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 :)

REDgamma2 and other examples...

Jannard said:
About now...

Jim
Click to expand...

As much as they (Autodesk, Quantel, Apple, Avid, Adobe, etc) bitch and whine in private at the rapid (and unpredictable) updates of RED color science, and the $ and time it takes for them to catch up, the improvements are impossible to argue with.

Keep pushing the envelope, the post world has no choice but to play catch up with breakthroughs like this. I would do the exact same thing, Im sure its way too exciting to sit on this stuff just so 3rd parties can have time to implement them into their own releases.
 
This is absolutely awesome Jim (& Graeme, Deanan et al). Anybody questioning the extra price of Epic or Scarlet in comparison to any other brand. Any other camera on the market, high or low end - and I mean ANY - you have to buy and sell a couple of times over to see improvements like this.

Red cameras - the gift that keeps on giving (are you reading this, Honey?).
 
So i guess there was some kind of embargo on redlogfilm and the new color spaces? I've been pestering Filmlight for the last couple of weeks and they would only say, sorry no comment, its not ready...

Maybe they will release it today! They just released Baselight 4.2!
 
Brook Willard said:
The new gamma curves really match the MX sensor. I never felt happy with the way that the MX sensor looked with the old color science. I knew it had the DR, I knew I could *see* the DR if I changed the ASA up or down... but the contrast always felt too high to actually *use* the DR [without some serious trickery].

Now I can use it. :)
Click to expand...

Took the words right out of my mouth. I've never seen so much dynamic range from a digital image as I do now with the new Color Science
 
Echoing all, these pictures speak volumes towards the investment that keeps on giving...

For quite a while now there have been a number of people suggesting that the only way to get the most out of their RED One is to work with RED footage exclusively with R3D (RAW) itself. While there are tremendous benefits to working with RAW footage through the finishing process, feature films with a substantial amount of visual effects shots will not be able to easily integrate RGB files from VFX vendors and R3Ds as RAW files. This is especially true with VFX films that include over 1,000 shots (or over 50% of the TRT).
Many people may find it interesting that I don't typically work with R3Ds all that often in the finishing stages of digital intermediate. The simple fact is a lot of our projects have so many VFX shots it isn't feasible. -Yet with the science RED has provided and improved upon over the years, I have never experienced a qualitative compromise. This is why RED's investment into improving the color and gamma spaces for an RGB debayer (DPX or otherwise) is extremely valuable to all RED customers.
What the new REDLogFilm and REDGamma 2 show is that the next generation of RED manipulation can be done on films that may not have a workflow that relies exclusively on R3D manipulation. And these particular advancements show that continuing to work outside of the R3Ds does not pose a penalty. Altogether it validates that many different workflows out there-R3D or RGB-can still get the most out of their footage with a few clicks of a button. Priceless information like this that benefits the whole fleet is why we must always stay tuned and alert.
m
 
Burning the midnight Oil Michael?

Same here, finishing QC on 5 reels of our next feature. "The Caller"...



Huff pufff,, lets keep at it, plane departs with package in about 6 hours...
 
REDColor2 and REDLogFilm actually show how good the old M sensor was. I'm still on the old sensor; and I while I was wondering wether to update or not with Epic be available in half a year or so, the third generation of Red's colour science is such an improvement that I think that the M-sensor is "good enough" for my projects until Epic shows up. This will also increase the budget for the Epic significantly. A win-win situation!

Thanks fro making this decision easier!



Hans
 
My examples

My examples

REDColor_REDGamma.jpg

Shot on R1-MX with Nikon 18-200mm zoom, REDColor & REDGamma (old).

REDColor2_REDGamma2.jpg

Shot on R1-MX with Nikon 18-200mm zoom, REDColor2 & REDGamma2 (new).

REDColor2_REDlogFilm.jpg

Shot on R1-MX with Nikon 18-200mm zoom, REDColor2 & REDlogFilm (new).

REDLogFilm_FilmEffects_01.jpg

Shot on R1-MX with Nikon 18-200mm zoom, REDColor2 & REDlogFilm (new) processed in (Shake) GenArts Sapphire Film Effects.

REDLogFilm_FilmEffects_02.jpg

Shot on R1-MX with Nikon 18-200mm zoom, REDColor2 & REDlogFilm (new) processed in (Shake) GenArts Sapphire Film Effects>>Kodak Neg stock 5245 and Kodak Print stock 2383.

Download R3D example with REDcolor2 & REDlogFilm out and try for yourself>>>
 
Hi

I'm going to have to stick my neck out here, and sacrifice myself to stupidity and ignorance, but hopefully in return for some great knowledge in this vast area of colour science.
So please forgive my following question. I'm new to all this and really don't know what I'm looking for, but to me the new shots actually look worse then the originals. I'm guessing that it's because they haven't been graded compared to the first picture? Or is the first picture ungraded too? But because of the high contrast in that picture it means you have no where left to go with your levels and colour?

Thanks in advance and again sorry for the stupid question, but you've got to start somewhere right?

Pete B
 
peteb said:
I'm new to all this and really don't know what I'm looking for, but to me the new shots actually look worse then the originals.
Click to expand...

What you are looking at here are the flat RAW files, or digital negatives.

The basic idea is not for them to look pretty, but to retain as much detail as possible in shadows and highlights. As a consequence they look dull/gray/flat.

You can then take these clips and grade them to your liking—for instance like in the last shot.
 
peteb said:
I'm new to all this and really don't know what I'm looking for, but to me the new shots actually look worse then the originals.
Click to expand...

Pete, Sanjin's shots aren't the best examples. You really need to see it with your own red footage. There are two things: Color space and gamma curve.

The color space difference is noticeable on Sanjin's shots, primarily in the skin tones. RC is more saturated. On these raw shots RC does look better, but on some of my night footage RC over saturates skin tones while RC2 is much more natural.

Next is the gamma curve. RG has more contrast than RG2 as you see. This can push out detail in the highlights and darks. Again Sanjin's examples aren't the best as I wasn't able to discern any lost and recovered detail in the highlights or shadows between the two RG/RG2 images. However I have some night footage where it definitely helps as RG is a too contrasty.

Jim's photos are better for showing RG/RG2. What does the sign on top of the round building say? That should explain everything. Other points of interest, but less dramatic as that are the other brightest points on the round tower, and the difference between the sky and right building, and the the irish pub sign on the right

All in all, what is too saturated and too contrasty? RC2/RG2 on my footage is closer to what was actually seen by my eyes. More contrast and more saturation can make it look better for a finished product, but closest to reality is probably a better starting point for grading. We also have issues of finishing codecs having a smaller dynamic range than raw. So somehow you've got to compress your dynamic range and RG2 and RedLogFilm are two newly evolved ways to do this; pick your flavor.

Cory
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top