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

Rudi Herbert said:
Exactly, we get s similar phenomenon underwater, with blue water heavily tinted towards magenta, and then, if you add a color filter, which is very close to an 80C albeit a bit darker, things get actually worse unless you are in very shallow water where the color balance is a bit more normal...
Click to expand...

Are you saying it get worst with the blue filter because the overall brightness is getting darker the deeper you go, and you end up starving all channel?

Lets pretend you have just enough light (not enough to ETTR, but enough for a fat histogram). My point is with tungsten fixtures and camera set for either 3200k without filter --- or camera set for 4400K with an 80C, from what I've noticed is skin has a shift towards magenta without the filter even though white point may be the same. Does this make sense, because right now it doesn't to me :)
 
Jeremy Hildebrant said:
I understand why the 80C helps with noise, if there is enough light not to starve all the channels with 1 stop loss you get from the 80C, but what is the technical explanation for the hue shift towards magenta in skin with out it?
Click to expand...
While in theory the sensor is linear, it is not in practice, as all sensors and Color Filter Arrays are imperfect to begin with.

As a result, when one channel, and associated electronics, is operated on the low edge close to the noise floor (blue), and another on the high edge near or over clipping (red), the image (after grading) will differ (usually worse) from the case where the red and blue channel levels are more equal. The 80C filter helps provide a more equal channel balance in tungsten.

Cheers.
 
Has there ever been any thought from RED about developing specific selectable color sciences in Redcine-x based on the type/color of light source. Kinda of like Phase One does in their Capture 1 software with profiles for daylight, flash, tungsten. *NOT to be confused with white balance settings, these are profiles that work in conjunction with your white balance to compensate for hue shifts.
For example, I know from experience that if you were shooting with tungsten light and your camera was balanced for that light but the profile was set to flash, you would have neutral whites, grays, blacks but there would be strange hue shifts in reds, browns, yellows, orange usually towards magenta and slightly weaker colors. But with the correct profile applied it compensates for that known shift. Vice versa if shooting flash and white balanced for it, but you have the profile set to tungsten you would have good neutrals but some colors would have jaundiced green hue to them. But with the corresponding profile(color science) working in conjunction with white balance you end up with good neutrals and accurate hues and strong colors.
I would love to see RED have a Redcolor 4 Daylight, Redcolor 4 Tungsten, Redcolor 4 general, etc. Is this something that has been discussed and is it possible?
 
Can't speak for Red Jeremy, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that the white balance feature is already doing something akin to what you are talking about (i.e. the color matrix changes as you change white balance, it just all happens behind the scenes.) I could totally be wrong though, especially since the way Redcine's UI is laid out implies that the WB happens downstream of the gamut and gamma conversion (not that the UI has to in any way reflect the actual order of operations and interplay of parameters of course) in which case building a true gamut conversion into the WB function would probably be a bad idea. If that's the case, the WB would most likely be just some form of a straight CCT function. I could also be over simplifying Graeme's processes, and it could be way more intricate than either of those two basic ideas. I honestly have not spent hardly any time trying to characterize the way Red's color processing works since it is pretty black boxed, so I've just taken a WYSIWYG approach to it. I suspect you could get a pretty good idea of what is going on behind the scenes (in a general fashion) with careful experimentation. It would be kind of nice to have a little bit more of this type of info documented, though it's not like the other camera manufacturers are too much better about letting anyone peek behind these curtains.
 
no filters for underwater guys if you have time for a grade session. get as much light as you can... oh, and if you have to overexpose sunrays, shoot an x track and it's an easy hdr shot.
 
Graeme Nattress said:
The "RAW view" hasn't changed since the original R1, and of course, it's not really a RAW view because RAW cannot be reasonably said to be viewable. It's primary design use is to see exactly what is going on in the highlights, so has a very low gain development curve to allow you to do just that.

Graeme
Click to expand...

Dear Graeme,

Is there any advantage to checking your exposure against "RedLogFilm" instead of the "Raw View"?
Assigning RLF to the soft button instead of the "toggle raw view"

Thanks!
Mike
 
I'd say that's personal preference.

Graeme
 
Mark Toia said:
I grade from the R3D RAW files only... not colour baked DPX, not colour baked Pro res, not colour baked H264... I can grade exactly and quickly any skin tone I desire.
People saying they can't get perfect skin tomes from RED is something of a mystery to me.
Not sure why this subject comes up all the time. I can only assume people are trying to grade from compressed color baked codecs and not from the actual RAW files.
Click to expand...

Expose well, light well and grade well and skin tones looks excellent off Epic and One MX > I agree with you
 
Hi Graeme,

Would like to know the best combination for grading EPIC footage ie Camera RGB with RED LOG FILM or RED COLOR 3 with RED LOG FILM.We are using SCRATCH 6.1 with RR card.

Harcharan
 
REDLogFilm is your best grading starting point for sure. I'd say REDColor3, in general is the best starting point for colour, and sometimes REDColor2 may be preferential if you prefer something a tad more neutral.

Graeme
 
Graeme Nattress said:
REDLogFilm is your best grading starting point for sure. I'd say REDColor3, in general is the best starting point for colour, and sometimes REDColor2 may be preferential if you prefer something a tad more neutral.

Graeme
Click to expand...

Yes there are times where the reds can be a bit too much and redcolor2 is a nice setting.
 
I have exchange ideas with Graeme about the use of RC2 vs RC3 in conjunction with RedLogFilm for film-out purpose (to get a perfect Cineon "color space"). We have used the RLF with RC2 and the prints and DCPs have come exactly as graded. We have not experimented with RC3 as of yet.

My 2 cents...
 
Hi,
Thanks for your reply...we were also using REDLOGFILM with RC2 or 3 as preferred for our filmouts....But today we saw results of o film graded with CAMERA RGB and REDLOGFILM combo and results seen to be much more filmic and natural....Your views on this...
Harcharan
 
CameraRGB colours are straight off the sensor with no correction, hence they're not accurate. You could be correcting for this elsewhere in your workflow, or you may just like the look of inaccurate colours. "filmic" is in the eye of the beholder.

Graeme
 
Hi,
Thanks Graeme...but with camera RGB the noise level is also very low ...
Harcharan
 
But when you correct the colours, you're going to add any noise that correcting the colours makes. It matters not whether you do it or I do it, but at least when I do it I know it's an accurate starting point for your grading.

Graeme
 
Graeme Nattress said:
CameraRGB colours are straight off the sensor with no correction, hence they're not accurate. You could be correcting for this elsewhere in your workflow, or you may just like the look of inaccurate colours. "filmic" is in the eye of the beholder.

Graeme
Click to expand...

It's also useful sometimes for keying since the CameraRGB seems to be the least warped color. Sometimes you lose some hue separation after the REDColor LUTs are applied and it contaminates the key. In those situations you can just take the alpha off of a CRGB color rendition and copy it into a RC2/3 image to get the best of both worlds.

Jeremy Hildebrant said:
I understand why the 80C helps with noise, if there is enough light not to starve all the channels with 1 stop loss you get from the 80C, but what is the technical explanation for the hue shift towards magenta in skin with out it?
Click to expand...

I can't say for certain but if I had to guess it would be due to the bayer color filters. Remember that you have 3 'bins' for each primary color. If you had nothing but orange light you would be attempting to reconstruct 3 primary colors from pretty much JUST the red bin and some of the green bin. Taken to the opposite extreme if you had only a blue light you would essentially be trying to "colorize" an image from a single monochromatic channel. There just wouldn't be any information to inform the debayer process what's red vs green since both bayer samples would be just black.

A secondary problem that I imagine is responsible is cross talk. Each bayer color is sensitive on something more resembling a bell curve of hues than a hard limit. As a result some of the red spills over into blue and some of the green spills over into red etc. The colors such as 'orange' fall in between two bayer colors. If the scene illumination shifts you could be shifting that hue into a 'bad spot' where as I speculate above it's having a hard time interpolating the hue between multiple bayer filters and but it's also now getting 'too close' to another sensor and 'spilling over'.

The 80C would be positioning skintones into a spot where the MX chip has the least cross talk and most captured information (which is to say it's closer to its native tuning).

Bruce Allen posted extraordinary post on light spikes--but if you replace the word "light" spike for "surface color" spike (The other half of the exposure equation) then you can see how specific hues can get wonky when captured with an image sensor. Remember that image sensors don't just directly capture a hue (nor would that even be possible in the case of colors like pink) it's just trying to triangulate where it is from 3 fixed points.
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...put-fixtures&p=1195051&viewfull=1#post1195051
 
Matt Ryan said:
I believe Cinegrain and FilmConvert are the only 2 available for 2K+. The rest are 1080p unfortunately.

Cinegrain has the Indie Package in 4K starting at $499, which is still pretty high:
http://cinegrain.com/indie/
Click to expand...


FYI, FilmConvert grain scans are 6k, for $199.
 
I think it's pretty funny how so many of you act as if there's a blatantly noticeable difference between the color of one's skin throughout different HD format cameras. To this day I usually have trouble discerning whether or not a film is even digital or film when I'm at the theatre, let alone what kind of digital format and what "skintone" I'm viewing.

But I guess a lot of y'all are better versed for this kind of stuff than, say, a Soderbergh or Fincher.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top