Why commercials are shot only on REDs and Alexas

[Björn Benckert]

My general observation is that many people just don't use Red because they don't care to learn. I find it a bit arrogant to hear Red bashings from professionals who never cared to learn that tool. I've been involved with productions where the cinematographer had to be convinced and where I've been consulting just to convince the cinematographer, because he might have had a bad trip back with Red One built 15. In my opinion there are too many arrogant professionals who trash-talk anything they haven't used just to keep using what they are using. I've yet heard any good reason for why Alexa is so dominant within Swedish films and commercials. So far I've only seen people use Alexa either because they are used to it, because someone told them it's "best" or because they have this extreme opinion that anything else isn't as "god-like" as the Alexa is. There's a fan-boyism all over it that's extremely tiresome. Even if I'm very much into using Red more than Alexa, I've been doing a lot of Alexa projects as well because I love that camera for all the strengths it have over Red, but it's not better, it's just another camera giving another result and different options. However, the "reasons" why more people use Alexa instead of other cameras has so far been very unconvincing as professional standpoints.

I think the excuse that they dont want to learn it is as good as any excuse. They invested their time to learn arri stuff and they are happy with the results. Commercials are done in HD normally so the 8k stuff is nice but for 99.9 procent of the commercials Arri raw will do just fine.


Then its offocurse possible to argue the pros and cons all day of the different cameras. But same scenario for editing platforms... then it´s like someone would tell you to use smoke for your offline editing for this next one project. As for most kinds of editing smoke is much superior than avid especially for offline editing. Then possibly you would say that no I like my avid thats what I´m used to and for this one day project I dont really feel like learning a complete new software that takes far more than a day to learn... So then in such similar scenario you are the one that just dont care to learn new stuff, then according to the same thinking you are a Avid fan boy and you are tiresome.

Jokes aside. I think the one great thing with alexa is that even though it´s gone trough possibly more models and upgrades than Red, in everyones mind Alexa is pretty much the same since it came out.

 

[Diego Gagliardi]

That's a very interesting way of looking at it Christoffer. It's a bit of tricky subject because in my situation, I don't have representation from any agents. It's like, how am I supposed to work on productions if nobody knows who I am or what my work is all about. How do you get experience that people will hire you with a crappy camera you own or can't afford to rent? I know we are talking about "Why Alexas and Reds are used on all productions"?, but another subject is getting work! Los Angeles/Orange County where I'm at has so many great DPs, Production Companies that's it's almost impossible to compete with. This is what I observe. An agency that used to do design and motion graphics is now "Producing" commercials/social content just because they bought a Red Epic. It sorta pisses me off that someone that just buys a Red automatically puts them above everyone else that shoots on Canon/Sony/Blackmagic. Do you understand what I'm saying? So does this mean if I finance a Red Scarlet-W, people will look at me differently? People will respect me more as a DP/Production because Red has such a prestigious name going for itself. That is what it seems is going on. I see small agencies/production companies everywhere, all over the USA, their work is mediocre but they own Red Epics, etc.

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Matt W.]

That's a very interesting way of looking at it Christoffer. It's a bit of tricky subject because in my situation, I don't have representation from any agents. It's like, how am I supposed to work on productions if nobody knows who I am or what my work is all about. How do you get experience that people will hire you with a crappy camera you own or can't afford to rent? I know we are talking about "Why Alexas and Reds are used on all productions"?, but another subject is getting work! Los Angeles/Orange County where I'm at has so many great DPs, Production Companies that's it's almost impossible to compete with. This is what I observe. An agency that used to do design and motion graphics is now "Producing" commercials/social content just because they bought a Red Epic. It sorta pisses me off that someone that just buys a Red automatically puts them above everyone else that shoots on Canon/Sony/Blackmagic. Do you understand what I'm saying? So does this mean if I finance a Red Scarlet-W, people will look at me differently? People will respect me more as a DP/Production because Red has such a prestigious name going for itself. That is what it seems is going on. I see small agencies/production companies everywhere, all over the USA, their work is mediocre but they own Red Epics, etc.

What are your thoughts on this?

I think in a big market such as LA, you're not going to ingratiate yourself to the right clients by offering to save them money on a camera package. It might give you a quick leg up but that's it. In a smaller market, it might be a bigger leg up.

I would focus on networking and shooting exceptional spec work.

 

[Ted Parkes]

The majority of DPs are not owner operators. They hire in the kit they need and commercials have the budget to do that. Many production houses might have a basic kit but most not. They cut a good discount for patronising a rental house. Let the rental house worry about all the gear, the bits and pieces & the updates.

 

[Björn Benckert]

It all depends what you do. DP means "director of photography" it does not mean that you know how to turn on or of the camera, change film rolls or even operate the camera when filming. It only means that you are in charge of it all and when you do that, you get no extra credit or oscar nominations because you where running around with the gimbal, operated the hand wheels in your helicopter shots etc. You do not even need to be there when the helicopter shot is shot, thats something usually done by second unit while the DP was doing something else. Simply you are the boss of camera department and normally as in any big organisation the boss does not really need to do anything but making good decisions.

Having your own camera or know the ins and outs of it possibly counts if you shoot weddings. But those that shot commercials and features. Usually have first and second camera assistants and then operators if using a speciality camera or rig. In such scenario it does not matter much what camera the DP owns. He is simply choosen for his visual skills and how he was able to direct the crew in previous similar scenarios.

I was down in Paris 2 weeks a go for a big commercial 2 week shoot. Vantage provided for the camera gear and I think we had 4 or 5 alexa minis a few prime series. Uncoated pancro´s and Ziess highspeeds. Then dollies, cranes, steady cam and all such. And more lights than I even think exists in Sweden. Now on such shoot sure the DP could say I want to shoot it on black magic, RED or Vari cam. But for some reason he choose Arri and I think partly because he is from film and then in Europe it was normally Arri, and partly because he just dont want the hassle of learning something new. He has enough to sort out together with the First AD regarding shooting schedules, boards, time estimates for rigging the lights etc, etc. So then why mess around and swapping camera bodies to something that you are not used to. Simply, why swap a winning team?

Personally I love the red cameras. Mostly I guess because they are rather complex and I like the technical part of things. But most high end DP´s I worked with are not technical oriented at all. They are into story telling, light moods etc. And very few give a F if the camera has 8k or HD, most of them judge the picture on the reference monitor and then they will see the film finished in their TV. Very few attend grading sessions or look at the imagery in any higher resolution than HD. And for most commercial productions, why should they. And most of them dont own a cinema camera.


As a DP a large portion of what you get paid for is being a consultant to the production / producers. simply you provide them with your knowledge and help them decide what is best for the productions.... in such scenario it usually does not improve trust when a DP. Which should be a consultant. Is giving his advice that: "actually I own a camera that we can use for this production, and I will let you rent it from me for a good price"..Then, the DP is no longer seen much as a consultant but a sales person that sound like he rents cameras for less. So having your own camera is possibly really harming in the way producers will look at you, they simply see you as a shitty rental option as you only got that one camera where as the rental house they usually use has all the cameras and gear that they can think of. But sure there is also the opposite, some productions like to get a package deal with camera and DP in the same sack, but for the high end that is simply not a selling point.

 

[paul ross jones]

I think Red and Arri get used a lot because they look like serious expensive cameras that give the crew credibility. The c300II looks like a toy. I am sure a good DP can make many cameras look great by shooting them in their limitations, but they need to be seen as professional and using the best gear available. No different to photography where medium format high end stills gear is used when the budgets are big- not for the resolution or lattertude (a cheap sony can do this- and the extra resolution is rarely needed) but because they are charging a lot to the client and need to show the client that they have the serious gear.

BTW, My colorist really rates the C300mkII, he says it has his preferred camera for skin tones and is easier to grade than red footage and says it has a great dynamic range. He says the arri files still handle the high light rolloff the best however. He knows Red files really well as he has been grading a lot of red in long form recently. He said the red footage can look good but requires more work.

paul

 

[Björn Benckert]

I think Red and Arri get used a lot because they look like serious expensive cameras that give the crew credibility. The c300II looks like a toy. I am sure a good DP can make many cameras look great by shooting them in their limitations, but they need to be seen as professional and using the best gear available. No different to photography where medium format high end stills gear is used when the budgets are big- not for the resolution or lattertude (a cheap sony can do this- and the extra resolution is rarely needed) but because they are charging a lot to the client and need to show the client that they have the serious gear.

BTW, My colorist really rates the C300mkII, he says it has his preferred camera for skin tones and is easier to grade than red footage and says it has a great dynamic range. He says the arri files still handle the high light rolloff the best however. He knows Red files really well as he has been grading a lot of red in long form recently. He said the red footage can look good but requires more work.

paul

Tell your colorists that Raw cameras dont have different rolloff. Luts do.

 

[Diego Gagliardi]

Thank you Matt.

 

[Matt W.]

There are good reasons to buy a camera and if you can afford one more power to you. One route I see is people buying a Red and learning on the job or starting a production company instead of going to film school. And then working for low pay to start and increasing their rates as they build their skill, network, and reel, and getting good enough to bid on bigger stuff where the gear is all provided and the rates are better. And then you still have the camera when you need it for smaller jobs.

But I wouldn't pursue clients (unless you're working as a small agency/production company combo and overseeing the entire production) that want your camera more than they want you. This is particularly true in LA and NYC imo where craigslist is already flooded with cheap Epics and Alexas and owner/ops trying to build their reels with them. In a smaller market, starting your own production company makes a lot of sense but I think it would be harder to in LA unless you already have a lot of leads.

Buying a camera and using it to launch your career is a viable path, but it is a risky one and eventually imo you want to break into either running a larger company or working for clients who pay you a fair rate as a DP and let you rent whatever gear you suggest. Just my opinion. The gear will depreciate in value quickly, whereas skills and network retain their value.

 

[Diego Gagliardi]

Thank you Matt. That's great advice actually. I really agree with what you're saying. I guess I'm in a situation where I believe in myself that I could at least DP smaller productions but hard to get out and get hired. I don't agree that you must follow a particular set of rules that were created 100 years ago where the DP starts as a runner then PA then assistant then 1st AC, so on and so forth. Today, where so many people on YouTube bought a camera and started shooting their buddies skateboarding and now are great never bought into following a set of rules. I agree with that. I believe that shooting features is a hell of a lot more complex than shooting a product shot for an app. I wish I could assist some of you on your productions but it's a network and people hire friends. I appreciate all the input from this thread, I never thought people in here were so cool about chatting about this stuff.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Tell your colorists that Raw cameras dont have different rolloff. Luts do.

Although there are colorists who don't use LUTs...

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Tell your colorists that Raw cameras dont have different rolloff. Luts do.

What do you mean ?
Same cameras or differing ones ?

Although there are colorists who don't use LUTs...

How is your monitor calibrated ?

 

[Björn Benckert]

What do you mean ?
Same cameras or differing ones ?

The files dont have any dynamic roundning they capture and store the data linear then you can choose to look / work with the file trough different luts, conversions color settings that has dynamic roundning. So when grading its up to the colorist to choose how to round of the highlights its not somthing that is built into the raw file.

The more head room you shoot with the better that rounding will look. And sure alexa has a great DR but when it clips it clip just like any other cmos sensor. Now possibly the settings in alexa are done in a way so that DPs thend to clip less and they also have a great dr so the lowlights usually dont look to shabby when exposing low. That gives the colorist or who ever look/work with the files a lot of info in the highlights to create a nice dynamic roundning with. But cameras them self dont set the exposure or create the roundning. thats somthing done by dps and colorists. Saying that it has nice rolloff is like saying a raw file has nice contrast... well it does not really have any contrast until you apply a lut, transform or grade, same goes for rolloff.

 

[paul ross jones]

My colorist doesn't use luts. Yes, he saves a grade between similar shots on the same project, but when he gets to a problem image, he deals with that at the raw level.

I am only saying what he told me about the cameras in his experience.

My experience is a decade retouching my stills images and they are always shot raw. Canon stills cameras have sharp highlight transitions. So does the phase one camera I use to own. And my URSA mini 4.6k that I shoot raw has an edge on the high light areas. The different cameras do this quite differently however, and they all shoot raw.

I thought Luts are for showing the clients on the day.


paul

 

[jake blackstone]

Tell your colorists that Raw cameras dont have different rolloff. Luts do.

Actually instead of telling, you may actually try to listen to a colorist. These days any decent colorist worth his/her salt can utilize ACES, which means a superior result using actual linear light camera RAW recordings and for that he/she works using transforms, not LUTS. Transforms are much better at concatenation, offer much higher precision and transforms usually are standardized thought the industry, unlike many types of LUTs. And yes, IDTs do contain certain looks characteristics with highlight roll off being one of them. In turn, colorist can choose and appropriate one based on creative decisions. For example I prefer an ARRI Photometric IDT (technically, it's actually a LUT, that is used in place of a transform) for it's initial low contrast look. Some may prefer a more aggressive look by choosing a different IDT. It's very much akin to choosing a film stock.
Anyway, LUTS are no longer a go to...

 

[Björn Benckert]

My colorist doesn't use luts. Yes, he saves a grade between similar shots on the same project, but when he gets to a problem image, he deals with that at the raw level.

I am only saying what he told me about the cameras in his experience.

My experience is a decade retouching my stills images and they are always shot raw. Canon stills cameras have sharp highlight transitions. So does the phase one camera I use to own. And my URSA mini 4.6k that I shoot raw has an edge on the high light areas. The different cameras do this quite differently however, and they all shoot raw.

I thought Luts are for showing the clients on the day.


paul

Difficult to explain I guess. But no, the sensors are all Cmos and they dont burn out differently they fill up very much linearly until they clip. But sure when you look at them in photoshop or resolve you use something to convert from raw to a viewable image that conversion that is then made can, and usually do have, a rounding in it.
So simply its not the sensor you find looking harsh in the highlights it´s the post processing. As it´s raw the post processing can be done in different ways so I can not agree to a statement that one Cmos sensor recording in raw has a different dynamic rounding than another they all full up very linearly.

Actually instead of telling, you may actually try to listen to a colorist. These days any decent colorist worth his/her salt can utilize ACES, which means a superior result using actual linear light camera RAW recordings and for that he/she works using transforms, not LUTS. Transforms are much better at concatenation, offer much higher precision and transforms usually are standardized thought the industry, unlike many types of LUTs. And yes, IDTs do contain certain looks characteristics with highlight roll off being one of them. In turn, colorist can choose and appropriate one based on creative decisions. For example I prefer an ARRI Photometric IDT (technically, it's actually a LUT, that is used in place of a transform) for it's initial low contrast look. Some may prefer a more aggressive look by choosing a different IDT. It's very much akin to choosing a film stock.
Anyway, LUTS are no longer a go to...

I wrote luts. In my first post then to clarify I wrote luts, color transforms or other grading. Is there something thats not clear. Simply the sensor fills up linearly as long as it´s a Cmos sensor. Then how that raw capture is treated is up to the user / colourist or who ever is using the file. So the rolloff is nothing thats fixed to camera. Sure you can say the color transformations in Red Cine has nice rolloff... but if you say the red camera has nice rolloff then thats simply an ill statement as the raw files comming off form the camera has not had their falloff set yet. As you say if you open them all linearly and take them into ACES they can all get the same falloff so how does one camera have a different falloff then the other. Then sure, shooting color baked is a different thing.

In general you get better rolloff the more info you got in the peaks of your capture. Shooting them right under clip or clipped renders them with less or no info.

 

[jake blackstone]

I wrote luts. In my first post then to clarify I wrote luts, colton transforms or other grading. Is there something thats not clear. Simply the sensor fills up linearly as long as it´s a Cmos sensor. Then how that raw capture is treated is up to the user / colourist or who ever is using the file. Its nothing fixed to camera. Sure you can say the color transformations in Red Cine has nice rolloff but if you say the red camera has nice rolloff then I think it´s simply an ill statement. as the raw files comming off form the camera has not had their fall off set yet.



Shooting color baked is a different thing.

Isn't it about time you learned a difference between a transform and a LUT? Despite your protestations, you're clearly confused and your ramblings about CMOS sensor and "transformations" is the further proof of that. It is not "transformations or other grading" it's transforms- a mathematical formula. Again, a big difference. Also, it's been a while since I touched RedCine. Does it even supports ACES? I though it can only use LUTs...

 

[Björn Benckert]

Isn't it about time you learned a difference between a transform and a LUT? Despite your protestations, you're clearly confused and your ramblings about CMOS sensor and "transformations" is the further proof of that. It is not "transformations or other grading" it's transforms- a mathematical formula. Again, a big difference. Also, it's been a while since I touched RedCine. Does it even supports ACES? I though it can only use LUTs...

Sorry english is not my first or second language. I know there is differences between luts and a mathematical color transforms. But then also lut´s is a transform, or are called as such in sertain apps. It possibly completly wrong but I was not really getting into the details between different ways of changing or viewing a raw file. I just tried to explain that the raw file does not hold any dynamic rounding or rolloff. That is something that the viewer, user, colorist or who ever fiddle with the file later is adding.


Now the latest RCXP beta is as I understand the only currently available app to be able to render RWGRGB with the IPP2 using transforms / mathematical curves all others use luts.

But yes to be terminology correct I guess one need to differ between a lut and a mathematical transform.

 

[M Most]

Actually instead of telling, you may actually try to listen to a colorist. These days any decent colorist worth his/her salt can utilize ACES, which means a superior result using actual linear light camera RAW recordings and for that he/she works using transforms, not LUTS. Transforms are much better at concatenation, offer much higher precision and transforms usually are standardized thought the industry, unlike many types of LUTs. And yes, IDTs do contain certain looks characteristics with highlight roll off being one of them. In turn, colorist can choose and appropriate one based on creative decisions. For example I prefer an ARRI Photometric IDT (technically, it's actually a LUT, that is used in place of a transform) for it's initial low contrast look. Some may prefer a more aggressive look by choosing a different IDT. It's very much akin to choosing a film stock.
Anyway, LUTS are no longer a go to...

I understand what you're saying but there are a number of things you're incorrect on here. First, IDTs don't impart a gamma curve or any falloff characteristic. In fact, they do the opposite - they put the camera's information into a linear light, scene referred colorspace. Second, everything you're talking about here in an ACES pipeline happens in the output transform - usually the RRT, although as you mention, there are other rendering transforms available in certain software (like the Arri Photometric transform in Filmlight's products). But either way, it's the output transform you're referring to, not the IDT (which is the input transform). Finally, there are an awful lot of more than "decent" colorists who do not work in ACES. Many work in an "ACES like" pipeline in which all input data is converted to one common colorspace (Arri LogC Wide Gamut is very popular for this), but not ACES itself. This is due to many reasons, among them familiarity, but also (and perhaps more significantly) issues with the RRT itself that often manifest when dealing with very saturated blues and magentas. This is also the reason that a number of studio pictures that were slated to go through an ACES path have chosen not to, as these issues have not yet been satisfactorily addressed. If you don't have any material with that issue (often caused by photographing neon lights, car rear lights, or anything else with high brightness and high saturation), ACES is a good approach. If you do, it might not be.

 

[M Most]

Even us native English speakers confuse things. Particularly when we're talking about very specific things.

Although Jake seems to think the term "transform" directly implies a mathematical approach, that is not the case. Any method of converting one colorspace to another, or one set of values to another, is a "transform." A matrix is one way of doing that. A LUT is another way of doing it. A series of concatenated mathematical calculations is another. If one wants to be specific, your use of the term "mathematical transform" would be correct, as a LUT is not doing any math (it contains pre-calculated values). I work with one of the leading color scientists in our industry and he refers to all of these things - correctly so - as "transforms" because they take one set of input values and yield a different set of output values.

So to be "technically correct" I think it's fair to refer to "mathematical transforms" as opposed to "luts", but it's not really correct to associate the term "transform" only with the former.