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 workflow - a discussion

So... sidestepping a bit here, but just pondering after following a discussion on CML. Do we actually need two terms for LUTs?

One for the on-set/DP/Directors pregrade, which often will not be a very good startingpoint to get exactly that look in a good way, and one really technically strict term, which is for taking a linear signal and mathematically represent that in a specific color/gammaspace?

The two uses seem to overlap and confuse a lot...

I think only the technical one deserves the name, and the second should be called something like a pregrade...

Just a thought

G
 
Our EXRs are scene referred linear light. You can also get their easily from redlogfilm with a standard log2lin node.

Graeme
 
Gunleik Groven said:
So... sidestepping a bit here, but just pondering after following a discussion on CML. Do we actually need two terms for LUTs?

One for the on-set/DP/Directors pregrade, which often will not be a very good startingpoint to get exactly that look in a good way, and one really technically strict term, which is for taking a linear signal and mathematically represent that in a specific color/gammaspace?

The two uses seem to overlap and confuse a lot...

I think only the technical one deserves the name, and the second should be called something like a pregrade...

Just a thought

G
Click to expand...


+1

This is similar to the term "Gamma": originally a very specific, very technical term to describe a mathematical function needed for properly viewing a digital video signal. Now "Gamma" includes camera settings and has become synonymous with "Log". Still a technically correct usage of the term but now we're just confusing people.

When I do live color from the set I prefer to use the terms "look" or "color previz" to differentiate from the more technical (and mathematically correct) terms used in Post.
 
Hahahahaha

So let's make this thread into a concise vocabulary for RAW/LIN workflows, too

Let's just change the world according to what we want it to be!

I am in!
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Our EXRs are scene referred linear light. You can also get their easily from redlogfilm with a standard log2lin node.
Graeme
Click to expand...

Coolness, did a quick test in nuke (redlinear->view1 vs redlogfilm->log2lin->view2) ... is real close ... but ever so slightly different when i mouse over the same pixel (in the attachment if i did that right), which is one reason why raw linear is great. [redlinear seems a bit "grey" by a micro shade ... but i like that ... before it goes to grading, seems like the log back and forth increases contrast a bit ... i think i'm doing this in full float). Would be nice to have these basic log workflows as saved nuke file examples.



>> Originally Posted by Gunleik Groven
>> There are a couple of very different perspectives depending on POV.
>>Longform vs shortform
>>Compositor vs DP vs colorist


This flow is working well for me now ... is kind of a microbudget "prometheus" workflow (longform vfx with heavy use of sets):
step 0. create set models based on manual measuring
step 1 . redcine-x, basic grade and trim
step 2. nukex 7 ... linear color correction with vfx (do camera solves ... send to modo)
step 2a. modo ... take shots from nuke doing the vfx, then hand that back to nuke
step 3. adobe for editing,sound,grading
step 4. davinci for grading


"Heiro"and the other major shot management stuff are a bit of overkill for "puddles of light"(movie only uses one camera, only one person does vfx and that's me). I'm btw finding fxphd and the nuke forums really helpful(they are starting to be my "goto" forum for figuring things out, tons of RED experts at both locations - lmao the modo forum is a bit like the reduser forum ... a bit crazy).
 

Attachments

  • logtolin_vs_linears.jpg
    logtolin_vs_linears.jpg
    39.5 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Gunleik Groven said:
Bumping some good discussions for new users.
Shamless pug...
Click to expand...

For Sure Gunleik. I have some questions on monochrome workflow (either with the monochrome epic or setting the saturation to zero on the r3d). I've been playing with a bunch of settings in NUKE and AE, I'm finding what I like is either working in full linear (even for viewing the clip) or RedGamma3(redgamma3 does a great job on bw). But as I'm going through my nodes/composites - i am carrying all this Red/green/blue crap all over the place (and sometimes get color shifts away from the monochrome). Would also be nice "space wise" to know the best way of dropping RGB and just using a luma value. Also, most of the LUT tables are for color, only the 3DLUT's seem to work decently ... and i'm not sure which ones i can really use for log/gamma/linear nodes. So I'm wondering how people do black&white compositing ... i know it's still done on film ... so the answer has to be out there ?
 
r3d into Flame batch where the camera settings is in the clip node history then add look nodes and grade in log .

All while looking in the result trough a Log2Lin lut and having the r3d source node open and possible to swap between proxy and full resolution at any time.

The above is cashed and linked into one composting node tree for each cut in a timeline that is set to the delivery format resolution.

The above leaves every cut open down to the r3d all the way trough the online and composting separating grading and compositing is not the future. To keep the grading as a separate process there needs to be a grading setup standard, that goes across all platforms, and even though that seems like an easy thing to make I think grading in the edit will be the future.
 
Björn Benckert said:
r3d into Flame batch where the camera settings is in the clip node history then add look nodes and grade in log .

All while looking in the result trough a Log2Lin lut and having the r3d source node open and possible to swap between proxy and full resolution at any time.

The above is cashed and linked into one composting node tree for each cut in a timeline that is set to the delivery format resolution.

The above leaves every cut open down to the r3d all the way trough the online and composting separating grading and compositing is not the future. To keep the grading as a separate process there needs to be a grading setup standard, that goes across all platforms, and even though that seems like an easy thing to make I think grading in the edit will be the future.
Click to expand...
Agree, but not the way Flame or Smoke does it today. I would hate to color correct anything longer, than a commercial in Smoke or Flame. Sorry, but right now CC and CW are not what i'd consider an adequate color grading tools. Bring back the Lustre inside the Smoke and Flame and then you have my full attention.
 
Jake, isn't Flame premium what you are referring to?

-F
 
Frank Cueto said:
Jake, isn't Flame premium what you are referring to?

-F
Click to expand...

Not really. Flame premium is a ADSK marketing speak for a collection of apps- Flame, Smoke and Lustre, while I'm asking for a Lustre and Smoke or Lustre and Flame as a one app, so there is no need to bounce between different apps, for a true finish just like Björn advocated. Actually, I'd like to see Smoke and Flame as a one app too.
 
Thanks Bjorn, Jake, Frank ... that's very encouraging ... i that i think i'm going down the right path.

In some bizarre way, with what your saying and what i'm trying to do, it's almost as if i need to do color grading before i durring compositing, rather then the normal flow which is compositing then color grading. It's a bit like in the old days when I would request thefilm to be push//pulled(keep the film in the bath's shorter or longer), then mechanically/projector compositing, then final colorization with dodging and chaining during the projection for final. So I'm pondering dropping rgb and having the following luma channels ... Diffuse, Specular, Reflective,Shadow,Alpha,Depth ... then doing the grading on each channel with a final equation that mixes them based on deep pixel math - which basically does what i did mechanically in the old days.

jake blackstone said:
Not really. Flame premium is a ADSK marketing speak for a collection of apps- Flame, Smoke and Lustre, while I'm asking for a Lustre and Smoke or Lustre and Flame as a one app, so there is no need to bounce between different apps, for a true finish just like Björn advocated. Actually, I'd like to see Smoke and Flame as a one app too.
Click to expand...

ya ... it all really needs to be one app/thing that does it.
 
Isn't Mistika trying to become that one unique super app? Maybe not compositing wise, but everything else?
 
Frank Cueto said:
Isn't Mistika trying to become that one unique super app? Maybe not compositing wise, but everything else?
Click to expand...
Ya ... is like ocula/heiro/etc ... with data managment for petabytes - kind of mixed together. What i hear is over $200k to get a basic system setup ... so i haven't tried it(I would love to have a tour of someone using it ... hint ... hint). My film is a bit under 100 terabytes so i'm using the medium end stuff. I think all the big players are really moving to different flavors of these "super" apps. Would be nice for someone explaining how these super apps do enterprise wide raw workflow.
 
May be I didn't express the idea of one-app-for-everything correctly. It is possible to do everything in Flame right now-bring in EXR images with all rendered passes, FBX models, composite all together, color grade in-context and export. I just wouldn't want to use Flame or Smoke for traditional type of color grading.
To facilitate the use of Flame premium, ADSK has pretty robust interchange mechanism in place for moving projects between all Flame premium apps. Various artists can work on the same material at the same time and exchange each other's projects. In other words, Smoke operator can conform timeline, send it over to Flame for compositing. Flame then uses that timeline and material from Maya to composite. Then the same project sent to Lustre to be color graded. Finally that project comes back to Smoke and now the timeline has VFX and grades applied. Anyone visiting NAB should see the demo, where different artists do just what I'd described in real time, before the audience.
 
jake blackstone said:
May be I didn't express the idea of one-app-for-everything correctly. It is possible to do everything in Flame right now-bring in EXR images with all rendered passes, FBX models, composite all together, color grade in-context and export. I just wouldn't want to use Flame or Smoke for traditional type of color grading.
To facilitate the use of Flame premium, ADSK has pretty robust interchange mechanism in place for moving projects between all Flame premium apps. Various artists can work on the same material at the same time and exchange each other's projects. In other words, Smoke operator can conform timeline, send it over to Flame for compositing. Flame then uses that timeline and material from Maya to composite. Then the same project sent to Lustre to be color graded. Finally that project comes back to Smoke and now the timeline has VFX and grades applied. Anyone visiting NAB should see the demo, where different artists do just what I'd described in real time, before the audience.
Click to expand...
I have been trying to learn FBX with raw workflows, is a lot to learn ... and isn't so obvious. I'm also trying to understand the relationship between FBX and Alembic workflows with RAW, as it relates to the openexr 2.0 deep pixels.

I have been slowly gaining some ground ... but to get into that seems like i need a degree with 3 years work experience(which might be just what it takes). I think long term what will separate pro's from amateur's is exactly what your talking about Jake, pro's will understand those workflows and have a much higher quality product, amateurs won't - even though they are working off of the same quality sensors. It's just a lot of information and it's not so obvious where to get started(took me a few days to research what you said so i could respond rationally).

There also seems a divide between different corporate "bundles", i.e. : Mistika, The Foundry or ADSK. It's almost that you have to make a decision which "bundle" you are going to use, then learn the interchanges of that bundle ... that make sense?
 
Well the 'bundles' are far more important in the CG world...but they are not really corporate....similar to how a jpeg isn't corporate....
Every 3d program there is can import FBX....the same will be for alembic, just as every compositor can open exr, and the same will be for exr2.

I think this is the way to look at the future instead of the all in 1 apps....as they are usually jack of all trades, master of none.

In theory you can do it, and autodesk is close...
But for instance in an FX heavy feature you will likely be comping in either Nuke or Fusion.....and editing on smoke could be better

But the rest of the production world can learn from the CG worlds open interchange format.......think of an EDL, and how buggy they can be.....how many features are not supported...

Then look at alembic.....geometry, shaders...cloth sims, fluid sims, camera positions, focal lengths ect ect ect.......all very disparate data types...all opened flawlessly (sometimes) in completely different applications.

I think this is more the kinda realistic answer then the all in one super apps.....problem is on the other more traditional side of production we are now just adopting xml's and amazed by the fact that simple video cuts, and linear retiming affect translate from FC to PPro
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top