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 :)

skintone

Bob Gundu said:
RedGamma3 RedColor 3 + slight contrast
reddefault_contrast_1.1.8_800.jpg
Click to expand...

OK Bob, that one's looking good! You're kicking ass :)

To me, take saturation down a tiny bit, especially in the candy-cane pinks, add a little more contrast, fix slight yellowness in highlights, sharpen a little, should be good.

Let's see some tungsten :P

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Those are all very nice, bob. If possible please upload the r3d as well would love to see others using the same frame showing their preference for great skin tones.
 
Bob Gundu said:
That's the kicker Allen. No LUT on that one! Straight redgamma3 and color3 plus I slightly adjusted the contrast slider. I knew you'd like the lack of blue tint in the hair!
Click to expand...

Yeah, the LUTs to me are usually too strong. Maybe if they were blended with original a tiny bit... they're good if you're trying to hide issues or make your project look cool or whatever. But I personally just prefer a clean, true-to-life look. To me, that looks closer to well-exposed film than most of the "film looks"...

Which one was closest to what you actually saw, BTW?

Of course a film simulation 3DLUT or other transformation has its place for something like adding a pleasing S-curve, tweaking Cyan, Yellow, Magenta, boosting mildly-saturated stuff to be a little more saturated, adding some pleasing non-linearity...

Anyway, next question is: how to get similarly natural skin in indoors lighting. Not awful lighting. But tungsten (or I guess HMI or Kino... if you can somehow make it look awesome like tungsten does) Because DSLRs seem to be able to manage OK. Film manages OK.

Counting on you, Bob. No pressure :)

And I promise to try to shoot a test of DSLR shooting stills vs RED. Unless Steve Sherrick does first? Steve?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Bruce Allen said:
Yeah, the LUTs to me are usually too strong. Maybe if they were blended with original a tiny bit... they're good if you're trying to hide issues or make your project look cool or whatever. But I personally just prefer a clean, true-to-life look. To me, that looks closer to well-exposed film than most of the "film looks"...

Which one was closest to what you actually saw, BTW?

Of course a film simulation 3DLUT or other transformation has its place for something like adding a pleasing S-curve, tweaking Cyan, Yellow, Magenta, boosting mildly-saturated stuff to be a little more saturated, adding some pleasing non-linearity...

Anyway, next question is: how to get similarly natural skin in indoors lighting. Not awful lighting. But tungsten (or I guess HMI or Kino... if you can somehow make it look awesome like tungsten does) Because DSLRs seem to be able to manage OK. Film manages OK.

Counting on you, Bob. No pressure :)

And I promise to try to shoot a test of DSLR shooting stills vs RED. Unless Steve Sherrick does first? Steve?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
Click to expand...
I've put the feelers out there to see who might be interested. I suspect that if this first part of the puzzle falls into place, the rest will as well.

Here's another piece of the puzzle that needs some help. Can anyone hook me up with Dolby? I'll do a cold call if need be, but if someone has an in, I'd like to see about getting ahold of their PRM-4200 for the test.
 
An interesting factor to add into the tests would be the length of time it takes to accomplish the grade, or perhaps multiple grades one for quick turnaround and one where you take the time to get the best image no matter the time. This would be interesting as it would show the strengths or similarities between camera's and which one's can actually give you a great image in a quick turnaround and which can't. (depending on personal tastes and workflows)

Now that is all very subjective and can place the blame/praise/error directly on the tester so I would understand if it's a little to difficult to accomplish I just think it would be interesting to compare out of the box looks(provided gamma curves), in camera looks(tweak in camera settings), quick turn around (little post tweaking), and the best possible grade (lot's of tweaking).

Yet another great skin tones thread! appreciate any and all efforts to run a proper test, thanks in advance!
 
SpeedLooks Fuji wins me over every time. It's a pretty easy base LUT to work with and adjust for your own liking. The gold quality skintone is the healthiest in my opinion, Kodak is decent but it's too yellowish and makes skin look like everyone has jaundice.

With enough tweaking you can get a very very nice look out of these LUT's. They're pretty damn versatile and bring a whole new look to your shots. I'm dazzled.
 
Personally, both the Speedlooks are overly aggressive and give the shots an odd starting point. The RedGamma 3 REDColor 3 appears a bit too flat. I personally use and like to work with Kodak 2383 LUTs for the true warm tones on some films and Fuji Lut on others where i may want certain colors such as cyan and green to be accentuated, but these are just a starting point. Of course, this is why these threads are so interesting, because everyone has slightly different taste. I also do believe that the Mysterium sensor handled skintones better than the MX sensor with/without LUTs applied in the grade. I graded a film called "Cafe" starring Jennifer Love Hewitt and Jamie Kennedy a few years back shot by Joe White and I graded in Scratch using Kodak 2383 LUT and I still feel there are some great skintones examples in that film under tungsten / HMI light. I'll dig up the master files and share if I can get permission soon.

Also, I have two Cine-Tal Cinemage dual link 444 monitors which are professionaly calibrated in Wide Gamut DCI P3 and Rec709 that I use in our grading suite. I would be more than happy to assist with the testing if needed. Good discussion everyone!
 
Zakaree Sandberg said:
kinda sad that the make up artists had to use more red coloring in their makeup just to make the skin tones read normal on camera..
Click to expand...
Why is this "kinda sad", they were putting on make up, does it matter if it was blue, green or red?:smilielol5:
 
Bob Gundu said:
Red Gamma 3 RedColor3
REDDefault_1.4.6_800.jpg
Click to expand...

You rock again. Fascinating how this looks completely dead whereas outdoors it looked much better.

I would love a RedSnappyColor color profile for RED.

I like the Fuji. I like the Kodak. They both introduce distortions (eg blue hair)... but almost in different directions. I also like little bits of the RedColor3 (hair for example, clothing).

The others are also pretty good.

You know what? Personally I'd just blend in bits of all of these (also the ones lower down) and hope they average out to something good :)

OK here's my attempt at "Oversaturated Canon JPEG Color" - it's just a blend of all of your grades, plus a little sharpening and grain! Excuse the JPEG compression.

bobgundushot_mixed.jpg


This is close but perhaps still looks a tiny bit "RED"?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Alexa. straight from Arri's website.. Here's the lut.. No excuses, make it look like Skyfall..



EDIT: Please right click and save link as..




Redcolor3 RedlogFilm to Alexa log C Rec709

alexa2_zpsce61c443.jpg
 
Last edited:
Bruce Allen said:
I think he means the good old Alexa 3DLUT

http://www.arri.com/amera/digital_cameras/tools/lut_generator/lut_generator.html

BTW, I think Skyfall had an interesting range. For sure the usual Alexa look was there in places. But I also remember scenes like the public inquiry scene where skin tones were rather natural indeed. I think the lighting for that scene was a lot of big soft daylight-balanced stuff?

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

No Bruce, There's a generator at Arri's website, but you choose how you want the LUT to be, in my case I wanted; Log C Rec709, that's why I put a direct link to my server..
 
Pablo Moreno said:
No Bruce, There's a generator at Arri's website, but you choose how you want the LUT to be, in my case I wanted; Log C Rec709, that's why I put a direct link to my server..
Click to expand...

Yes, I have used it quite often! For example, on The Avengers I used it so we could get going on shots while waiting for the official show LUT to get sent over.

It is super easy to use and I love how you can just download the LUT you want, in the format of your choice, ready to go into whatever app you want.

It's a complicated process but the interface is well designed to avoid user error.

Sorry, this is a little OT. But I do think that a lot of Alexa's "color advantage" comes down to usability.

For example: RED pushes R3D native work, which is fun when you're getting started. However, a lot of people just work with the R3Ds within a video pipeline... and then they develop straight to a hard 709 video pipeline where highlights are lost easily and you can't recover down the road if, say, you run something as simple as a Warp Stabilizer on the footage. Arri encourages people to work in Log and although this is a pain for them to start, it pushes them more in the direction of working in a format that is not as destructive to latitude.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top