WARNING for rookies...

[David Battistella]

Will we be able to see true exposure on an external monitor?

The place to see true exposure will be in the histogram of the image. Anything that is on the monitor would be an preset look and not necessarily what the actual REDCODE RAW looks like.

The monitor is playing back the file as you have asked it to. I think this might be what some people need to get their head around. On one hand is it WHAT_YOU_SEE_IS_WHAT_YOU_GET, in that you could play back the file exactly as you are displaying it in the monitor. But on the other hand it is not, because what you are getting is really what is in the histogram of the image.

With RED some people will take the approach that they want to capture the best histogram with a "one light" on set and others might want to set up custom LUT's and just go with those looks that they see in the monitor. This will give you massive amounts of flexibility and control over the final image.

So much extra information is being recorded compared to what you are seeing on that the 720P monitor. It is only actually a true representation of that image (a 720P image).

David

 

[Matthew Rogers]

The place to see true exposure will be in the histogram of the image. Anything that is on the monitor would be an preset look and not necessarily what the actual REDCODE RAW looks like.

I wonder if there is going to be user preset buttons that we can set the camera to do things...like one that would turn LUT's on and off so you can quickly see both sides of the image.

Matthew

 

[David Battistella]

I wonder if there is going to be user preset buttons that we can set the camera to do things...like one that would turn LUT's on and off so you can quickly see both sides of the image.

Matthew

I think that this will be the point of having the histogram in the viewfinder. I am learning a bit more about this stuff as I read and go forward.

I think it makes a lot of sense. You can create baseline looks for any situaltion and eventually you will have the presets that you come back to or use all the time.

I think that Jim is warning that the camera is going to be a challenge for users who are used to many of the automatic features available in many electronic camera's. More care and attention is going to have to be paid to how you are exposing the image, focusing, and how much light is hitting the sensor, etc.

My take is that he wants people to understand that this is a professional level machine and there will be a learning curve for those who have relied upon the automatic features of these camera's. Or fallen to far into the point and shoot ease that video has given us.

Like everything elese with RED, we will have to redefine how we look at digital image capture. I think it's great and it is what I always love about shooting film. Film sort of forces you to make the ASA, apreture, speed, lens, focal length, considerations that video has only started to introduce seriously in recent years.

By and large video has been a "one zoom lens", medium. RED might help put some of the craft back into capturing images digitally. Maybe make us all a bit less lazy. We might not take so much for granted.

David

 

[Antoine Fabi]

excuse my poor english and ignorance, but what are LUTs ?

 

[Craig Bowman]

An L.U.T. or Look Up Table evolved out of the world of indexed color systems where an index number in the table repesents an expanded value which usually takes up a significantly larger number of bits. The values in the image are then substituted by the index values in the table. To get back the original values you just "Look Up" the index value in the table and retrieve the corresponding expanded value.

Using this concept, you can then change out the expanded values from the table and store it as a new table. When the new table gets "Looked Up" from the index numbers stored in place of the old original data the entire look of the recreated image will change.

This is the way LUT were originally used and it also performed a very simple form of compression. However, you can be crafty with the RAW data so your original data isn't actually destroyed by a set of index values but applied through an intermediate data set like a frame buffer. The original data is kept safe. Kind of like an adjustment layer in Photoshop. It doesn't alter the original data directly so you can change things without corrupting the original data.

A variety of LUTs can then be stored to give different mappings or "Looks". Since I don't have the exact details yet, the way Red will technically perform mappings is in their domain. All you have to know is that you can save a data file which will change what you see when applied without permanently corrupting the original data.

Hope this helps.

 

[Antoine Fabi]

So we do mapping of the original RAW data and save a LUT ?

...and LUT=specific look ?

thanks a lot Craig !

 

[Matthew Rogers]

I think that this will be the point of having the histogram in the viewfinder. I am learning a bit more about this stuff as I read and go forward.

I think it makes a lot of sense. You can create baseline looks for any situaltion and eventually you will have the presets that you come back to or use all the time.

I think that Jim is warning that the camera is going to be a challenge for users who are used to many of the automatic features available in many electronic camera's. More care and attention is going to have to be paid to how you are exposing the image, focusing, and how much light is hitting the sensor, etc.

The histogram will be wonderful to work with again--zebras are a pain to work with in some situations. Plus, they don't really tell you how your overall exposure--just what broadcast limits are. The thing is, even when your in the field, many time you will have a monitor to check things (subtle things like color and whatnot) and the histogram will not help a ton with that.

What I'd like to be able to do is have it so the producer who is sitting behind a monitor will see the "correct" image, but be able to turn that off and on quickly.

I'm starting to think that many people, including "pros" use auto features more than I thought. After getting burned with auto iris one time, I shoot everything manually...iris, focus, white balance....am I crazy?!

Matthew

 

[Antoine Fabi]

yeah,

Zebra shows a fixed value, a "too late" value, only one at a time.

Will the RED histogram be real-time ?

 

[Craig Bowman]

So we do mapping of the original RAW data and save a LUT ?

...and LUT=specific look ?

thanks a lot Craig !

Yes the LUT = specific look.

Its going to be as simple as where you see value x replace it with y. Literally the bit size of the index value can be equal to the bit size of the looked up value where x is the value in the RAW DATA and you change it to the looked up value y when sent to a viewed output stream or a new file. The LUT is a one to one mapping and it in fact does represent a specific look. One look per table. Apply table to the raw data on the fly!

Tweaking the data to make the appropriate LUT is where you will spend a lot of your time.

 

[Craig Schober]

auto

auto

I'm starting to think that many people, including "pros" use auto features more than I thought. After getting burned with auto iris one time, I shoot everything manually...iris, focus, white balance....am I crazy?!

Matthew

i think it's really about your subjects and the workflow that they dictate. i used to be all about manual control but then i was on sticks with prepared actors too. when you have 20 minutes to setup and a crew to help light and pull focus, you better be using manual settings for everything and why not. no one is going anywhere too soon. but look at some eng, nature, sports, documentary work and time becomes the most valuable asset. sometimes the only way of "getting the shot" is to prepare as best you can and then rely on the auto settings to come through. it can mean the difference between getting no usable footage and getting ok stuff.

 

[Antoine Fabi]

Yes the LUT = specific look.

Its going to be as simple as where you see value x replace it with y. Literally the bit size of the index value can be equal to the bit size of the looked up value where x is the value in the RAW DATA and you change it to the looked up value y when sent to a viewed output stream or a new file. The LUT is a one to one mapping and it in fact does represent a specific look. One look per table. Apply table to the raw data on the fly!

Tweaking the data to make the appropriate LUT is where you will spend a lot of your time.

Craig,

Exiting post work.

Does it refers to the same process called "color matrix" ?

Where can i read about all this tech vocabulary ?

thanks a lot.

 

[Michael Brennan]

Dont bake

Dont bake

The top reason in my view to have a LUT for your monitor is to judge how your exposure and lighting is interacting with the scene. This is a very creative tool that can be shared with makeup wardrobe and set design.

By not "baking in" your preference for the cameras colour balance and contrast you have scope to tweake colours a lot and exposure (lets call it brightness) a little in post under proper viewing conditions.


Mike Brennan

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Jim,

That is an important message you have put out there. And I think it is one that sinks in with soemone like myself who hasn't shot film in a number of years and will be re-exploring the topics you have mentioned. I expect to have a fairly steep learning curve, but it seems like the payoff will be quite rewarding.

Setting up this forum has been instrumental in getting up to speed on a lot of things. Many thanks to all those involved in setting up the site and to those who fill its pages with vast amount of knowledge.

Steve

 

[Bokes]

will focus be any more difficult than using a 35mm adaptor with a HVX?

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

coming from dvx/hvx and some 16mm
(but not enough to consider myself a film dp)
I am going to suffer through this learning curve.. Which is ok.. I usually teach myself everything anyways... the histogram stuff might freak me out a bit.
I know its been discussed in another way.. but if there is anyone in OC,LA,SD area wants to start a RED breakfast club.. that meets once or twice a month, and goes over everything they have learned about red... ID BE DOWN TO JOIN!! Learning from others will get us all up and running much faster

 

[Kevin Halverson]

.. but if there is anyone in OC,LA,SD area wants to start a RED breakfast club.. that meets once or twice a month, and goes over everything they have learned about red... ID BE DOWN TO JOIN!! Learning from others will get us all up and running much faster

This is an interesting idea and one that I would be interested in, though with early call times, perhaps evening meetings might be a bit easier than a breakfast ones? My background includes still and motion film (everything from sub miniature to large format), video (DVX, HVX, SDX, F900, etc) and a bit of VFX work. I have no doubt that there is a large community with a lot of talent in this area that might be willing to participate and share their experiences. I would be interested to see if there are others interested as well.

 

[Brook Willard]

will focus be any more difficult than using a 35mm adaptor with a HVX?

My personal guess is yes... it will be more difficult. Since the HVX has such a low resolution, minor focus mistakes are covered up. If the sensor can't resolve to the level of detail required to see the focus mistake, the focus mistake is invisible.

Accordingly, it seems to me that focusing will be a touch more difficult on the RED ONE... merely because it's going to show more detail [higher resolution] of the missed focus.

With that said, with the focus assist and great monitoring... it might not be so bad after all. In the end, none of us have experience with the camera yet... so only the RED guys know how it is.

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

This is an interesting idea and one that I would be interested in, though with early call times, perhaps evening meetings might be a bit easier than a breakfast ones? My background includes still and motion film (everything from sub miniature to large format), video (DVX, HVX, SDX, F900, etc) and a bit of VFX work. I have no doubt that there is a large community with a lot of talent in this area that might be willing to participate and share their experiences. I would be interested to see if there are others interested as well.

ill make a post on the reduser LA section:

 

[Häakon]

My personal guess is yes... it will be more difficult. Since the HVX has such a low resolution, minor focus mistakes are covered up. If the sensor can't resolve to the level of detail required to see the focus mistake, the focus mistake is invisible.

That's true, but thanks to the increased sensitivity of RED, it means we won't have to be shooting everything at f/1.4 anymore! inch: That HVX+M2 soaks up light like nothing else! Having a wider range of focus to play with makes things much easier, and that should more than compensate for any lack of resolution the HVX has. Chances are a lot of people will be smooshing their RED footage down to DVD-resolution in the short term anyway for mass distribution.

 

[Brook Willard]

That's true, but thanks to the increased sensitivity of RED, it means we won't have to be shooting everything at f/1.4 anymore! inch: That HVX+M2 soaks up light like nothing else! Having a wider range of focus to play with makes things much easier, and that should more than compensate for any lack of resolution the HVX has. Chances are a lot of people will be smooshing their RED footage down to DVD-resolution in the short term anyway for mass distribution.

True, but lower stops aren't always selected for the available light - it's often a creative decision. That said, few people shoot everything WFO on purpose.