What does redspace do to the viewed image?

[Scott Mason]

Thank you to everyone for replying to this thread. I think it is important for us to be able to tell our clients what redspace, and even rec709 is doing to the image. For many clients they won't care, but for the technical ones they want to know. I want to know and I am an owner. What I would like is for red to tell us exactly what is happening so we can make an informed choice and tell the clients who need to know what is going on. I agree that redspace seems to be pushing our image too much, rec709 seems too dark, and raw, well looks raw. The clients we seem to be getting have used the HD cameras and are more used to the WYSIWYG, we all know red is not that, but they still want a nice image at video village (I know film did not do this I have done video assist for years on huge jobs) But with film they accept that, with digital they can't. I am very happy to monitor RAW so I know exactly what I get, I can even apply a lut to the raw image after I take it from the camera and video assist is fine, but this requires more hardware. Most of the time (especially at the beach, etc) we don't have that kind of luxury so we can only bring a monitor. If I can tell them what redspace is really doing it will be fine. The vector images at the beginning of this post were helpful, but I think it is safe to say we all want a white paper that gives us exact specs to what redspace and rec709 are doing to the viewing of the raw image.

mahalo
scott

 

[Jay Farrington]

The clients we seem to be getting have used the HD cameras and are more used to the WYSIWYG, we all know red is not that, but they still want a nice image at video village (I know film did not do this I have done video assist for years on huge jobs) But with film they accept that, with digital they can't.
mahalo
scott

I'm in a small market and we're running into this as well. The vast majority of our RED users have been using HD for years, and SD video before that - so WYSIWYG is their experience - DPs, ACs, Gaffers, DITs too, not just the clients - are all used to looking at a critical monitor and making their exposure choices based on that.

Part of the "problem" is that the tap is such a good looking 720P picture. A good problem to have, yes. But because it's so clean, it's quite natural to want to light to it due to our heavily ingrained WYSIWYG experience with a digital medium.

i personally cant use redspace.
I feel much more comfortable exposing with rec709.

So far, this is my experience too. I wonder if this is the experience for a lot of us? There's already more responses just within this thread than I would have expected (thought it was just me). Perhaps we just need to do more testing? But RedSpace seems too hot for me to use as an onset monitoring tool that I know everyone is going to reference as a WYSIWYG tool - whether they are supposed to or not . . .

 

[Gunleik Groven]

RedSpace makes headroom for auto-wb FU's, it seems.

Waveform, native sensor settings and B&W preview with REC 709 gives accurate metering.

When recording, I prefer accurate metering...

 

[Julian Banos]

I like the fact that there is REDSpace, RAW and REC709 monitoring (I only hope it could be changed quicker on the menus), because when working with different DPs and knowing how the project is going to do for Color Correction, I can determine what would work best.
DPs who know the RED tend to monitor with RAW and REDSpace. DPs that work with RED as they have done with HD prefer REC709.
But most importantly, when we are shooting and the show is going to be graded with Scratch I just let the DPs work more freely while monitoring on REDSpace, I know we are safe on highlights. Whereas before with REC709 I had to be paranoid about highlights on shows where CC was going to off the QT.
I think variety is a great tool and it gives me more options to explore.

 

[Scott Mason]

So I did a few tests to find out exactly how much the different color spaces are pushing the image and here is the simple data I gathered:

At 1000 ASA redspace was 8 stops over raw and REC709 was 7 (probably not an accurate test, will test outside tomorrow)
At 320 ASA redspace was 3 stops over raw and REC709 was 2 (probably more correct)

So in both cases there was a 1 stop difference, now the high asa is not a fair test as with the low light in our office it was very hard to blow out the raw image (When pointed into a light of course it did)

So that answers part of my question. But it is obvious there is a color shift difference between the two color spaces. When redspace looks correct and I switch to REC709 the image looks a little more raspberry. Hmmm. Obviously the two are handling the curves differently on the different color channels.

So I assume red did this because so many people were over exposing their footage allowing for more head room in the highlights, but who really knows until they answer my question

 

[coyne113]

Do the Proxy Quicktimes look more like Red Space or Rec 709?

If you are on a shoot that will be finishing from the Proxies then it would make sense that you would want to monitor which ever space is closer to that file.

If you are finishing in Rec709 and not doing a film out, is Red Space of Rec709 a better representation of you final product?

 

[RivaiC]

You do not need Redspace for broadcast output. It's not necessary and overkill. If it plans to finish on HD or end up in TV, REC709 will be a perfect choice. REC709 is the standard. Of course, it u plan to go for film out, you can switch to REDspace and regrade it again. Flexibility is good.

Quicktime proxies in my experience look closely assemble to REC709 instead of Redspace.

Best Regards