REC709 Output and the need for 4K Monitors

[Stuart English]

Broadcast Use

Broadcast Use

Interesting.

IMHO, the colors for skin were off, and highlights could hard clip as B21 color science allows the HD-SDI output to go above "100 IRE"

So how did you prevent HD-SDI output clipping when using B21 / REC709; and where did you / how did you place your mid grays?


For me, REDcolor does a better job of maintaining REC709 level and color compliance, but that is not your experience?

(BTW it's good to have this dialog)

 

[Deanan]

The REC709 (Old) was the closest monitoring that we had to a finished REC709 deliverable, this was a good thing as when you had a client on set it gave them the look of roughly what the finished product for broadcast was going to be.

REC709 is 'defined' as a monitoring space from prebaked images but is not defined as a camera space. The problem with the old rec709 selection is that applying the monitor space to the camera input produces somewhat arbitrary results. Every camera has the same issues and does the same equivalent of mapping the camera colors/tone into something that looks good in rec709.

That said, the "look" of the old in camera rec709 might be what you're liking?

 

[Dustin Cross]

I never liked rec709 on my camera.

In RedcineX I see no difference between rec709 and Redcolor Color space

In RedcineX rec709 is a little darker and flatter than Redgamma gamma space. I still prefer Redspace Gamma space because it is a little more contrasty and colors pop more.

I tend to use Redcolor and Redspace as my default settings and really like the results. They look great on my rec709 monitor. Requires me to do less work.


Dusty

 

[Stephen Strangways]

The REC709 (Old) was the closest monitoring that we had to a finished REC709 deliverable, this was a good thing as when you had a client on set it gave them the look of roughly what the finished product for broadcast was going to be.

REDcolor and REDgamma create a perfectly broadcast safe, REC709 legal deliverable.
So, if you process your raw files using REDcolor and REDgamma and deliver that, then monitoring in REDcolor and REDgamma on-set will show something extremely close to what the finished product for broadcast will be.

I found that I used to monitor in REDspace most of the time, and my final grade would be somewhere between REDspace and REC709. Even if I was monitoring in REC709 in the rare cases it looked better on-set, my final grade would look at little closer to the REDspace look.
In post, it would be a case of looking and REC709 and REDspace to see which looked like the best starting point for grading, and work from there.

Now, with REDcolor and REDgamma, I find that I usually do very little work grading it. What I see in REDCINE-X is so much closer to what I want the finished grade to be. So, by monitoring that on set, the clients are seeing something that is much closer to what I will be delivering.

In your case, though, are you processing your raw footage in REC709? If so, are you doing that because you prefer the look of it over REDcolor and REDgamma? Or are you doing it because you think that's the only way to get a REC709 legal deliverable?

 

[Jay Gannon]

That said, the "look" of the old in camera rec709 might be what you're liking?

I'll give a full answer later when I have the time but this is the basic point I am trying to say.

 

[D Fuller]

No the IRE was a tangent. Not really important.

The REC709 (Old) was the closest monitoring that we had to a finished REC709 deliverable, this was a good thing as when you had a client on set it gave them the look of roughly what the finished product for broadcast was going to be.

Yes it was not the best for actually judging exposure but it was very pleasing to the client to be able to look at something that they found pleasing and a good approximation of what the final product was going to be.

I am not saying that the current system is not usable I am saying that the old system was easier to work with in my own situations, I don't profess to speak for others.

Jay, my experience has been quite different from yours. The very first shoot after I got my camera back with the new MX sensor, build 30, and no REC 709, the creative director from the agency said, "What's making the picture look so good?" I didn't know the answer. At the time, I attributed it to the new sensor, but now I suspect that it was RedColor. BTW, I was using the same monitor this guy has been used to seeing for a year or so.

And I find it very useful as a representation of the deliverable. In fast-turn cases, a render through Red Rocket using the in-camera settings produces a fine, usable, better-than-I'd-get-from-Varicam output.

 

[John Brawley]

Digital video never had, never has and never will have "setup" or 7.5IRE, not least because IRE is analogue and digital is digital,

Not only that, but the rest of the world never used 7.5 either. Its only in NTSC countries that this ever existed.

I think the issue is that it feels a little like you're talking down to your audience when you dismiss 709 as a monitoring choice.

We should know as experienced RED cinematographers that 709 has a truncated gamut (and range) compared to what the camera is natively doing.

I used to use it as a final check for metering. I knew that I could push the exposure right to the edge, set a zebra at 103, have some clipping when looking at FC but if I flipped over to RAW while any of those tools were active, it would SATISFYINGLY restore any marginally lost detail.

I know as a user that 709 is a limited space to work in, but i also KNEW the limitations and used them as part of my onset work process. Now I've lost that reference because redcolour behaves very differently.

I don't understand why you had to actually REMOVE the old 709, just because you thought you had something better in redcolour. Yes it might mean more accurate monitoring, but why can't we have both ?

jb

 

[Peter Majtan]

I don't understand why you had to actually REMOVE the old 709, just because you thought you had something better in redcolour. Yes it might mean more accurate monitoring, but why can't we have both ?

I believe the issue is those "comparison test" that have been popping up lately... Since the REDcolor is actually the most accurate to display 709 then the older 709 setting - this is what creates the confusion. Lets say You had two cameras side-by-side (one RED and the other different brand) in a comparison test. Unless the person setting up the RED camera is well trained and understands these nuances - he will tend to select the 709 from the menu - which will result in less accurate reproduction then the REDcolor setting. I think RED is trying to prevent this issue. Think of the REDcolor as a language translator from Mysterium sensor to 709 monitoring...

That's just my take on this. I always use REDcolor & REDgamma for filming, monitoring and color-correction in post and my results are consistent and the clients are happy...

Just as a side-note - we calibrate both our location 17" and 24" TV-Logic displays and postproduction's SONY's CRT and Panasonic's Plasmas with SpectraCal's CalMAN to assure accurate color reproduction. I have seen too many people simply assuming that just because they have purchased broadcast monitor - that it is color-callibrated perfectly...

:sifone: Peter

 

[Graeme Nattress]

The whole goal of REDColor was "nice picture, accurate colours, REC709 monitoring compatible". I believe that it achieves those goals. The old REC709 was not as accurate as it should have been, and the multitude of in-camera choices confused people. We took the decision to produce a wide dynamic range gamma curve option (REDGamma) and a REC709 compatible (REDColor) colour space that would meet those needs.

REDColor / REDGamma are also suitable grading starting points for a wide variety of camera uses, but also look reasonable for instant viewing.

Graeme

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

Interesting thread... we are cinema not broadcast guys and all I can say is we almost exclusively monitor with RAW now and take the time to explain how much more detail is available in that image to our clients. Once we demystify the power of RAW, they almost unanimously relax about what they are seeing... especially when they show them how much more detail is visible in RW mode. (thanks REDUCATION!)

I mean your REEL gets the work in the end right? At least for us it helps them relax that we know what we are doing and can achieve any look and standard they need in post.

We make a point to explain that we shoot RED because we CARE ABOUT IMAGE... versus the point and shoot DSLR bake-o-lution

Sure we flip to Redcolor and monitor with that too on occasion...mainly for video village, but the old REC709 as Graeme mentioned was not very accurate at all... I dont understand these requests to bring it back. Regardless of the deadline of broadcast.

 

[Nick Shaw]

I can see the arguments both ways. Some people liked to monitor with the old Rec.709 LUT and would like the option to do so again. But many did not understand the way the Rec.709 image related to the RAW, and would make poor exposure choices based on what they saw on the monitor, so RED prefer not to give people that option.

I personally never liked the way the old Rec.709 LUT worked. It allowed white to peak at 109 IRE (excuse the inaccurate terminology) on the SDI output of the camera, but the SDI output of a RED Rocket peaked at 100 IRE. Therefore it was virtually impossible to accurately replicate in post what had been seen on set.

REDgamma rolls of to just below 100 IRE in exactly(ish) the same way on the camera's SDI output as the Rocket's SDI output. This to me can only be a good thing.

 

[John Brawley]

I can see the arguments both ways. Some people liked to monitor with the old Rec.709 LUT and would like the option to do so again.

I don't miss the old 709...just the way exposure tools used to work with them.

Good on RED for doing a better 709....but they have crippled and fundamentally changed the way some exposure tools work. after discussing this across several threads, it seems RED cant or wont change them, so to me the simple way of addressing this is to re-instate the old 709 monitoring with a disclaimer about using it to judge exposure. Seems like a simple solution to address the concerns many have raised here, regardless of if you perceive them to be legitimate concerns or not.

Certainly having a zebra that allows you to set a 100+ level that doesn't actually display 100+ settings is contradictory and idiotic, especially when you can get it to work as you change the ISO (which actually changes nothing of course.)

Saying just monitor everything in RAW is not a solution. How can you honestly say that to a production designer or a client, that their colors will look different and to *trust us*. Those days are long gone.

Good luck with that. It might have been so in the old days, but when one is still struggling to sell RED into production, the less perceived barriers to workflow, the better.

jb

 

[Stuart English]

Exposure v's REC 709

Exposure v's REC 709

to me the simple way of addressing this is to re-instate the old 709 monitoring with a disclaimer about using it to judge exposure.

That won't solve your issue, it's not an updated REC 709 LUT you should be arguing against but ISO independent FLUT.

Certainly having a zebra that allows you to set a 100+ level that doesn't actually display 100+ settings is contradictory and idiotic

So would you prefer it if we just changed the maximum value on the LO for Zebra 1 to 95?

Saying just monitor everything in RAW is not a solution. How can you honestly say that to a production designer or a client, that their colors will look different and to *trust us*. Those days are long gone.

When did we say that? Or are you saying that you can't judge exposure unless you are in VIEW=RAW ?

Good luck with that. It might have been so in the old days, but when one is still struggling to sell RED into production, the less perceived barriers to workflow, the better.

So to summarize, the barrier for you is exposure tools?

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

Saying just monitor everything in RAW is not a solution. How can you honestly say that to a production designer or a client, that their colors will look different and to *trust us*. Those days are long gone.

Good luck with that. It might have been so in the old days, but when one is still struggling to sell RED into production, the less perceived barriers to workflow, the better.

jb

Long gone? Not for us.That is what the REEL is for. PROOF. Especially easy to do when you have multiple RED projects under one's belt that look great.
Sorry to say but Monitoring RAW is a very viable solution. They DO trust us, especially when educated about RAW. Taking the time to do the latter has actually increased our business (Thanks again to REDUCATION) not decreased it.

But again this is film and narrative work Im talking about, maybe its different in the commercial world... but I also think RED COLOR is much more suitable for clients than the old REC709.. but thats just personal preference.

cheers

 

[John Brawley]

So would you prefer it if we just changed the maximum value on the LO for Zebra 1 to 95?

No. Because everyone who's used to using the zebra on other cameras and even RED up until build 30 will expect it to work with 100+ values.

So to summarize, the barrier for you is exposure tools?

Monitoring in RAW would be, as suggested by another poster here in this thread.

It's just confusing to keep calling it zebra when you can't use it in the way that Zebras have been used for the past decades of use.

Zebras are a great tool because they are a subtle way of indicating an exposure level (often set to clipping). I just love that with most modern cameras that I can customise two different exposure indicators and set them exactly where I want them. I set my Zebra 1 to 3% for blacks and used to set my Zebra 2 to 103. Basically the same as exposure check.

Ideally they would only be displayed to the operator and not through the split. If they are to go through the split, then they should be visually discreet so as not to interfere without the perception of the image, much in the way they currently work. You should be able to toggle them on and off during a take, like you can now.

They should work from the RAW or native image though, even if you're monitoring in red colour. They can have a scale of 1-100 as long as you don't call it zebra. Everyone expects a zebra to go from 1-109 not 1-98 with 99-109 values rolled down to fit into 98.

It could be called RAW zebra perhaps but even that may be confusing. But that is in effect what I would like to see. A RAW derived user definable zebra setting that ignored ISO settings.

Sorry to say but Monitoring RAW is a very viable solution. They DO trust us, especially when educated about RAW.
But again this is film and narrative work Im talking about, maybe its different in the commercial world... but I also think RED COLOR is much more suitable for clients than the old REC709.. but thats just personal preference.

cheers

I'm most of the way through a primetime national network drama season and there is no way that it would be acceptable to monitor using RAW, or to even try and *educate* each different director I get every 2 weeks, the multiple standby props that come and go, the different script supervisors that comes through each block, the multiple 3rds and 2nds, additional standby wardrobe assistants, makeup etc etc, many of which are there only on dailies or part time.

It might work for you, but it was a gigantic battle just to get conservative network TV to take RED seriously in the first place. To then ask literally dozens of people that cycle through my set to just accept a dull flat and lifeless image as being the best way to judge things won't wash at all. Monitoring in RAW makes no sense at all and just isn't needed when red colour looks so great and is in fact already VERY accurate as far as on set monitoring and viewing conditions can be maintained anyway.

I have no problem at all with the great monitor image that RED produces, it's just that changing from the old 709 to red colour, changed the way some of the exposure tools work. I still flick to RAW for a quick check on rehearsals, but I rely more on exposure check and during a take, Zebras.

jb

 

[David Rasberry]

Do the Zebras show the limits of legal REC709 values or do they show the RAW clip point if you monitor in RED color and RED gamma?

 

[Jay Gannon]

Ok for my final input.

Monitoring in RAW is not an option for us 99% of the time, its not what their used to and on a 2-3 day shoot you can't educate people or build up enough trust for them to go with it. Its just not there.

I am going to play more with RedColor and see if it was just my initial impression skewed by heavy workloads. It seems to be a dividing issue on which looks better so I am sure there is scope in both arguments. My job is to make sure the client likes what their seeing (I'm not the DP) and that the footage is easy to work with. If that means changing my ways so be it, sometimes we get stuck in routines I suppose.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Anyone making "critical changes to LUTs on location" is not being realistic. Viewing conditions on location are never appropriate for final color decisions, regardless of how much people want to believe they can be. The terms "critical color" and "location" don't belong together.

Thank god somebody said this.

It's a rare project I see where the production has calibrated their field monitors and editorial monitors so that they're going to see something that resembles what they're going to get in the final. I think DPs have a fighting chance to get this done provided they get the post house involved early on to make sure everything is calibrated correctly. But I don't see this done very often.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

But even if the monitors are calibrated, the viewing conditions are not...

Anyhow, I think RedColor is the best non-raw display yet.
RAWview in B30 has become useable. Good.

But:
If we could have a linear RAW view, like we have in the post tools, I know that's what I'd switch to to check my highlights...

Would have loved that.

Said before, still think this is the best solution to a lot overexposure situations...