Which do you prefer? A finished 4K aesthetic question!

[Elsie N]

I stopped on H, for no other reason than just an intuitive feel for the image.

 

[Phil Holland]

Do you mind sharing the process used on F?

Maybe soon. It will require a detailed write up at a minimum as it's not very straight forward.

I stopped on H, for no other reason than just an intuitive feel for the image.

H is a long, long bake. Like I'll have gray hair, but I can see given some up coming CPU power enhancing this ability. It's ADD and more basically.

I also really enjoy F. It does seem to be the tiniest bit too sharp for absolute perfection in my opinion.

Just because you enjoyed F Dylan and had that note I thought I'd fire off "F no sharp and F sharp" versions to hear your thoughts.


Nothing


F - No Sharp


F - Sharp



I've been working on some other methods too, but I need to stress this is added time to common post workflows and more about getting different flavors of detail out of Dragon. More or less I'm trying to find ways to make my footage look a little different from other folks

 

[Eric Z]

Phil,

I think E is a nice compromise between the details of the subject in the front, and the smoothness of the background.
Notice I wrote "details" and not sharpness. Usually it's details that people are after, not sharpness. A combo of a good sensor and great glass produces wonderful detail, when focus is spot-on.
Then, sharpening in post should be really minimal.

 

[Michel Hafner]

A to C. Above C looks unnaturally digitally sharpened. Digital video look. A is most film like.

 

[Phil Holland]

Phil,

I think E is a nice compromise between the details of the subject in the front, and the smoothness of the background.
Notice I wrote "details" and not sharpness. Usually it's details that people are after, not sharpness. A combo of a good sensor and great glass produces wonderful detail, when focus is spot-on.
Then, sharpening in post should be really minimal.

I agree about the concept of details. I'm a focus nut and this piece is more or less about having enough detail to keep viewers engaged for a couple minutes. What really kills me is when I see people over sharpen and producing coring or even worse halos. That pisses me off.

A to C. Above C looks unnaturally digitally sharpened. Digital video look. A is most film like.

A is Dragon straight up, on the rocks, shaken, not stirred. Which is why I'm all about certain "film relevance" when it comes to Dragon. Red did something very interesting here that many aren't totally observing, but you nailed it. I find most that don't see it haven't shot a foot of film though. But for those who have that familiarity Dragon has been a much welcomed sight. Myself included.

 

[bevan goldswain]

F is a clear winner

 

[C. Miersch]

I would first ask about intention/usage scenario, so Im a bit puzzled why our opinion would matter.

For me, up to C the processing just emphasizes whats there.

After that, up to F, it becomes more and more stylised, saying louder and louder "im real, im there". That establishes now a contrast, a visual contradiction to his mood.

G and H are then hyper real, emphasizing strongly his pores, the dust on the glasses, his age.

 

[David Battistella]

Great thread Phil!

To answer your OP thread title I really feel I need to see 2 seconds in motion at 4k either as a PR 4444 Hq or 48 frames of JPEG.

Stills are great but I want to see that sharpening in motion.

Not trying to give you more work

Thanks!

battistella

 

[Phil Holland]

F is a clear winner

Thank you Bevan.

I would first ask about intention/usage scenario, so Im a bit puzzled why our opinion would matter.

For me, up to C the processing just emphasizes whats there.

After that, up to F, it becomes more and more stylised, saying louder and louder "im real, im there". That establishes now a contrast, a visual contradiction to his mood.

G and H are then hyper real, emphasizing strongly his pores, the dust on the glasses, his age.

I'm more or less trying to showcase detail and remove "some" of the optical characteristics. I'm aiming for a not so common look that will look nice when projected and displayed on 4K screens. Something that when people pause the piece they have more or less this experience as well.

I am more or less curious as to what people like and prefer because I know everybody is different. And that's more or less what this thread has pointed out, which to me is a good thing because if one way was the "pure winner" then we'd be having a slightly different conversation.

Great thread Phil!

To answer your OP thread title I really feel I need to see 2 seconds in motion at 4k either as a PR 4444 Hq or 48 frames of JPEG.

Stills are great but I want to see that sharpening in motion.

Not trying to give you more work

Thanks!

battistella

I'll be able to show the full piece soon. This is of my father working in his shop. I zipped up and visited my parents recently and sort of put this together for him on his birthday (which is today) as well as to show on "certain" screens.

 

[Randall Weatherington]

I like C the best.
There is a good balance overall.
Yes, it is just a little bit flatter than others, but it brings out more detail in the eye behind the glasses, which should be the main focal point.
In some of the other processes, the mustache is too dominant, and draws the attention away from the eye.
Some of the other processes are too contrasty, and the skin starts to look like it has oily skin highlights, which on other cameras literally blows out. When I see this, I want to start reaching for the curves.
This is one of the reasons I like .r3d file processing. One can give the image just about any look desired.

 

[Nawaf Alsabhan]

I like F, the sharpness is on the spot, and the color correction of the magenta to white looks great.
A looks dreamy, I like it, but F is superior.

I'm curious, what sharpness setting did you choose Phil?

 

[Sean Cruser]

really interesting comparisons Phil. so many different looks you can get with Dragon!

 

[Brian Boyer]

I like C the best. The color of the mustache is better in F but it's a little too sharp overall for me. C over B because I think D.E.B. cuts a little bit too much of the red you want to keep.

If D.E.B were a smidgen less aggressive in turning gray (monochrome) those parts of the image that are supposed to be red/pink (the veins in the sclera are a good example, but skin in general), it'd be top of the pops for almost everything.

Right now, I prefer the Denoise slider in RCX for removing the bulk of the red noise when it comes to dealing with skin. Denoise doesn't seem to be implemented in Resolve (or anything else?), as far as I can tell. Does anyone know why?

 

[C. Miersch]

All things considered, I would probably take, as a maximum, f or g. Also for me, d basically accomplishes what h does. But I can see why you have the later versions.

Maybe its worth a try taking your favourite endresult and mixing it against the basic a source.

 

[Lakis Amarantithis]

>>This is more or less one of the reasons I'm saving my pennies for some Leica Summilux-C Primes.

I'm saving my pennies for these lenses also but I'm worrying that if you don't have few projects to pay fast (as each one costs 30k) and if a new processor comes that is 8k (which will be in few yrs for sure) then these lenses will not do it any more and will lose more than half of their value.

 

[Phil Holland]

I like C the best. The color of the mustache is better in F but it's a little too sharp overall for me. C over B because I think D.E.B. cuts a little bit too much of the red you want to keep.

If D.E.B were a smidgen less aggressive in turning gray (monochrome) those parts of the image that are supposed to be red/pink (the veins in the sclera are a good example, but skin in general), it'd be top of the pops for almost everything.

Right now, I prefer the Denoise slider in RCX for removing the bulk of the red noise when it comes to dealing with skin. Denoise doesn't seem to be implemented in Resolve (or anything else?), as far as I can tell. Does anyone know why?

None of these are using any Denoise in REDcine-X Pro. Denoise is implemented in Adobe Products btw.

The interesting thing about DEB is without it you get a more film-like colored texture. DEB produces something slightly different and new.

All things considered, I would probably take, as a maximum, f or g. Also for me, d basically accomplishes what h does. But I can see why you have the later versions.

Maybe its worth a try taking your favourite endresult and mixing it against the basic a source.

Yep. Pretty much exactly what transpired was me exporting versions:

A - Nothing done to the image (Straight RCX)
B - DEB + Post:Look:Effects:Sharpen (Straight RCX)
F - A rather complicated method (RCX + additional post work)

Then QC'ing them on my 70" UHD 4K Sharp display. I can move frame by frame if necessary with the QC to make sure that everything looks good. I also export 4K proRes 4444, 422 HQ, H.264, and eventually a REDRAY version to look at. I'm making the REDRAY version now. Frames have been sent off with B and F processing for review. This is the first time I've finished out a project with method F, so I'm looking forward to how people experience it on 4K screens.

I have a smash edit of the footage I will likely show soon. Just need to button up a couple unrelated things.

 

[Jason L]

Id' say the sharpness of B or C and the color of F. In F a majority of the magenta is taken out.

 

[Phil Holland]

>>This is more or less one of the reasons I'm saving my pennies for some Leica Summilux-C Primes.

I'm saving my pennies for these lenses also but I'm worrying that if you don't have few projects to pay fast (as each one costs 30k) and if a new processor comes that is 8k (which will be in few yrs for sure) then these lenses will not do it any more and will lose more than half of their value.

An understood concern. The good news for me at least is on productions that can swing for them, we rent them and happily shoot away. I'm certainly not going to ignore potential lens advancements while potentially finding a time and place to grab a set of glass like the Summilux-Cs, but in terms of what they actually are nothing is touching them yet at all. I don't see them losing their value. I haven't experienced many lenses losing value over the last few years. The market has exploded more or less. There was a time in the early 2000s where you can buy Super Speeds for $5-6K. You can't do that at all right now.

But more new glass is coming. And knowing me, I'll be real hungry to test it out and explore what it can do. I have such a perverse fascination with optics and I don't see that really changing anytime soon

 

[Julio Quintana]

I'd be curious to see the uncropped frame of A. 100% crops are great for evaluating process (like you are doing here), but I have a feeling some people are judging A as if this were an actual full frame closeup, which makes it seem softer than it is.

 

[James DeFina]

E or G