So... how do I do it?

[Mark Andersen]

That is a huge question. There can be a million answers and a million roads to becoming proficient at lighting. I am not exper,t but in 27 years I've done it a lot. I think that is one of the keys, practice. Do a lot of lighting, look at a lot of lighting, shoot stills, shoot cine, watch movies, look at photos, look at the world around you. I'll throw in my little tip here. Set up shots in a situation, camera angle, etc. that is already aminable for a good shot and good lighting and then refine the lighting from that point. No many of us start from a dark stage, so look for opportunities for good light. Scout the light on the location, then figure out how to augment it or make it a bit better. Sometimes this might mean removing light too. It amazing how good natural light can be a times, often it doesn't need a ton of extra stuff to get the picture looking great. My 2 cents here. Hope I didn't stray of the topic too much.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Sorry, but I need to ask, I'm a bit confused...

On RED's website, the recommended RED/Adobe workflow is all about DPX for finishing (See page 3).

Is the Adobe workflow just old and therefor should be ignored ?

Thanks for clarifying this one.

DPX is just one option. Many established post workflows and finish processes are still based on DPX. Ideally, one would not output DPX from Premiere these days for finishing if the color grading or finishing application supports R3D files natively. Most do support R3D now. I wouldn't say the workflow doc is outdated, it's just discussing a common concern and making a comparison with the previous CS4 release where the output had to be done via AfterEffects due to other restrictions and bugs at the time. The document has not been updated for Adobe CS5.5, or to address the fact that R3Ds are widely supported these days. Most competent post houses will want R3D data right up to the very end and will only render something else after creating VFX frames or final color/finish.

 

[Ido Karilla]

If you are going to output to film, a film print LUT is the very last thing to do. If you are not sure what to do at this point... call Michael.

Jim

Hi Jim,

I know you "man" have nailed this issue, and it was further discussed in other threads.

Never the less, a convincing explanation to why is this the case has not been given.

I have graded 6 red shot feature films, from red one build 14 to the beloved red MX, and every time before we start grading we do this blind test with the DP producer and director in which we grade with a Film Out LUT and with out one , trying to achieve the expected look.

Both grades look very good but it is always the film-out-lut graded images that are chosen as the more organic and vivid images.

It might be my limited skills, and I will accept that as an explanation but if there is more to it please share with us.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Ask for help.

Most filmmakers have been treated in a certain way on their way up to the top that they have been forced into a point of pride to prevent this.
I wished the filmmaking world was a little more friendly. Most of the time when I asked stuff people were answering with an attitude of: "if you don't know then you shouldn't be working with this".
It's a shame a lot of filmmakers treat others in a bad way so they then treat their colleagues in the same way and the cycle continues.

It's great that, while there are some brawls on this forum (there are always brawls on forums), it still stands for an open and friendly attitude towards fellow filmmakers.

Cheers

 

[M Most]

Never the less, a convincing explanation to why is this the case has not been given.

I have graded 6 red shot feature films, from red one build 14 to the beloved red MX, and every time before we start grading we do this blind test with the DP producer and director in which we grade with a Film Out LUT and with out one , trying to achieve the expected look.

Both grades look very good but it is always the film-out-lut graded images that are chosen as the more organic and vivid images.

It might be my limited skills, and I will accept that as an explanation but if there is more to it please share with us.

I think in your case it may partially be a case of preconceived notions on the part of the clients, who may be coming in expecting to see something that "looks like film," and therefore gravitate towards that, regardless of the other compromises.

As someone who's dealt with this quite a bit, and as someone who a few years ago also advocated a film targeted path, I would say that a number of things have happened that have changed my mind. First, color science has improved considerably, both on Red's side and on the side of labs and vendors such as Cinespace that has allowed for an inverse LUT approach for the film deliverable to be a practical and sensible path. In addition, on the practical side, film is not the primary delivery target going forward, particularly in North America, but in other parts of the world as well. So the need for the film version to be the model for all other versions is not what it used to be.

Now, on the subject of exactly what is different, well, even in the early days of digital cinema cameras we struggled with trying to fake those images into a film color pallette, because they just aren't the same. So we would use a film print preview LUT, and take the original video targeted images and use a transform to put them into "quasi Cineon" space, at least as far as the values themselves are concerned. But the colors never really worked, and we were faced with having to clean up a lot of things - cyan in the lowlights, artificial feeling flesh tones, pink highlights, that sort of thing. We were also forced to accept a film knee and shoulder that would minimize some highlights and low end detail that we actually had in the digital version, which helped the film print (which retained those highlights and lowlights because it is recorded without the preview LUT) but really hurt the digital deliverables. More importantly - and I'm speaking as a colorist now - the constant use of secondary correction to clean up the color anomalies I already mentioned has the immediate effect of destroying a lot of color purity. By that, I'm referring to the colors that result when the original colors are allowed to stand on their own and the delicate balance of all colors in the scene is based on an overall change of balance, much like the printer lights in a film lab. When you don't go in and change individual hues, saturations, and the like, the original colors are maintained and separation is achieved. This leads to more apparent detail, more apparent sharpness, more apparent depth, and more purity of color across the brightness spectrum. This is all a very long winded way of saying that the image looks richer. Now, even in past years, this was always apparent, but because of the dominance of film in the distribution chain, as well as a relative immaturity of inverse LUTs, we were compelled to go with film as the primary deliverable target. That is no longer the case. Nor is it the case that film is the only acceptable and/or most desirable look for modern motion pictures and genres. I feel that if anything has become apparent in the last 2 years or so, it's that film has a look that is the product of its components - chemistry, silver halide crystals, a negative-to-IP-to-print process, and other things. And digital cameras have their own look - similar, but different, and different from each other, just as film stocks are subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) different from each other. And one doesn't have to look like the other, especially when one (film) is becoming less and less prevalent, and the other (digital) is becoming more prevalent and is clearly the primary target going forward.

For a digitally captured production to look its best, to look like it was intended to look, and to get the most out of the camera being used, a pure digital path is a much better way to achieve that. If one feels that film is the only acceptable aesthetic, or even the most desirable one, then one should try to find a way to shoot film. Manipulating digitally captured images in a rather destructive way in order to fake it is not, to my mind, a productive exercise, especially in a world in which film is not the future. But that's only one opinion.

 

[M Most]

Most filmmakers have been treated in a certain way on their way up to the top that they have been forced into a point of pride to prevent this.
I wished the filmmaking world was a little more friendly. Most of the time when I asked stuff people were answering with an attitude of: "if you don't know then you shouldn't be working with this".
It's a shame a lot of filmmakers treat others in a bad way so they then treat their colleagues in the same way and the cycle continues.

That often depends on how the question is asked and what is portrayed as the basis for the question. Those with experience usually got to where they've gotten through a lot of hard work, hard knocks, experience, and a career-long devotion to learning. When a question is posed that indicates that those doing the asking have not even bothered to seek out basic information - which is a lot more available these days than it has been in the past, when you actually had to go to a library, book store, or manufacturer/rental house to get it - that indicates laziness, a sense of entitlement, a lack of patience, inexperience, and an expectation that learning is not necessary, all exactly the opposite of what the experienced person has done. It has little to do with being open or friendly, and everything to do with expecting that those who want to learn should be willing to do what's necessary to earn the attention and respect of those they're trying to emulate. That's the way it is in every endeavor, even if it's not always as obvious as it is in the film business.

 

[Elsie N]

...
snip
... and I'm speaking as a colorist now - the constant use of secondary correction to clean up the color anomalies I already mentioned has the immediate effect of destroying a lot of color purity. By that, I'm referring to the colors that result when the original colors are allowed to stand on their own and the delicate balance of all colors in the scene is based on an overall change of balance, much like the printer lights in a film lab. When you don't go in and change individual hues, saturations, and the like, the original colors are maintained and separation is achieved. This leads to more apparent detail, more apparent sharpness, more apparent depth, and more purity of color across the brightness spectrum. This is all a very long winded way of saying that the image looks richer.

For a digitally captured production to look its best, to look like it was intended to look, and to get the most out of the camera being used, a pure digital path is a much better way to achieve that.

Am putting this into my notes and is something I will strive to adhere to. Thanks.

 

[Ido Karilla]

I think in your case it may partially be a case of preconceived notions on the part of the clients, who may be coming in expecting to see something that "looks like film," and therefore gravitate towards that, regardless of the other compromises.

As someone who's dealt with this quite a bit, and as someone who a few years ago also advocated a film targeted path, I would say that a number of things have happened that have changed my mind. First, color science has improved considerably, both on Red's side and on the side of labs and vendors such as Cinespace that has allowed for an inverse LUT approach for the film deliverable to be a practical and sensible path. In addition, on the practical side, film is not the primary delivery target going forward, particularly in North America, but in other parts of the world as well. So the need for the film version to be the model for all other versions is not what it used to be.

Now, on the subject of exactly what is different, well, even in the early days of digital cinema cameras we struggled with trying to fake those images into a film color pallette, because they just aren't the same. So we would use a film print preview LUT, and take the original video targeted images and use a transform to put them into "quasi Cineon" space, at least as far as the values themselves are concerned. But the colors never really worked, and we were faced with having to clean up a lot of things - cyan in the lowlights, artificial feeling flesh tones, pink highlights, that sort of thing. We were also forced to accept a film knee and shoulder that would minimize some highlights and low end detail that we actually had in the digital version, which helped the film print (which retained those highlights and lowlights because it is recorded without the preview LUT) but really hurt the digital deliverables. More importantly - and I'm speaking as a colorist now - the constant use of secondary correction to clean up the color anomalies I already mentioned has the immediate effect of destroying a lot of color purity. By that, I'm referring to the colors that result when the original colors are allowed to stand on their own and the delicate balance of all colors in the scene is based on an overall change of balance, much like the printer lights in a film lab. When you don't go in and change individual hues, saturations, and the like, the original colors are maintained and separation is achieved. This leads to more apparent detail, more apparent sharpness, more apparent depth, and more purity of color across the brightness spectrum. This is all a very long winded way of saying that the image looks richer. Now, even in past years, this was always apparent, but because of the dominance of film in the distribution chain, as well as a relative immaturity of inverse LUTs, we were compelled to go with film as the primary deliverable target. That is no longer the case. Nor is it the case that film is the only acceptable and/or most desirable look for modern motion pictures and genres. I feel that if anything has become apparent in the last 2 years or so, it's that film has a look that is the product of its components - chemistry, silver halide crystals, a negative-to-IP-to-print process, and other things. And digital cameras have their own look - similar, but different, and different from each other, just as film stocks are subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) different from each other. And one doesn't have to look like the other, especially when one (film) is becoming less and less prevalent, and the other (digital) is becoming more prevalent and is clearly the primary target going forward.

For a digitally captured production to look its best, to look like it was intended to look, and to get the most out of the camera being used, a pure digital path is a much better way to achieve that. If one feels that film is the only acceptable aesthetic, or even the most desirable one, then one should try to find a way to shoot film. Manipulating digitally captured images in a rather destructive way in order to fake it is not, to my mind, a productive exercise, especially in a world in which film is not the future. But that's only one opinion.

Thank you for the detailed explanation and the generous sharing of experience and opinion.

 

[M Most]

Am putting this into my notes and is something I will strive to adhere to. Thanks.

I would add that the development of RedlogFilm has really served to cement my feelings on this. Using RedlogFilm is a properly designed grading path (in my case, I usually set it up as R3D (through Redcolor or Redcolor2 and RedlogFilm)->Base grade (usually using logarithmic correction available in Baselight or Lustre)->Log to Video (or P3, depends on whether it's a video or DI project) LUT (or a custom designed S-curve)->grade trims. By using a log scaled exposure/contrast control for the base grade, the color purity I talked about is maintained. You can use lift/gamma/gain for the same purpose, but you need to be careful to stay away from excessive use of the gamma control.

 

[Thomas Koch]

I'm finishing a piece that was shot with Epic, RED ONE and 5D. I'm using color. Since color doesn't suppot Epic, I'm going back to RED CINE for individual clips and re-exporting prores clips after a regrade. I would love to use the RAW files in Color, but I can't. I thought about Resolve, but we are a Kona shop.

What is the Epic Workflow for FCS 3?

 

[Jannard]

MM... well said.

Jim

 

[Paul Nordin]

I'm finishing a piece that was shot with Epic, RED ONE and 5D. I'm using color. Since color doesn't suppot Epic, I'm going back to RED CINE for individual clips and re-exporting prores clips after a regrade. I would love to use the RAW files in Color, but I can't. I thought about Resolve, but we are a Kona shop.

What is the Epic Workflow for FCS 3?

Thomas, I'd seriously consider speccing out one of your AJA systems to be a BM Davinci Resolve. It's by far the best bang for the buck solution, and has Epic support. I had similar allegiance to Aja but the capabilities of the Resolve software far outweighed any loss of capability/quality in the hardware video I/O card. You are welcome to stop by my shop and check it out if that would be helpful.

 

[Elsie N]

Maybe we need a "Ask Mike Most anything" thread dealing with workflow option questions and theory.

 

[Thomas Koch]

Thomas, I'd seriously consider speccing out one of your AJA systems to be a BM Davinci Resolve. It's by far the best bang for the buck solution, and has Epic support. I had similar allegiance to Aja but the capabilities of the Resolve software far outweighed any loss of capability/quality in the hardware video I/O card. You are welcome to stop by my shop and check it out if that would be helpful.

Thanks for the offer Paul.

We do plan on dropping a test system with a BM card, Red Rocket as a finishing system. We have the software, but without the ability to see it on our SDI monitor it wasn't worth testing on this one.

 

[Philipe Ratton]

Maybe we need a "Ask Mike Most anything" thread dealing with workflow option questions and theory.

I second that !!!

 

[David Collard]

That often depends on how the question is asked and what is portrayed as the basis for the question. Those with experience usually got to where they've gotten through a lot of hard work, hard knocks, experience, and a career-long devotion to learning. When a question is posed that indicates that those doing the asking have not even bothered to seek out basic information - which is a lot more available these days than it has been in the past, when you actually had to go to a library, book store, or manufacturer/rental house to get it - that indicates laziness, a sense of entitlement, a lack of patience, inexperience, and an expectation that learning is not necessary, all exactly the opposite of what the experienced person has done. It has little to do with being open or friendly, and everything to do with expecting that those who want to learn should be willing to do what's necessary to earn the attention and respect of those they're trying to emulate. That's the way it is in every endeavor, even if it's not always as obvious as it is in the film business.

Whoa. Very well spoken. Cheers.

 

[Kacey Baker]

I can't wait for the day that I too own a red and I too can contribute among the red handed. Seriously, the opening post of this thread was so inspiring, I think by the end of it I had risen from my seat, had performed a one arm celebratory punch (rocky style) and had yelled so loudly my wife woke.

 

[Robert Aldrich]

I first got interested in the power of lighting 40 years ago while playing with a simple surveillance video camera hooked to a monitor. The room was flatly-lit with nothing but fluorescent lights overhead. Having no subject, I pointed the camera at myself, and kept varying the camera position until, all of a sudden, the image just "popped" out at me! My usual ordinary features suddenly showed strength, character which I'd never seen in any mirror. It was then that I realized that lighting was extremely important to the image, for I'd accidentally found just the right position of the camera so that only flat fluorescent lighting from above showed the only strong features on my face perfectly on such a crude device. In fact, it was such an accident that I couldn't even duplicate the same image after a few seconds and numerous tries.

But I'd learned a lesson: If you don't have the lights to do the job properly and don't know lighting that well, at least vary the position of the character and/or the camera. Meanwhile, learn lighting!

 

[Harcharan Singh]

FILM LUT

FILM LUT

Hi,
Thanks for a great post Jim.
We are using version 5.2 of Scratch with REDLOGFILM and REDCOLOR2 for delivery for film .But we use a filmstock LUT for grading.....You have stated in your post the 'last thing to do is to use a LUT'. Is it for guys who transcode to DPX or even for the guys who use REDRAW.

Thanks
Harcharan

 

[paulherrin]

Maybe we need a "Ask Mike Most anything" thread dealing with workflow option questions and theory.

while everyone appreciates his generous input, that is asking A LOT. i feel that someone who is close to him personally needs to talk with him about that, and he should probably consult david mullen about maintaining a thread like that. i'm sure it could be exhausting, though it might be rewarding for some people. of course, i'd be all for that... his advice has certainly proved to be invaluable on a wide range of subjects.