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 :)

Tested Monstro vs. Helium

Anton,


I thought I recognized your name but couldn't remember from where! You would know about color transform matrix mathematics much more than I.

I'm just trying out everything I can get my hands on. And like you said, sometimes you build a lut that works great for certain scenes but not so much for other ones. Maybe with everybody trying different approaches, we will come up with a consensus solution.
 
Anton Esteban said:
Rand this is very interesting indeed. I've never used 3D LUT creator and I'm now definitely going to check it out. I just wish that it was something easy to do inside of Resolve. This looks looks like one more step removed even though in theory you only have to do it once. However, in my experience dealing with different white balance scenarios the offsets I use don't always work consistently, you often have to retweak on a case to case basis.

Bjorn, the top image looks better to me to because there's more color contrast. The lower one looks like it has an overall orange/greenish tint.

When I tried to make an Alexa to RED LUT myself about a year ago, based on the color charts that people made available on REDUSER, I found that a lot of the difference between RED and Alexa is the way the cameras map luminance towards certain colors at certain exposures. For example, Alexas not only map blue more Cyan but they also map it darker than RED giving it a richer tone. I also found that Alexa clamps colors based on saturation level and luminance level meaning they use some kind of highpass filter that allows saturated colors to go through but desaturate colors below a certain level (hece Alexas have less color cast issues than RED cameras). The same goes for the luminance levels of colors. Alexa definitely desaturates colors above and below a certain luminance threshold. And, as Bjorn mentioned earlier, they especially do this for any colors close to skintones. This is where the Alexa really shines. Skintones are not easy to get perfect and the Alexa color science makes getting skin right a lot easier than any other camera out there.

I sincerely believe that RED has the sensor tech to make amazing colors but something is getting lost in translation. LUT's can fix certain aspects of an image but they definitely are not a cure all. The luminance mapping of colors is especially hard to get right in a one-LUT-fits all. This has to be done in a camera at a color science level. Panavision recognized this issue and that's why they got Light Iron involved. Now RED just has to do the same.
Click to expand...

Yes for sure arri is not only tampering with the red and blues there is a lot of things going on, desaturation towards highlights etc. But again that is something I think should all be grading decisions. The strive for a camera should be to capture and represent what was in front of it best way and as accurate as possible. Then "beautiful filmic looks" is something completely different, but in a digital age I don't see why that should happen in camera. Or sure, great to have "instagram filters" that could be popped on, and we do trough the luts. But it should not be on the base level of captures.

But I agree, most DP´s does not care much about the accuracy of things, but far more about if it looks nice or not. So they buy into the "clamped colors" of the arris. But that something I´m sure will change over time.
 
Björn Benckert said:
Yes for sure arri is not only tampering with the red and blues there is a lot of things going on, desaturation towards highlights etc. But again that is something I think should all be grading decisions. The strive for a camera should be to capture and represent what was in front of it best way and as accurate as possible. Then "beautiful filmic looks" is something completely different, but in a digital age I don't see why that should happen in camera. Or sure, great to have "instagram filters" that could be popped on, and we do trough the luts. But it should not be on the base level of captures.

But I agree, most DP´s does not care much about the accuracy of things, but far more about if it looks nice or not. So they buy into the "clamped colors" of the arris. But that something I´m sure will change over time.
Click to expand...


This is part of the reason I've gone a bit towards the "digital stock" mentality for philmColor, which is something you can grade with even. A good chunk of what I've been working on are the subtle transforms that net people the general starting place they may prefer.

The fairly common Kodak-ish colorimetry across hues and tied to do where and how saturation/light exposes within the tonal range is in there. Heck, on some of the Creative Cubes I'm even transforming the highlight roll-off to a different flavor of ice cream all together.

There's what's perceptually correct, actually visually correct, and the ethereal aesthetically correct as well as the more deliberate grading decisions. Honestly much of the fun leg work on philmColor came in the form of chatting with ASC members over the last few years and sharing some thoughts on color in general. Lots to aggregate, lots of actual work to produce individual stocks that "work" in an expected way towards modern cinema standards.

On a personal level, it's been challenging and rewarding as this is bit more involved than any sort of film emulation or color grade I've ever done on a film. Some of the chemistry, aging, and scanning experiments have led to some rather interesting analog derived color theory logic rather than say the traditional wheel as now there's a contaminated or influenced base to work around.
 
Björn Benckert said:
Yes for sure arri is not only tampering with the red and blues there is a lot of things going on, desaturation towards highlights etc. But again that is something I think should all be grading decisions. The strive for a camera should be to capture and represent what was in front of it best way and as accurate as possible. Then "beautiful filmic looks" is something completely different, but in a digital age I don't see why that should happen in camera. Or sure, great to have "instagram filters" that could be popped on, and we do trough the luts. But it should not be on the base level of captures.

But I agree, most DP´s does not care much about the accuracy of things, but far more about if it looks nice or not. So they buy into the "clamped colors" of the arris. But that something I´m sure will change over time.
Click to expand...

I don't know Björn, I get the feeling that it's going further down the path of 'pleasing' over accurate.

Sony have always made a lot of noise about how their sensors are able to capture the widest gamut and most accurate colours of anything out there (and yet, they've always been pilloried for their colour science) - but with the Venice, they're instead touting a move towards more 'painterly' colours, with a focus on their more selectively pared back Sgamut3.cine.

Panavision just brought their DXL2 roadshow down through Australia. And showing off their Light Iron colour science/LUTs, we saw a 709 version, a Filmic version, a 709 + Special Sauce version, and Filmic + Special Sauce version of the same footage - and the general consensus seemed to be, just shoot the camera with the Filmic + Special Sauce LUT on, and call it a day. It looks lovely right out of the can.

So I suspect the demand for 'accurate' colours over 'pretty' colours, is actually pretty niche.
 
Anton Esteban said:
Another theory I have about the Alexa color science has to do with its pixel size. The bigger the photosite, the less crosstalk which means more accurate colors.
Click to expand...

That and the ability to hold saturation in higher luminance values.

Björn Benckert said:
Yes for sure arri is not only tampering with the red and blues there is a lot of things going on, desaturation towards highlights etc.
Click to expand...

Every camera desaturates towards highlights. Red in Log3G10 even more than Arri. Because otherwise colours would explode and/or would be more difficult to handle when contrast is added to those luminance levels.

Björn Benckert said:
But again that is something I think should all be grading decisions. The strive for a camera should be to capture and represent what was in front of it best way and as accurate as possible.
Click to expand...

You just described the philosophy of Primers. Part of it.

"As accurate as possible" doesn't work for this purpose.

Björn Benckert said:
Then "beautiful filmic looks" is something completely different, but in a digital age I don't see why that should happen in camera. Or sure, great to have "instagram filters" that could be popped on, and we do trough the luts. But it should not be on the base level of captures.
Click to expand...

Final look is one thing, signal basis is another. For image acquisition in creative domain and tools not intended for medicine, product QC etc, some decisions affecting image aesthetics are useful at the earlier stage of the signal. Because that predetermines further signal shaping, defined by properties and limitations of signal shaping operators and colour spaces they work in.

So like Phil pointed out, not all properties are best done 100% scientifically accurate.
Especially in a digital domain.


Björn Benckert said:
But I agree, most DP´s does not care much about the accuracy of things, but far more about if it looks nice or not.
So they buy into the "clamped colors" of the arris.
Click to expand...

Arri doesn't clamp colors. Generic LUT does (as all generic LUTs do in one way or the other) and even with a better transformation process from LogC which does not clip or clamp, it still looks great. And differs from every other cameras, not just Red.


Mark K. said:
.
So I suspect the demand for 'accurate' colours over 'pretty' colours, is actually pretty niche.
Click to expand...

That's because typically there was an unavoidable choice between those two options.
And those options perceived as "accurate" weren't really accurate. They just seemed more accurate than the less accurate ones.

Luckily, the necessity of the choice between those two options is past tense now.
 
First Look: ARRI ALEXA LF Pro Camera


Didn't know if this was posted anywhere else or not.

 
Mark K. said:
I don't know Björn, I get the feeling that it's going further down the path of 'pleasing' over accurate.

Sony have always made a lot of noise about how their sensors are able to capture the widest gamut and most accurate colours of anything out there (and yet, they've always been pilloried for their colour science) - but with the Venice, they're instead touting a move towards more 'painterly' colours, with a focus on their more selectively pared back Sgamut3.cine.

Panavision just brought their DXL2 roadshow down through Australia. And showing off their Light Iron colour science/LUTs, we saw a 709 version, a Filmic version, a 709 + Special Sauce version, and Filmic + Special Sauce version of the same footage - and the general consensus seemed to be, just shoot the camera with the Filmic + Special Sauce LUT on, and call it a day. It looks lovely right out of the can.

So I suspect the demand for 'accurate' colours over 'pretty' colours, is actually pretty niche.
Click to expand...

The true masters of film used the lab (I.e. the film stock and its development process, and printing process) equally as much to determine their art as their choice of lenses.

When colourists do their ‘tech’ pass they are looking to balance the image and establish as much clarity, colour separation etc as possible. Then they impart their creative intent over that. Whenever you see the before after of the ‘tech pass’ of a great colourist, it always looks nicer than what the camera did, because a camera just isn’t that sophisticated. In this sense, accurate actually means prettier. This balance process is always helped by the fidelity and range of the underlying data. I think this is what Bjorn is getting at.

So, better to leave that to the artists ranther than putting a slant on it at debayer stage where the artists can’t have a say.
 
Björn Benckert said:
Yes for sure arri is not only tampering with the red and blues there is a lot of things going on, desaturation towards highlights etc. But again that is something I think should all be grading decisions. The strive for a camera should be to capture and represent what was in front of it best way and as accurate as possible. Then "beautiful filmic looks" is something completely different, but in a digital age I don't see why that should happen in camera. Or sure, great to have "instagram filters" that could be popped on, and we do trough the luts. But it should not be on the base level of captures.

But I agree, most DP´s does not care much about the accuracy of things, but far more about if it looks nice or not. So they buy into the "clamped colors" of the arris. But that something I´m sure will change over time.
Click to expand...

I have never found images from RED cameras to be particularly accurate either.
Frankly, I think skin tones often look quite wooden on many RED cameras up until very recently.
I don't see how lack of nuance in the blush of a person's cheeks for example, is accurate.
 
rand thompson said:
First Look: ARRI ALEXA LF Pro Camera


Didn't know if this was posted anywhere else or not.

Click to expand...

Two more guys that needs to go back to film school. 1.40 into the film:

"increasing the pixel density by 20% have not visual effect on the image." Right tell that to the Imax guys. Sure no difference what so ever between 3.2k and 4.5. No one will see the difference....

Then at 1.50 "different magnification prespective means more separation between background and subject" No this camera or lenses does not come with a light bending feature that change the relation between subjects in front of it. It simply does not. It has nothing to do with these lenses or the camera or the sensor size but the distans between the camera and the subject and the background.

Insane, It though Arri people would not drop such stupid comments.



C. Burkhart said:
I have never found images from RED cameras to be particularly accurate either.
Frankly, I think skin tones often look quite wooden on many RED cameras up until very recently.
I don't see how lack of nuance in the blush of a person's cheeks for example, is accurate.
Click to expand...

Difficult to explain what I mean I guess. But, Im not talking about how people look in their faces. But, Yes a blue light starved red camera becomes blotchy in the face colors. Thats natural, the blue chanel is the weakest on all CMOS and if you use compression thats where it will hurt the most. But to me canon looks more accurate than the Arris, so does sony and red. They are all striving more towards a "realistic look" the Arri cams as I see it strive more to mimic whats going on when using film. I think arri looks great but if I take a 5D and snap a shot next to it, the 5D looks more "accurate" / true to what I see with my eyes, to me. That is if using the standard rec 709 lut for the arri. And in a similar comparison, when I shoot Red next to Arri using IPP2 to rec709 it looks more like the 5D then the Arri / more like what my eyes see in front of camera.
 
Björn Benckert said:
Two more guys that needs to go back to film school. 1.40 into the film:

"increasing the pixel density by 20% have not visual effect on the image." Right tell that to the Imax guys. Sure no difference what so ever between 3.2k and 4.5.
Click to expand...

So, what they said is true.

And unrelated to Imax.


Björn Benckert said:
Then at 1.50 "different magnification prespective means more separation between background and subject" No this camera or lenses does not come with a light bending feature that change the relation between subjects in front of it. It simply does not.
Click to expand...

No, what it does is give a larger crop.

Larger crop > longer lens for the same shot > smaller DoF > more separation between background and a subject.

So light bending feature is unnecessary for the statement to be true.


Björn Benckert said:
Insane, It though Arri people would not drop such stupid comments.
Click to expand...


Yeah, looks like the problem is in them.
 
Björn Benckert said:
Difficult to explain what I mean I guess. But, Im not talking about how people look in their faces. But, Yes a blue light starved red camera becomes blotchy in the face colors. Thats natural, the blue chanel is the weakest on all CMOS and if you use compression thats where it will hurt the most. But to me canon looks more accurate than the Arris, so does sony and red. They are all striving more towards a "realistic look" the Arri cams as I see it strive more to mimic whats going on when using film. I think arri looks great but if I take a 5D and snap a shot next to it, the 5D looks more "accurate" / true to what I see with my eyes, to me. That is if using the standard rec 709 lut for the arri. And in a similar comparison, when I shoot Red next to Arri using IPP2 to rec709 it looks more like the 5D then the Arri / more like what my eyes see in front of camera.
Click to expand...

Interesting Björn. I have a lot of experience with the colors from Canon and always liked their image. I especially like the 5DSR colors that has a sense of reality to me, but 1DXii is also very nice, however a bit less saturated. One thing I see a lot of discussion with Helium is that it has a green cast. Is that a true concern, especially now with IPP2? Our MX is not so accurate with colors, but I always thought it had a very nice gentle orange/brown style to it. I have also seen some brilliant graded material like the Red Collective for Ivan Agerton. I think I would find it difficult to grade an image like this with our MX.

Exciting times!
Andreas
 
Please Horjve, are on this again. Yes the problem is with them and apparently also with you, even if I tried to explain it to you many times over.

So if the resolution does not matter then this camera is a total and complete waste. As thats pretty much all it gives.

Now I´m sure there is people that think the resolution matters. People doing Imax see that resolution at capture is very important, People shoot with tripple monstros to get sharp for Imax, We shot with double monstros to get more resolution. So yes, the 3,2k of the old alexas possibly works well for 2k mastering anything above that I would say benefit a whole lot for any additional resolution at capture. And heck, even if you master at 2k the extra resolution even then makes you more resistant to noise etc.


What they try to state in this sales film is that you can mix and match the minis and the XT´s and the LF and resolution does not matter... Well thats like saying you can mix scarletX and epicX and the reslution does not matter. Well Sure if you are to push it out on Facebook but you will see a drastic difference if you go to Imax.

And regarding your longer lenses gives more dof and all that. It´s all quite simple. To create the same image using a larger sensor you need two things, a longer lens and also more light. Thats all. As you loose speed when using a larger sensor for the same FOV.

So I dont see how that would magnify the "perspective". Perspective is not anything DOF related, The perspective will stay the same no mater how open or closed you shoot and also independent of what lens or sensor you use. If you change the distances between things then the perspective change, and only then.
 
Björn, your being someone with so many cameras and equipment at your disposal, I just want to thank you (and the OP) for sharing your vigorous testing and conclusions.
 
First - RED color science prior to IPP2, was, no offense to Graeme, less sophisticated than ARRIs. Hardly a shock since ARRI had an entire team that spent years refining the color rendition of the digital files from their film scanners. Additionally, as others have noted, ARRI tweaked their color matrix in specific ranges to rein in certain hue/luma combinations that would rarely be desired. IMO, this is pretty subtle and for typical narrative work 90+% of the tweaks are what you'd want anyway.

Here's a supposition I'd love to try and prove with proper testing: ARRI's color matrix sacrifices some color precision in and near common skin tones to reduce the deviation threshold, RED's color matrix is simply trying to nail scene referred values. Wouldn't such "tweaking" create odd color shits on Alexas? I think it will, but not by much - and if you never saw that scene in real life, how would you know? Skin tone, OTOH, is something humans are evolutionally trained to perceive very precisely (interesting subject, but beyond this thread), so even subtle shifts are easily noticed.

When making the leading lady look her best, or the model for the product look radiantly healthy, etc is your task as a DP - a little bias toward skin tone rendition sounds like a plus.

It's also worth noting that during production, not always but typically, the image on the monitor is king. You can explain grading, gamma curves, rec709 color, ambient light, debayering and a hundred other things but, especially on spots, the WYSIWYG expectation persists.

Cheers - #19
 
Blair S. Paulsen said:
...

It's also worth noting that during production, not always but typically, the image on the monitor is king. You can explain grading, gamma curves, rec709 color, ambient light, debayering and a hundred other things but, especially on spots, the WYSIWYG expectation persists.

Cheers - #19
Click to expand...

This helps me better understand the ARRI bias. For me when I'm behind the camera, I'm looking for framing, focus, and panning speed if the scene is moving.

I'm so immersed in these things that at a family-favor shoot (wedding) two of my relatives passed in front of the camera and waved at me. I had to apologize later for not waving back as I didn't even know they were in attendance until I saw the footage in post. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top