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 :)

RedWideGamutRGB: discuss!

Elsie N said:
Kind of answers my question but I think I may need to reveal more of my thinking.

That is, I'll be shooting with a CF Weapon as my main camera and a RAVEN as secondary. The RAVEN will be at a different angle for the same scene and it is likely I'll be just exposing to the right on both cameras to save time as I will shoot some scenes sans crew.

What I'm hoping to learn is whether RWG will allow a like lut to be applied to both sets of footage and will visually match in all respects other than resolution.
Click to expand...

the workflow u want to achieve is independent of RWG...

if the sensor of the cam is the same, lens is the same, lighting and exposure are similar than the footage will inter-cut seamlessly (with FOV differences)...

just give both sets of footage the same treatment in post....

RWG is just a very wide color space to transfer the raw data into...
 
Mike Nagel said:
the workflow u want to achieve is independent of RWG...

if the sensor of the cam is the same, lens is the same, lighting and exposure are similar than the footage will inter-cut seamlessly (with FOV differences)...

just give both sets of footage the same treatment in post....

RWG is just a very wide color space to transfer the raw data into...
Click to expand...

Yeah, but I'm thinking the different angles will not have the same lighting and ETTR is the only way each camera will be similarly exposed. Maybe I'm hoping for too much but it would be fantastic if you could just apply the same lut to each set of footage and by and large, a member of the public could not distinguish any difference.
 
Elsie N said:
Yeah, but I'm thinking the different angles will not have the same lighting and ETTR is the only way each camera will be similarly exposed. Maybe I'm hoping for too much but it would be fantastic if you could just apply the same lut to each set of footage and by and large, a member of the public could not distinguish any difference.
Click to expand...

What you'd need there is some auto-exposure or pre-grade to normalize exposure ahead of the LUT.

Graeme
 
Elsie N said:
Yeah, but I'm thinking the different angles will not have the same lighting and ETTR is the only way each camera will be similarly exposed. Maybe I'm hoping for too much but it would be fantastic if you could just apply the same lut to each set of footage and by and large, a member of the public could not distinguish any difference.
Click to expand...

exposure both captures the same, if there are slight differences, grade them out then apply your LUT... or better:

grade that footage properly from top to bottom, a LUT is amateurish for a sensor of that caliber ;-)
 
Elsie N said:
and ETTR is the only way each camera will be similarly exposed
Click to expand...
ETTR won't ensure the subject matter you actually care about in the shot will be properly exposed.
Mike Nagel said:
grade that footage properly from top to bottom, a LUT is amateurish for a sensor of that caliber ;-)
Click to expand...
While I think the term amateurish is a bit harsh, I do agree with you.

Everyone has seen how long it can take some 3rd parties to integrate new SDKs into a product. RED had to get RWG into the SDK now so that by the time it shows up in an Adobe or Apple product that the rest of the pieces might be ready to go.
 
Graeme Nattress said:
What you'd need there is some auto-exposure or pre-grade to normalize exposure ahead of the LUT.

Graeme
Click to expand...

O.k., that tells me what I wanted to know.

Someday post is going to be done with the click of a button when algorithms evaluate footage and normalize it to a set standard.

Just was hoping this was the first shot in that revolution.
 
Elsie N said:
O.k., that tells me what I wanted to know.

Someday post is going to be done with the click of a button when algorithms evaluate footage and normalize it to a set standard.

Just was hoping this was the first shot in that revolution.
Click to expand...
There are tools that already do this, and for certain situations auto correctors are okay. Ultimately it's an art form though, so having it too automated takes the art out of it. But certainly for "normalizing" or getting in ballpark that exists and will only get better.
 
Elsie N said:
O.k., that tells me what I wanted to know. Someday post is going to be done with the click of a button when algorithms evaluate footage and normalize it to a set standard. Just was hoping this was the first shot in that revolution.
Click to expand...

Steve Sherrick said:
There are tools that already do this, and for certain situations auto correctors are okay. Ultimately it's an art form though, so having it too automated takes the art out of it. But certainly for "normalizing" or getting in ballpark that exists and will only get better.
Click to expand...
No automatic control can take the place of a colorist, for the simple reason that a lot of the work colorists do involves taking five or 10 or 15 different parts of the frame and optimizing each of them separately. An automatic control is only going to do the entire frame, in broad strokes. By the same token, the cinematographer always has to light the shot. It isn't a question of time or talent or cost or anything else... what has to be done can't be avoided.

Colorists sometimes tend to work surgically: for example, taking four people in the frame and lighting each one of them separately, adjust the left side of a wall by itself, bringing down the floor, bringing up the right side, and flagging off the ceiling... and all of this with a moving shot where everything tracks imperceptibly. This is regular run-of-the-mill stuff that happens every day. I haven't done a project in the past five years that hasn't had at least two or three power windows on every single shot, sometimes more; sometimes the windows are subtle, but I've had occasions where the exposure and color adjustments were huge and gigantic (and much appreciated by the DP).
 
@Marc: this is why I slightly touched this with the whole LUT approach ( as discussed in lengths elsewhere)... why shoot on 8K VV and then use a generic color transform that was never created and/or intended for the scene at hand is beyond me...

and IMO, Dragon needs a bit more massaging anyways to squeeze out the meat of the potential... ;-)
 
Marc Wielage said:
No automatic control can take the place of a colorist, for the simple reason that a lot of the work colorists do involves taking five or 10 or 15 different parts of the frame and optimizing each of them separately. An automatic control is only going to do the entire frame, in broad strokes. By the same token, the cinematographer always has to light the shot. It isn't a question of time or talent or cost or anything else... what has to be done can't be avoided.

Colorists sometimes tend to work surgically: for example, taking four people in the frame and lighting each one of them separately, adjust the left side of a wall by itself, bringing down the floor, bringing up the right side, and flagging off the ceiling... and all of this with a moving shot where everything tracks imperceptibly. This is regular run-of-the-mill stuff that happens every day. I haven't done a project in the past five years that hasn't had at least two or three power windows on every single shot, sometimes more; sometimes the windows are subtle, but I've had occasions where the exposure and color adjustments were huge and gigantic (and much appreciated by the DP).
Click to expand...

+1.
As someone with some retouching skills, I can do 60 layers on a single photo on Photoshop, without counting RAW basic development. There is more to a picture than some curves and some color adjustment ;-).

Colorist is a real profession, and it must be treated as such.

Nevertheless, It is not a reason to NOT TO DO things but it's a reason to LEARN, GET SKILLS and PROGRESS. :-)
 
Is there a link to the details behind the color science applied?
Was the issue bit depth or a transform applied?
 
Hugues Dagallier said:
+1.
As someone with some retouching skills, I can do 60 layers on a single photo on Photoshop, without counting RAW basic development. There is more to a picture than some curves and some color adjustment ;-).

Colorist is a real profession, and it must be treated as such.

Nevertheless, It is not a reason to NOT TO DO things but it's a reason to LEARN, GET SKILLS and PROGRESS. :-)
Click to expand...

Ted, is that You? :rofl:
 
Because it's only available when "advanced controls" is on.

Graeme
 
So, as I missed all this excitement, I would like to ask Graeme this. Does RedwidegamutRGB is a same idea as an Arri wide gamut? Because that had been around for a few years now and on occasion I had tried using RLF with Arri wide gamut color space. Most of the time it works, but I have noticed occasional gamut errors with that approach...
 
It's a bit different because it's not just a cameraRGB. Not-clipping camera data is the minimal requirement for the space, but it's not all that's special about it.

Graeme
 
Just tried RedwidegamutRGB on some files... looks absolutely amazing. Skintones look stunning.

That is all.
 
Mat_G said:
Just tried RedwidegamutRGB on some files... looks absolutely amazing. Skintones look stunning.

That is all.
Click to expand...

Great! I did very special work on RWG with respect to skin tone.

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