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 :)

Should Red Logfilm be exposed differently

M

Margus Voll

Active member
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Tallinn, Estonia, EU
Hi.

I work as colorist and i have always wondered if Red Log film should be exposed differently compared to regular profiles.
Why i ask this is that if i get material which is reasonably exposed (some times not all the data range) and if i start
grading it in Red Log Film then i loose 25% or more information if i look on scopes.

Should it be shot and exposed as log film already in camera or it does not matter as much?

Mostly it feels like we loose latitude and get more noise but maybe I'm missing something.
 
you should always be exposing for the log or the raw.
im not sure what you are saying, no one exposes for the dragon color or rec 709 or whatever they are displaying.
 
I'm not a cam user but material i get seems to be always exposed to rec.

This is why i ask this as in grading the results are se big. Maybe i should give some screenshots ?
 
Margus.
Unlike on LGG, the majority of users here are shooters not colorists.
What they are saying is there is no such thing as exposing for RedGamma or RLF or anything else. In order to correctly set the exposure, you must always expose the RAW image. RAW is the setting in the camera, that displays exactly what the name says- RAW image. It is a RAW image before a specific gamma curve had been applied. This way you KNOW it is exposed correctly for anything down the line.
 
Why i ask this is that 99% of time in my location here i get under exposed material from clients shooting red and
it does not seem right to me. If i would know the correct way i would advise them better.
I do not see this as much with other cameras.

I will post some shots with scopes to compare with so you can see.

Spot meters are good imo as histogram shows you overall data but not the detailed information of any part of image separately.
False colors help more here.
 
Margus Voll said:
Why i ask this is that 99% of time in my location here i get under exposed material from clients shooting red and
it does not seem right to me. If i would know the correct way i would advise them better.
I do not see this as much with other cameras.

I will post some shots with scopes to compare with so you can see.

Spot meters are good imo as histogram shows you overall data but not the detailed information of any part of image separately.
False colors help more here.
Click to expand...

This is most likely because the gamma that Red's LCD's use tends to push the shadows up quite a bit, making it seem like you have more information there than you actually have. Your clients are most likely exposing by eye, using the LCD as a gauge, and then you get the footage in post and it looks quite a bit darker than it did on their LCD. Like I said, a light meter is the ideal way to go, but let's be honest, nobody uses those anymore (not even me!). False Color is the next best thing; at least that way your clients will be able to avoid major underexposure and loss of detail.

In general, I would ETTR with DSMC 1 bodies. An easy fix might be to just tell your clients to set ISO at 400 instead of 800.

DSMC 2 retains a lot more information in the lower stops so I would be ok protecting the highlights a little more with the new cameras. But still overall you want to ETTR as much as you can with digital cameras, as long as you don't clip the highlights.
 
its really not much more effort to meter (both color and exposure) while doing the scene setup and then compare that to what you see in the GIO Scope in camera.
 
Margus Voll said:
I work as colorist and i have always wondered if Red Log film should be exposed differently compared to regular profiles.
Click to expand...
Not to me, no. If you're losing any information, then I would reexamine your methods. Me personally, I only worry about what I see on the monitor -- the scopes are there just to tell me when I'm driving off the road (and for matching).

You can come up with some good settings just by looking at RedColor + RedGamma4 (or whatever is appropriate for the project), grab a still of that, then make a new version with RedColor + RedLogFilm and try different ways of dialing in the gamma curve. One can make arguments for Curves vs. Log controls vs. Primaries, or even a custom LUT.
 
Thanks. This is exactly what i was after.

I guess my clients expose a bit like ENG camera and they try to expose it low but should ETTR.
 
ETTR?
 
No, there is no "should be", just different characteristics result from different exposure strategies
 
I used to ETTR all the time, till I expanded my way of thinking
 
Jake Wilganowski said:
No, there is no "should be", just different characteristics result from different exposure strategies
Click to expand...

I agree - but basically we're talking about noise.

Dragon noise looks more "filmic" yes, but personally...I prefer adding it in post...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top