also get more res.

correct me if I'm wrong, so basically on set I can set a LUT with the director , and in post have that exact Look we had on set put on the raw image correct ? Director keep saying that he's had too many bad experiences with colorist not being able to bring back the 709 look on set .

 

[Saba mazloum]

Shooting Arriraw or ProRes? Either way I'd suggest you shoot raw or ProRes Log C and use Arri's standard log to rec709 conversion LUT as a starting point to grade from during the finish. It's quite simple. Just make sure your 709 transform is in-chain as an output LUT instead of an input LUT.

hey Adrian ,

I'm pushing for raw since I'm shooting on Alexa xt 4:3 and using anamorphics . What would be the best way to comfort the director to know that he will get the same look he gets on set later in post ? Simple 709 LUT should do the trick right? What the director keeps stressing is his past exerpeince with raw was he never managed to get he same look he had on set later in post.

 

[Marc Wielage]

correct me if I'm wrong, so basically on set I can set a LUT with the director , and in post have that exact Look we had on set put on the raw image correct ? Director keep saying that he's had too many bad experiences with colorist not being able to bring back the 709 look on set .

As long as the on-set monitor is calibrated, you should be able to recreate the exact same look in post. But bear in mind that when you see the looks in context, the director will most likely want to change things. I think all you should worry about on the set is getting a basic "ballpark look" that looks reasonable. Don't waste time worrying about subtleties, because you'll have all the time to do that in post. And when in doubt, shoot tests beforehand and make sure you know the limits of how far you can go in post, particularly in terms of dynamic range.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

What the director keeps stressing is his past exerpeince with raw was he never managed to get he same look he had on set later in post.

If the display technology does not differ between set and post, and if proper LUT and calibrated monitors are used, the director is seeing the same image. If in that scenario the image in post "feels" different to the one on the set, that is not uncommon.

 

[Marc Wielage]

If the display technology does not differ between set and post, and if proper LUT and calibrated monitors are used, the director is seeing the same image. If in that scenario the image in post "feels" different to the one on the set, that is not uncommon.

I agree completely. My joke is, I can't remember what I had for lunch last Tuesday, let alone what the image looked on-set from a month ago. So much of this hinges on psychology and human memory. I've had color-correction clients insist that part of a feature looked different four hours later, simply because we broke for lunch and they left the building for an hour!

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

I've had color-correction clients insist that part of a feature looked different four hours later, simply because we broke for lunch and they left the building for an hour!

Or a client's moment of realization a night sleep/few days after a prolonged grading session forced to late hours.