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 :)

RED - examples of natural, "filmic" color?

Hi Nigel, i agree, that is really really close. You cant tell from the first glance at all. Gotta be nit picky to do it.

But interesting test and good practice too.

Rivai
 
seems those tests you posted were deliberately twisted to trick people. I chose all the contrasty shots as digital yet they turned out all to be film, i.e. seems film was deliberately made to be more contrasty and blacks crushed etc whereas we all know that's really more the look of digital or at least Red specifically with its lower dynamic range
 
Florian, very unexpectable

EPIC WINS ! The hype of skintone disappeared now ! Great thread...anyone who want to argue skintone i will link them to this thread from this moment onwards !

EDIT : Hang on, do you still have the before grade or RAW snapshot ?

Cheers
Rivai
 
Peter Dmitriyev said:
seems those tests you posted were deliberately twisted to trick people. I chose all the contrasty shots as digital yet they turned out all to be film, i.e. seems film was deliberately made to be more contrasty and blacks crushed etc whereas we all know that's really more the look of digital or at least Red specifically with its lower dynamic range
Click to expand...

I also think that the film samples don't look like film. Perhaps someone shot the film tests underexposed.

When I shoot film negative I always try to overexpose it a bit, or a lot.
 
I have seen film shoot that doesnt look like film at the end of the result. Worse than any digital shoot. But that's not the point...
 
Florian Stadler said:
The upper one is Epic and the lower one Alexa. Both produce great results. The pillar in the BG looks different because the shot was taken slightly later in the day and the sun had come around.
Click to expand...

Actually, that doesn't really surprise me. The primary differences between the two that I've generally seen (or more accurately "felt") as a colorist have been that the Epic seems to produce a somewhat "crunchier" (i.e., a bit more black compression) and "harder" (i.e., "sharper," but not always in a specifically definable way) image. The Alexa is a bit "softer contrast" (i.e., less black compression) and "softer image" (i.e., less sharp, but once again not in a specifically definable way). Skin tones are, to some degree, a result of that, specifically the black compression, because shadows on faces often define "modeling", and when they take on a color cast - usually red - it becomes very noticeable, particularly when color grading, which is essentially a linear process, cannot cleanly control it. The only thing I find a bit surprising is the magenta cast in the highlights on the Alexa image, something I usually don't encounter (I usually see more of that with Red images, actually).

I think this all indicates that concentrating on any one specific characteristic of an image as indicative of a camera's capabilities is to not be very realistic, as all of the visual characteristics taken together are what contitutes a camera's "look" and "signature." And it also indicates that no matter what a topic starts as on RedUser, it inevitably turns into a contest between Red and anything else, which to me remains a bit of a tiresome exercise. Once in a while, it's nice just to talk about things in general rather than turning it into a contest.
 
Mike, LogC on the Alexa is gamma < 0.6, so that'd lower the contrast before grading. If that's something you like, you can always do that with the linearity of the Epic data too. As for the blacks, the low contrast filter on the Alexa will reduce image contrast still further pumping extra photons into the shadow areas.

Good comment on "contest" Mike - I prefer to talk about why things look the way that they look - then people can learn from that to use the available tools to make the images they want look the way they need them to. The whole idea with the RED cameras is to be neutral to the image making process. From reading this thread I can see that is not always what is wanted, and I can take that as good feedback too. There's always going to be improvements in how we develop the raw conversion process and threads like this serve to feed the math that I get into in positive ways.

Graeme
 
Bruce Allen said:
Because this isn't an Epic vs Alexa thread.

This is an "examples of natural filmic color" thread... and I have so far seen only one actual example of a guy making RED footage in the style that I like so far - Gunleik!

And it's not some wacky style that I want... just the skin tones of awesome movies :)

Gotta find some more examples of RED-shot stuff before shutting up :P

Also, why should RED be happy with only beating Alexa? The goal is to beat film in every way - and that includes capturing the color data needed to make any filmic look that we want from the raw file IMHO!

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
Click to expand...

So ... here is where I am at.

You only need ONE film shot with skin tones the way you like to prove that the Red cameras can do it.

After that ... well maybe you are just complaining that you don't like the aesthetic people choose, including altered skin tones, for their films.

For my part, a while back someone posted some shots from Top Gun as examples of good skin tone. I find it to be too ruddy for my taste. So, I wouldn't make a film's skintones look that way if given the choice.

In other words ... how much of this is a question about the camera capabilities - which I might care about - and how much is essentially a lament that people don't choose to recreate the skin tones we got by default on film?

In addressing that concept ... there is a real difference in the USERS of Alexa versus those of Red cameras. Alexa users are by and large more traditionally minded shooters with more of a "classic film" aesthetic. Red users tend to be newer to the industry and more "edgy" and more willing to try new things ... for whatever reason. This includes the mindset that makes one invest in a new camera system from an untried company.

Could it simply be that you are seeing the different choices made by these two groups of users?
 
Alexander Ibrahim said:
... there is a real difference in the USERS of Alexa versus those of Red cameras. Alexa users are by and large more traditionally minded shooters with more of a "classic film" aesthetic. Red users tend to be newer to the industry and more "edgy" and more willing to try new things ... for whatever reason. This includes the mindset that makes one invest in a new camera system from an untried company.

Could it simply be that you are seeing the different choices made by these two groups of users?
Click to expand...

Not really. What Bruce asked about was released films, generally available through various distribution channels. Those are, for the most part, shot by experienced shooters with lots of experience on various systems including film. He wasn't talking about "indie" productions, and he wasn't really talking about Internet distributed shorts. There have been quite a few studio pictures that have been shot using Red cameras in the last few years and distributed in both theaters and television, and I believe that's what Bruce was talking about. He wasn't talking about people who might buy a camera, he was talking about projects that have been shot with them, specifically, theatrically distributed pictures.
 
M Most said:
Actually, that doesn't really surprise me. The primary differences between the two that I've generally seen (or more accurately "felt") as a colorist have been that the Epic seems to produce a somewhat "crunchier" (i.e., a bit more black compression) and "harder" (i.e., "sharper," but not always in a specifically definable way) image. The Alexa is a bit "softer contrast" (i.e., less black compression) and "softer image" (i.e., less sharp, but once again not in a specifically definable way). Skin tones are, to some degree, a result of that, specifically the black compression, because shadows on faces often define "modeling", and when they take on a color cast - usually red - it becomes very noticeable, particularly when color grading, which is essentially a linear process, cannot cleanly control it. The only thing I find a bit surprising is the magenta cast in the highlights on the Alexa image, something I usually don't encounter (I usually see more of that with Red images, actually).

I think this all indicates that concentrating on any one specific characteristic of an image as indicative of a camera's capabilities is to not be very realistic, as all of the visual characteristics taken together are what contitutes a camera's "look" and "signature." And it also indicates that no matter what a topic starts as on RedUser, it inevitably turns into a contest between Red and anything else, which to me remains a bit of a tiresome exercise. Once in a while, it's nice just to talk about things in general rather than turning it into a contest.
Click to expand...

The lower contrast it often attributable the low con filter built in to the alexa.
The down side there is you can't remove it when you don't want it but you
can add it in front of the lens on epic.

I'm not sure which magenta cast you're referring to on alexa but I've
seen quite a bit of magenta/purple fringing on alexa and am not sure
where it's coming from.
 
Blair S. Paulsen said:
I wonder if 16bit Epic material will give us more of the subtle shades Bruce seeks?
Click to expand...

It looks that way based on what I've seen. I'd say a lot of folks are not aware of the leap which switch from 12 to 16 bit makes.

What is unclear and hasn't been disclosed so far by Red, at least as I'm aware of, is if 16 bits are all the way from the sensor over processing to Redcode.
In any case, Epic material behaves noticeably better in post.
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Mike, LogC on the Alexa is gamma < 0.6, so that'd lower the contrast before grading. If that's something you like, you can always do that with the linearity of the Epic data too. As for the blacks, the low contrast filter on the Alexa will reduce image contrast still further pumping extra photons into the shadow areas.

Good comment on "contest" Mike - I prefer to talk about why things look the way that they look - then people can learn from that to use the available tools to make the images they want look the way they need them to. The whole idea with the RED cameras is to be neutral to the image making process. From reading this thread I can see that is not always what is wanted, and I can take that as good feedback too. There's always going to be improvements in how we develop the raw conversion process and threads like this serve to feed the math that I get into in positive ways.

Graeme
Click to expand...

Hi Graeme, please take that in a positive way. As much as we say that RED is a neutral starting point but people out there dont think it the same way. There is always a look versus thread and comparison like RED look, Film Look, Alexa Look, Sony look. That will never EVER go away, you will see that keep coming back. There is a competition. For those most senior colorist who has been long in the industry might think that VS thread is tiresome but i believe majority dont think it the same way. You can see how many view you have in this thread alone. People are interested to know and willing to learn.

We always need to compare to something when we talk about how things look the way they look. Like Florian example of the color chart. There is no lighting in his picture (assuming), that is pretty neutral starting point and yet there is a difference on skintone. So what makes it look that way ? So there is a comparison.

I believe RED team is one of a kind, open minded and crazy people. This thread sum it all what industry people in the field think about Alexa and Epic/Red things. I can see at the end, some of it pretty hype. So please do take it positively :)

With respect
Rivai
 
Florian Stadler said:
Here is an example of some 80's inspired saturated skin of various shades. This is not so much a comparison and an Alexa/Epic thing, this was shot as an A/B cam setup on a shoot I did recently. It was graded on set by my DIT Stephen Latty on a Resolve to MATCH. Can you guess which is which? Why? What are the visual cues?

Alexa was shot 60fps Prores422 and Epic 120fps 4KHD.

Download them and watch them in a proper viewer (like Photoshop) as they appear a bit desaturated in Firefox and Safari...

askin.jpg

bskin.jpg
Click to expand...

Both of these looks very good. The Epic is so much better at skin than RED One MX.

I'd say the Epic is still going slightly gray in the highlights (see the knee of the girl with the blue top in the upper image), but not enough to be objectionable. The Alexa appears to be going slightly gray in the bottom shot on the guy's leg. Overall, a toss up between the two, and given the superior resolution and framerates on the Epic, I'd pronounce it the winner here.

Graeme, please keep tweaking the color science! Neutral is a great goal, but 'beautiful' isn't bad either, and it's probably closer to what most of us are actually shooting for. :)
 
Thanks Rivai - I do take threads like this positively and I do try to separate hype from fact. That's why I like blind testing where people don't know what they're looking at, although it's not always the easiest to arrange. We all keep learning at RED, myself included and our goals are obvious - the best image at the best price in the best form-factor. We'll keep working in that direction and keep taking feedback in the most positive ways that we can.

Graeme
 
Erich Ocean said:
Both of these looks very good. The Epic is so much better at skin than RED One MX.

I'd say the Epic is still going slightly gray in the highlights (see the knee of the girl with the blue top in the upper image), but not enough to be objectionable. The Alexa appears to be going slightly gray in the bottom shot on the guy's leg. Overall, a toss up between the two, and given the superior resolution and framerates on the Epic, I'd pronounce it the winner here.

Graeme, please keep tweaking the color science! Neutral is a great goal, but 'beautiful' isn't bad either, and it's probably closer to what most of us are actually shooting for. :)
Click to expand...

The only problem with this picture is, it wasnt taken at the same time. So it makes it a little hard to judge it objectively. But at first glance, it looks absolutely identical. Further observation, EPIC wins ! The only thing that im interested to see if the RAW snapshot before the DIT did the grade. But again, it was taken at different time of day, i think thats why the DIT is trying to match it. Im interested to know what DIT had in mind during this matching exercise. What is his goal. Is he trying to match Alexa to EPIC or EPIC to Alexa ? Did he do any secondaries (I assume no). That details help because it is related to what we are talking about here. Simplicity of Alexa VS The Power of RAW in EPIC/RED.

I hope Florian can share some details in the process of the adjustment.

Rivai
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Thanks Rivai - I do take threads like this positively and I do try to separate hype from fact. That's why I like blind testing where people don't know what they're looking at, although it's not always the easiest to arrange. We all keep learning at RED, myself included and our goals are obvious - the best image at the best price in the best form-factor. We'll keep working in that direction and keep taking feedback in the most positive ways that we can.

Graeme
Click to expand...

It may not be related, but after Michael Bravin incident, i have yet to see what is the real story behind it. At the moment i lose a bit of respect to ARRI. Judging from Jim's reaction, high probability Arri is involved.

But RED is the company that i personally admire and have a lot of respect to its team ! Way to go Graeme !

This thread almost/has already reach its conclusion i believe. Points taken very well

Cheers
Rivai
 
Rivai, we're a team of real people, and as much as I can I interact in person, on the phone or on the forums with the users of the camera system - not just the camera owners, but with those that have to use the images. Although I can go out and shoot, I can't take every image under every lighting condition so I relish good image feedback. RED is most definitely the antithesis of a faceless corporation.

Graeme
 
Martin Stevens said:
I also think that the film samples don't look like film. Perhaps someone shot the film tests underexposed.

When I shoot film negative I always try to overexpose it a bit, or a lot.
Click to expand...

Wait ... what?

The film doesn't look like film?

That's an oxymoron. It is actually film, therefore it must look like what it actually is: FILM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top