Trimming R3D and keeping only the Trimmed R3D file?

[Santos Ramos]

Hello everyone! I'm getting the RED scarlet strictly to shoot stock footage and I'm looking for the best workflow .

I'm looking for a software that lets me add keywords and metadata to the linked R3D files.
For example: Title: Jefferson memorial at night Keywords: american, architecture, attraction, city...etc

I used to use Lightroom to add the information but Lightroom can't read R3D files and CatDv only reads quicktime files.
Are there any applications that can organize and information to R3D file like light room?

Trimming R3D files.

My old FCP workflow was:
Import media to FCP, trim media, export animation and H264 files.
Keep the animation file and delete original files.

I usually shoot 30 seconds stock video and keep from 10 to 15 seconds.

I would like to keep the trimmed R3D files and delete the original R3D file.
Is there anything that I should consider before trimming and deleting the original R3D file?
Will trimmed R3D file will contain the original metadata and I should not worry about file structure and the 2G file limits right?


Thank you very much for your help!

 

[Nick Pasquariello]

I would like to keep the trimmed R3D files and delete the original R3D file.
Is there anything that I should consider before trimming and deleting the original R3D file?
Will trimmed R3D file will contain the original metadata and I should not worry about file structure and the 2G file limits right?

If you want to trim R3D files (source) to R3D files (destination), then RCX is your easiest (and I think, only?) option. RCX, being a program made by Red specifically for Red footage handles all the naming and metadata and file-type-stuff the way that it should.

Which means:
-The metadata travels over
-The naming of the clip travels over
-The internal file limits are all taken care of for you (honestly, for most shooters, the whole 2GB limitation per file that creates separate chunks that are read together as one by any program that reads R3D files natively is pretty much a useless piece of trivia. It has zero implications for how one should or could shoot, it's just the explanation for why there are multiple .R3D files within long clip folders)

In other words, in terms of proper R3D file treatment, all you need to do is select your in and out point, export a trimmed R3D file, and delete the original. The DIT in my hates the thought of deleting an original anything, but for what you're doing, it certainly makes sense.


As or your media management and keyword aspect, that's a bit trickier. One possibility is for you to export small H.264s (small as in 640x360 for any 16:9 content) at 1/4 Debayer, which will have the same filename as the original, and you then import those H.264s into Lightroom as you're used to doing already. This way, you stay in your current workflow, the added step of transcoding will take up computational time but as a small resolution and debayer won't take up tooooooo much time, and you have the original R3Ds stored that you can then dig to and find.

Unless you're using Lightroom to create some sort of stock footage playlist that you can then ask to export all the originals as wanted and move them to a selected location. If that's necessary, then I'm at a loss as to what you could use.

 

[jake blackstone]

If you want to trim R3D files (source) to R3D files (destination), then RCX is your easiest (and I think, only?) option. RCX, being a program made by Red specifically for Red footage handles all the naming and metadata and file-type-stuff the way that it should.

Nope. Resolve does it as well and now it is a full blown editor too. Which means you now can use your standard FCP, FCPX, AVID or Premiere shortcuts (or make your own) to select your in and out points. So no, RCX is not the only software capable of doing trimming and it's not even nearly as easy to operate as Resolve. Also, Resolve now, if needed, can copy and verify your files with a checksum. Unlike RCX, which can only trim R3D files, Resolve can trim pretty much everything else other cameras shoot- DNG, DPX, ARRI RAW, etc. And finally, even Resolve Lite also happen to be a world class grading software, unlike RCX. Anyone still using RCX is waisting time learning to operate pretty limited and inferior software.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Nope. Resolve does it as well and it now is a full blown editor too. So no, RCX is not the only software capable of doing trimming and it's not even nearly as easy to operate as Resolve. Also, Resolve can now, if needed, can copy and verify R3D files with a checksum. And finally, unlike RCX, which can only trim R3D files, Resolve can trim pretty much everything else other cameras shoot- DNG, DPX, ARRI RAW, etc. Anyone still using RCX is waisting time learning to operate a pretty limited and inferior software.

As much as I dig resolve, RCX has its moments and also has the "not yet implemented in SDK" tech, whenever you need it.
(More as a general remark, than a comment on the trim)

The access/controll of the metadata controlling the R3D's are more accessible in RCX (as that's what RCX mainly does) than in Resolve (which is totally superior downstreams)

 

[jake blackstone]

As much as I dig resolve, RCX has its moments and also has the "not yet implemented in SDK" tech, whenever you need it.
(More as a general remark, than a comment on the trim)

Actually I would consider this to be a detriment and not an advantage. Having features not available to users of other software is not a good thing. I can't recall one such "feature" for users of ARRI or SONY cameras. New features should always be implemented in SDK before it is widely distributed to all users.

The access/controll of the metadata controlling the R3D's are more accessible in RCX (as that's what RCX mainly does) than in Resolve (which is totally superior downstreams)

Not sure what you mean by that. Other than unexplained feature like Clarity or unavailable feature, like DEB? See my post above...
I said it before and I'll say it again. ARRI or Sony doesn't find needing a camera specific software. Or for that matter camera specific hardware (RRX), but that's a different story altogether. Why does RED feels it needs it? Red has it's plate full with Epic, Scarlet, Dragon, various OLPFs, RedRay, projector etc. They could concentrate on making cameras and accessories, continuing the SDK and color science development, while leaving the software development to the software makers. The time of RedCine of old is long gone. There are plenty of companies willing to develop software used with Red material. If there were no RCX tomorrow, I doubt it would have been missed much...

 

[Gunleik Groven]

We don't need to have an argument over red development policy.
It's kinda a different one.
I am just pointing out why RCX is relevant to some of us, and why (from my perspective) I wouldn't ditch it.

RED, ARRI and Sony do things differently. All of them.
I see your point, and have a lot of respect for your knowledge, approach and craft.

Still there are reasons to hang on to RCX from my POV.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

ARRI or Sony doesn't find needing a camera specific software.

Just an FYI - ARRI has a soon to be released - specific camera software tool for AMIRA for 3D LUT & CDL implementation/manipulation.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Still there are reasons to hang on to RCX from my POV.

Agree.

We now live in a world where software is free or "free-ish" and different tools have different advantages.

I use RESOLVE, SCRATCH, ADOBE CC, RCX, FCPX and other apps all the time. Some are more efficient for me for specific tasks. Perfectly syncing dailies with CDLs for example - WAY more efficient in SCRATCH than in RESOLVE. But color grading with secondaries - sure - I'd have to take RESOLVE or pretty much everything.

Having RCX builds with open, public beta is a very WISE move for RED IMO and it gets features (that often change for the better) into SDK releases faster and more effectively than if they were only tested by engineers inside RED - that is a fact that you just can't argue.

Just because you might eat, sleep and breath one primary application for your day in and day out work - doesn't mean that everyone else wants to do that. People work differently - and respond to different UIs differently - and have different priorities and methods - pick the tool / application that helps you for the solve task at hand most efficiently.

Further - as an instructor for RED's REDUCATION program - I can tell you that there are MANY people who can learn and understand fundamentals of image manipulation faster on REDCINE X than RESOLVE - which some find overwhelming when they first dive in. And that understanding of the fundamentals of RAW processing - then translates to more sophisticated applications like Resolve.

I don't think learning any software is a waste of time. I learn how to use an average of one new application a week - most are shit - but some are gems for specific tasks - and I like to learn - even if I am learning what to avoid.

 

[Björn Benckert]

I think RCXP is perfect as it does not have too much stuff in it. For a solo shooter or somebody that is not too deep into editing, grading etc. I find RCXP as a perfect little tool kit. The still photographers we work with can instantly learn to do frame grabs etc. So i think it's definitely something red should continue with but possibly watch out so they do not take it too far. It's simplicity, I think, is actually the strongest part of it all.

 

[jake blackstone]

I do not believe today there is a place for software, that is camera specific. Open your horizons, look around, there is a big world out here beside Red cameras. You can try learning one piece of software a week or you can spend more time honing and perfecting knowledge of a more focused nature. "Jack of all trades, master of none" could be applied in this case. Obviously, I do not advocate using Resolve for everything, at least not yet I too must use all NLEs, AE, Smoke, Photoshop, Mocha, PF Track etc and obviously I use pretty much any grading software with few exceptions. But as a colorist it is my job to be color grading software proficient. Perhaps it may sound contradictory to my previous statements, but modern post professional must stay camera and files agnostic. I find it insane, that as a colorist I must spend an inordinate amount of time keeping on top of the latest OLPF development (it's now three OLPF planned or is it four?)and different exposure and ASA settings depending on OLPF version, magenta streaking, orbs, DEB, etc. As a frequent freelancer I'm required to know and use different grading software. But given a choice, I still have a couple of preferred grading choices- mainly Nucoda, Baselight, Lustre and Resolve. I see no need to use RCX. Resolve does everything RCX does, but better, faster, with more features (you don't need to use them if you don't want to) and it is much more elegant. RCX doesn't add anything to my workflow and I would rather spend time mastering something, that adds greater value to my services. The same goes for Red software development. I feel they are spreading too thin and as I already said, they have way too many things on their plate. Let them be the camera manufacturer and let software developers do their thing. Frankly the software developers are doing a much better job anyway.

 

[jake blackstone]

Just an FYI - ARRI has a soon to be released - specific camera software tool for AMIRA for 3D LUT & CDL implementation/manipulation.

Are you talking about the AMIRA Look Files creation software? AMIRA Look Files creation software, like RCX, allows you to create a look, that then can be loaded into Amira. No, you can't use this software to do dailies or anything else. It's strictly for the Look files creation. To me that is an essential tool in the tool set of cinematographer. I have absolutely no issue with RCX doing that too. Creating this kind of camera software is unquestionably a manufacturer responsibility.

 

[Santos Ramos]

Thank you very much for the comments!
I have RCX and Resolve on my computer and I will try them both when I get my camera.
I used resolve a while back and what I liked was that I could preview the footage on the studio monitor using the UltraStudio Mini Monitor. I think RCX requires the RED card to be able to preview.

I think I Adobe Prelude with do the job to add metadata to the final RED files?

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Are you talking about the AMIRA Look Files creation software? AMIRA Look Files creation software, like RCX, allows you to create a look, that then can be loaded into Amira. No, you can't use this software to do dailies or anything else. It's strictly for the Look files creation. To me that is an essential tool in the tool set of cinematographer. I have absolutely no issue with RCX doing that too. Creating this kind of camera software is unquestionably a manufacturer responsibility.

I do not believe today there is a place for software, that is camera specific.

RCX doesn't add anything to my workflow and I would rather spend time mastering something, that adds greater value to my services.

I'm totally lost here -

So .. RED should EOL RCX but AMIRA Look File software is "an essential tool in the tool set of cinematographer"?

 

[Björn Benckert]

For a DP out in the field or a data wrangler or still photographer I think it's far better to use something simple like RCXP than anything else to check and see that the footage is there and be done with. If you are a full time colorist and sit in a fully equipped resolve suite all day, then it possibly does not add any value to you. For others I think it's a huge help, it's for free does not have any resolution restrictions and it's small and quick to download and learn. And I guess it works as a testing platform for the red SDK so when they got something new they know that it's available for everyone without cost. If they where to end it then that situation would change, they would have to wait for others to implement their stuff, etc.

 

[Nick Pasquariello]

Jake, I think you're incredibly smart and incredibly talented, but I'm always a bit disappointed to see you continually rail against RCX. I don't see how the existence and use of the program harms you or your workflow.

Is the R3D trimming new to Resolve 11? I've been on 2 back-to-back (literally, my wrap day and my prep day were the same day) feature shoots for the past 3 months, and I make it my policy never to update software when I'm in the middle of a job. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I had assumed that Red wasn't letting anyone export .R3D files of any sort. I can just imagine all sorts of disasters if some 'prosumer' exported their GoPro footage as an .R3D file. Not that R3D Trimming and R3D exporting are the same, but still, the thought gives me nightmares.

 

[Bob Gundu]

I believe the trimming feature has been in resolve since version 9.

 

[jake blackstone]

I'm totally lost here -

So .. RED should EOL RCX but AMIRA Look File software is "an essential tool in the tool set of cinematographer"?

No, both RCX's Look function and AMIRA Look File software is "an essential tool in the tool set of cinematographer" and must be continually developed. Not an essential tool for DIT. My point is Red misplacing it's resources developing RCX as a dailies tool that long ago had been superseded by Resolve. Like I already said, AMIRA Look File software is not used for anything other that just creating looks, neither should be the RCX.
DITs and data wranglers too misplacing their their resources perfecting their knowledge of software, that is inferior to Resolve and would be well advised instead to concentrate on Resolve. This way everyone from DIT to Editor, to VFX and Colorist can be on the same page Look-wise. VFX and Colorist then can use the same LUT, that was used with RLF for dailies creation (right now you can't even use LUTs with RCX) and colorist can use the same initial look set by DIT.

 

[jake blackstone]

Jake, I think you're incredibly smart and incredibly talented, but I'm always a bit disappointed to see you continually rail against RCX. I don't see how the existence and use of the program harms you or your workflow.

Is the R3D trimming new to Resolve 11? I've been on 2 back-to-back (literally, my wrap day and my prep day were the same day) feature shoots for the past 3 months, and I make it my policy never to update software when I'm in the middle of a job. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I had assumed that Red wasn't letting anyone export .R3D files of any sort. I can just imagine all sorts of disasters if some 'prosumer' exported their GoPro footage as an .R3D file. Not that R3D Trimming and R3D exporting are the same, but still, the thought gives me nightmares.

Yes, Bob is correct. Trim function had been there for a couple of years now. It is impossible to export GoPro or any other camera material for that matter as R3D. Only Red camera can create R3D files. Resolve and RCX only unwraps the R3D file, trims the necessary files and rewraps it back into R3D. In the past Resolve even allowed to trim with handles, but for some reason trim with handles is not there any longer. In the past a couple of companies added the trim function in a "blind " fashion, as R3D files are encrypted. That was a bad idea and Red released an official mechanism for trimming, that is now used by Resolve. And as I said, the trim function in Resolve is not limited to just R3D. It can be used with almost any other camera material. And that is my initial point. Resolve is mature professional and incredibly stable software, that should be used by DITs instead of using RCX. There is no reason to use two pieces of software, when one will suffice.