Min. workstation for 4K 10bit composing

[D Fuller]

Well, it seems to me that any of you, nice guys, has a position based on own style and needs.

Of course we do. One of the most valuable things you need to develop in a creative business is a point of view. We all have them. We're passionate about them. One of the most valuable things you can develop as a human being is the ability to recognize that not everyone shares your point of view, and that's OK. The world is better for that, but it can make things a bit confusing.

BMCs seems wonderful, but perhaps is particular conditions, mainly expressing their whole potential in pro's hands.
I don't feel up to handle a little-pro cam like that, with all-manual lenses and without stabilization. And I'd like to try to take stills too.
Mr. Morgan Moore's advice was GH2. I agree with him. GH4 is just the double of an used-hacked GH2 (and I must say that I prefer the image of GH4). So for my needs at the moment it seems a good compromise.

I think it is a good compromise. I'm still not sure what you really want from the camera. From what you've said, it sounds like you're taking a course that is focussed on compositing and CG, where the images are raw material for your post work. So you're not really trying to become a cinematographer at this point, but want to be able to shoot some images to work with in the CG world. Is that close?
If it is, then the GH4 seems a good choice. Another good choice would be a Canon 70D. Both will take good stills. Both have a good selection of lenses available for modest costs. Neither records to a very robust codec, so grading will be limited with either. But both will be easier than most to keep in focus, and that will turn out to be one of your biggest challenges if you shoot the way you've described.

But it would be interesting to reflect on the lens: Fred, you say Veydra, but are not cheap: +/- 900$ per lens. And as you know I'm a beginner, so Veydra build all-manual lenses without stabilization. Nocticron has stabilization and is fast.

So this lens is pretty good. It's not a cinema lens, but it ought to be OK. That is, if I'm correct in what I guessed above about what you want to do. (for now) If you are really interested in cinematography, I'd suggest you think about a non-stabilized lens. Because if you're intersted in cinematography, you need to learn how to handle a camera, and when it needs support (tripod), and a host of things that will be masked by stabilization. Some things that will be sorta OK with stabilization will be bloody awful without, and you'll learn from that. (just a suggestion)

But I think you're going to want another lens. Either instead of or in addition to. That focal length is lovely, but you're going to want a wide. Something in the 14-18mm range. It's just really hard to make a movie with just a short tele. Everything can't be closeups, and there's often not enough room to move back far enough with a lens that has that angls of view. That wider lens will also be a lot easier to hold steady and keep focussed, so if you plan on moving with the camera at all, you'll find it helps. Now, you could get two lenses or find a zoom that covers something like the 14-40 range and get both in one, but it won't be quite as fast.

Tell me guys if I'm wrong: GH4 is ISO800 based, isn't a low-light champion, and I'd use it without adding light, so with a f/1.2 + a crop factor of 2.3 I should obtain simply a reasonably fast cam. 42.5mm become more than 85mm on GH4, so yes it's a potrait/tele lens that should give a reasonably shallow d.o.f. And with IS I should not be worried about shaking: a monopod should be enough.
Do you think I'm completely wrong?

Yes. You are completely wrong about not needing a tripod. You need a tripod. Not for every shot, but often. Even more if you're using the material for compositing, because you'll find that you need to shoot identically-framed plates quite often, and you just can't do that hand-held or from a mono-pod.

Your insistence on not using lights is also wrong. (Now in this, youare seeing my point of view. Take it or leave it as you wish.) Cinematography is the art of controling a movable camera and light. If you don't control the light, you are giving up half of the art. You don't need a lot of lights. But you do need some, or you will not get the images you want, you'll have to settle for what was there. Take a look at some of BCooter's images on this site. He is a master of using available light and adding just enough to it to make it beautiful. sometimes that's one 150-watt Inkie. Sometimes it's a half-dozen HMIs.

And what about IR filter question?
Someone says that GH4 needs for an IR filter too when ND is on.
I'd go for two filters with Xume Adapters: Genus Eclipse variable ND + Tiffen water white IR.
I'd keep IR always on, also indoor, just to protect lens from dust, is it a good idea or there is any downside?

Don't use an IR filter for lens protection. They are usually quite reflective, and you'll get ghosting if you put another filter on top of it. I don't know the GH4 well enough to know if IR is an issue with that camera or not. I'd suggest that you get it, and a good-quality variable ND, and test. If IR contamination proves to be a problem, get an IR filter. If you do need one, do some research on which ones work with that sensor. IR filters are not at all the same; some work well on a particular camera, while others give very odd color rendering on that same camera.

Thanks all guys.

You're welcome!

[D Fuller]

I stand on my position.
I've been cutting during 3 years in MC and went quite far in the training and the tricks behind the tricks of its implementation. And no Dave. May it's robust, excellent media management etc...and would agree. But it's completly unintuitive (apart from basic editing).
...

In fact, what happens is that the "old folks" have lived with it and get used to each software generation so it seems "natural" for them.
And as you are old folk (do not mean old, grey hair and big belly  ), well you are used to it for decades. For the new generation, it's another story.

Ouch! LOL!

So this is pretty much the response I expected. And it's not a discussion i care much about having, it's just something I'm curious about. Yes, it's true, I am an old guy. But I was not when I sat down at that Avid seat in 1993, and I had never sat at any non-linear editor before, so there must have been something "intuitive" about it. Of course, I came to it from, well, editing. Not from Microsoft Word. So there's that. But somehow I was able to cut a show for national air on a non-intuitive system without any training at all.

Truth be told, i don't think any editing software is intuitive. I don't think editing is intuitive. It's a very sophisticated and high-level language that requires thousands of hours to become good at. And that's completely regardless of which software you choose to do it with. I think the "intuitive" part of any of them is helpful for people who are not really editors, but who need to edit from time to time. People who spend their lives as editors get to know the software they choose so well that intuition doesn't really come into it any more.

That's why I have mostly stopped editing. I found I couldn't be as good as I wanted to be at everything, and I had a couple of very good editors working for me. So I stopped, and focussed on and directing and photography. I started working with Resolve because i wanted more control of my photography, and because I've always been something of a designer, I've kept doing some work in After Effects. But for editing, I'm still using with one of the editors who worked for me 20 years ago. He runs his own edit shop now, and I still think he does good work. And by not editing my own stuff, I find I have a more objective POV to critique it. So the work gets better.

So that's all waaay off-topic. (Sorry Adjork.)

Why so many people went FCP at the Golden age? up to 7th
Because it was more simple and offered the same (more or less).

Well, I'd say it was because it was cheaper. A lot cheaper. So people learned on it, and what you learn on always seems simpler. But that's just my opinion, of course. And I guess I really don't care. :-)

[fredjeang2]

Dave, nice imputs as always.
I was of course teasing with the "old folk".
And you know me a bit. Writing in a foreign
Lenguage is quite difficult for me, and I often
Have to use shortcuts, without realizing if I
Reached the politicaly correct or not. But I'm
Direct in french also, lol !

Well, that's actually quite wrong. Sometimes I realise
perfectly I'm being provocative!
A tourist London tour: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SkUPM_T7FE
and not the politicaly correct hypocrits blablas

I guess people who know me for long here forgive
my french way (you know those dirty people
who hardly wash themselves so they invented the bidet,
and this is really not a legend but a reflection as pure truth.
We hate water!!
Who would dare to say that the british cooking
-if there is one- tastes good?)

As a professional, I deeply respect you, learn a lot from
Your posts. You know much more than I do, and much
More than many many people I read also everywhere.
About Avid, and generaly NLEs, I agree totaly with your
Words.
It was purely semantic. True, the word intuitive
Means everything and nothing but just the meaning one
Associates to it. But when I saw your post I couldn't help
jumping on it to feed my provocative apetite and playing on words.

More seriously, I used it in the sense that there are
Tools that are so well designed that they can help the
Task they are made for, or not so well designed that
They can complicate it.
But of course, a talented editor would do wonders even
In a Windows Movie Maker. And to be good
Requires a lot of practise above natural gift.

As always, it's never the camera nor the software,
or the weather but talent and hard work.
In that sense, Avid, PP, FCPx...who cares?

Maybe we should only care in the sense that tool's design
and implementation affect the
practical experience although
not really the result. Cutting in Lightworks is a
completly different experience than cutting
in Avid, the mind behind being the same.
For me (and it's totaly personal), LW is more natural
in use.
IMO, a good tool has to be invisible, transparent. But that's not the talent.
In that sense and only in that sense I find LW "better" because of its
"transparency". Others will may think differently and everybody would be right.

Instead of intuitive should have I said practical? invisible? natural?
Ouch...it seems that my hair are turning grey like an "old fox" if I
Start philosophying.
Yeah, all that doesn't matter. We don't care.
Keep posting the good stuff as you do.

I like teasing.

What I find a bit of an hassle with m4/3 is to get wide lenses on the vintage market,
and I really don't like the touch and feeling of those current Pana or Oly lenses. I had some, they work fine
and maybe I'm posh and snob but I like metal construction and lots of blades as well as a bit of weight too.

With the blackmagic the access to vintage super16 (that would vignette on the GH4) gives more interesting
choices IMO, at least a wider range of possibilities in the vintage market.

But buying new without breaking the bank account, the Veydras are really good value for money in the m4/3.
Cine built quality, no breathing, same size between different focals, same filter threads, much longuer focusing ring from closer to infinity,
no fixed fstops etc etc...  proper cine lens for 1000 bucks is quite amazing.

adrjork, About Lightning, listen to what D.Fuller said. In fact listen to all he said except for Avid. Lol!!

Here I join you some pics of a mouvement that operates here in Madrid and in the french city of Toulouse.
Those guys are against the cine industry, they reject the big médiums, the authoring and star system.
They are very much in the Jean Luc  Godar "communist" cinema. I personaly do not share their views on
that but my point is that those guys are using the mínimum médiums posible. DSLRs, reduced crew to the max,
all amateur actors etc...And look, they lite! They actually
lite quite a lot. They make-up etc etc...

[adrjork]

Wow, I’m learning really much here, thx guys.

So, in order:

-Mr. D Fuller, you are right about the fact that up to now I think to shoot some images as row material for post work.

-About a wide lens: of course I’m going to buy a wide lens too. Simply I’ve thought to learn just one lens at a time.

-About artificial light: I fear of handling too many toys, so which could be the minimum kit? Could it be sufficient a little led light + a double-face reflector? Which is your minimal shopping list?

-About a protection filter over the lens: if IR is not advisable, which filter do you recommend to use as alway on invisible protection lens?

-I’m going to buy a 10bit monitor for my hackintosh workstation. As you know, OSX doesn’t handle 10bit natively via video card. I’ve noticed the DeckLink Mini Monitor (for HD) and the DeckLink Studio 4K (for 4K). Both declare 10bit, but I don’t understand if 10bit refers to SDI-only or also HDMI (it’s important for me because the monitor I’d buy is 10bit via HDMI only!)

Thx a lot as always.

[D Fuller]

-About artificial light: I fear of handling too many toys, so which could be the minimum kit? Could it be sufficient a little led light + a double-face reflector? Which is your minimal shopping list?

I think the most useful single light these days is a dimable bi-color LED panel. They are battery-powerable, reasonably soft, and can be used to add a bit of fill to a scene, or an edge, or in a smallish scene, they can be a key. There are even some very good flexible ones.

The second light I'd get for the way you describe shooting would be a small fresnel. This won't be battery powerable, but will be very cheap, tungsten-balanced, and very useful in the low-light, "available darkness" shooting you describe.

A double-faced reflector is a good idea, though I favor solid ones rather than floppy. Beadboard or white/black foamcore work well and are cheap. Negative fill is often useful (the black side of the foamcore). And get some diffusion. Opal or gridcloth. With small lights, nothing heavy, you can always double it if you need to. For less money, you can also use tracing paper. (But keep, t away from hot lights.)

-About a protection filter over the lens: if IR is not advisable, which filter do you recommend to use as alway on invisible protection lens?

UV or skylight. But don't just leave it there if you put other filters on. Swap them. More filters are not better unless they are all doing something you want.

-I’m going to buy a 10bit monitor for my hackintosh workstation. As you know, OSX doesn’t handle 10bit natively via video card. I’ve noticed the DeckLink Mini Monitor (for HD) and the DeckLink Studio 4K (for 4K). Both declare 10bit, but I don’t understand if 10bit refers to SDI-only or also HDMI (it’s important for me because the monitor I’d buy is 10bit via HDMI only!)

I'd be surprised if these were not 10-bit via HDMI, but the BMC web site should have detailed specs if you look around a bit.

[fredjeang2]

I'd like, if you agree, to, from where we are in this thread at this point -lightning- go a Little further
in the sense that at best, we are talking about 1000 euros mínimum considering a fresnel+stand +batteries + bicolor led + stand + reflector.
1000 ish bucks in motion is just a joke. However,

for a lot of newcomers, if you sum camera+accessories+lenses+tripod+++ the bill may reach easily 3 or 4000 and a lot of dudes don't even have that to start.

So I'd like to ask a question to both James and Dave, if you see this. (or whoever of course wants to pop-up)
Put yourself in the skin of a complete broke beginner who is starting with an extremely reduced Budget.
Let's put the clock backwards to the Hippies. You just bought your WW orange van and the Who are playing on the radio, right?
You are Young, animated, passionate about motion.
You want to start to make your indy movies.
But you are broke. Your Budget is at max 300 euros for lightning because you just spent 2700 in camera and lenses and rig.
What would you choose?

What is interesting, is to have the view of long time pros, used to high budgets, so with their experience in mind, what would they do and what would they choose if they had to restart
from scratch with no money but with the equipment of nowdays.

ps: Or we can put in another way also: you are going to film an indy with 1 friend who is the actor in the jungle. You need max quality posible that fits in one bag, included the lightning, audio etc...
Everything has to be ultra small, but efficient enough. The other friend carries the bag with food and tent so there is just one bag for gear.

[fredjeang2]

PS  I shot this gig with a still camera and a Nikon d90 (or is that N90 I forget).   Today it still gets us work.

http://www.russellrutherford.com/magic/

This video is great! I think I told you zillion times. It's one of my fav's coot.

Ps: don't know what the hell is happenin with QT on Windows but it freezes and takes ages to load. Saw that several times in other sites too that use QT. I had to save it in "original" in a hard drive to be able to watch it.

[D Fuller]

But you are broke. Your Budget is at max 300 euros for lightning because you just spent 2700 in camera and lenses and rig.
What would you choose?

What is interesting, is to have the view of long time pros, used to high budgets, so with their experience in mind, what would they do and what would they choose if they had to restart
from scratch with no money but with the equipment of nowdays.

At that point, I would have borrowed what I could and rented the rest of what I needed. That was true of cameras too. Nobody could afford to own a film camera, so there wasn't a choice. The first 16mm I owned was, like James, a Beaulieu (R16). Loved it. It's the only motion film camera I still own. But that was well after I started.

But I'll play along. I'd get this

Two sheets of White/black foamcore: $50
Two of these work lights (they break down to four units):  $36 ea. $72 total
Two of these reflectors with bulbs: about $50
Some diffusion material: Around $20.
A few sheets of CTB gel - full, 1/2, 1/4: about $50
Wood clothes pins: $5

Total: about $250

Another good option is to cruise eBay for used fresnels or Lowell tota-lights or the like.

ps: Or we can put in another way also: you are going to film an indy with 1 friend who is the actor in the jungle. You need max quality posible that fits in one bag, included the lightning, audio etc...
Everything has to be ultra small, but efficient enough. The other friend carries the bag with food and tent so there is just one bag for gear.

I'd take a Sony a7s and a few lenses: Mitakon Zhongyi 50mm f/0.95, Sony 90mm f/2.8 Macro, Sony FE PZ 28-135mm f/4 power zoom, Zeiss Batis 25mm f/2, maybe one longer lens, but that would depend on wht i knew about the jungle. Plus a light-weight Sachtler (or similar) tripod head on Gitzo carbon-fiber legs.

Low light capability will be important in the jungle; battery charging will be a problem. With no one but myself and the actor, the only thing I'd take for lighting would be a foldable reflector and an LED flashlight.

[fredjeang2]

James and Dave, thanks a lot to have played the game. I'm sure many people have learned things here. I did.

[fredjeang2]

About "talent" I agree with James.
This concept is used and abused and leads to confusion.

Natural habilities without hard works means nothing.
And hard work without talent can actually brings talent,
Just that it takes longuer than a dude with natural talent.
I've seen that over and over again in fine arts.

More than talent, the key word is purpose. Aim. The rest
Would follow.

There are a lot of romantism about "the artist" idea. Being broke
And alcoholic is one of them. Many well known painters
That people look as sort of homeless vagabunds were
From rich family with no concern on having to struggle,
That way one can "play the broken artist" and it looks so
Much more romantic, init?

But purpose can also be a trap. It's not about wanting to succeed,
Being famous, earn a lot of money and living the glamourous
hollywood life. Too many people are trapped in that too.

And life quality ain't either about not having a life.  What does
Mean one million dollar if you don't have the time to enjoy it?

One can read Napoleon Hill to find the secret of Carnegie
(there is no secret by the way...) Or watch the motivators who are pushing
You to "you can do it" it's all about thoughts and all those
New-age blablas, but in fact it's all about release.

[John Brawley]

But you are broke. Your Budget is at max 300 euros for lightning because you just spent 2700 in camera and lenses and rig.
What would you choose?

I wouldn't spend so much of my budget on camera.

Lighting, gripping and lenses are all more important.

The first equipment I bought for myself was lighting.

If you are working by yourself then lighting is where you will make the biggest impact.  In either controlling and subtracting available light or doing your own...

The first thing I bought was a Dedo four head 100w Master Kit with all the little accessories (suction cups and projection attachments).  Shortly after I got a display Kino Diva for cheap as a larger Daylight source.  I had the first dedo Octodome imported into Australia and I got a discounted Kino Diva.  I bought some C stands and some 4x4 floppys for negative fill.  It was all lighting for the first couple of years. (and it was a bloody expensive buy back then).

I also love inexpensive non film lights...xmas lights or paper lanterns...

The camera was always supplied or rented for my first few years.  Even today, I still use those lights.  I bought them because Dedo's are expensive and a lot of gaffers don't carry them, or in the way that I like to run them.  I chopped the header cables and made it so I could easily run them off batteries or from sliding dimmers.  I bought additional dimmers for 150w and chopped those cables too so I could also run the 150w globes...

I have done many jobs where it was just me and those lamps...They all work on any world voltage.

They are DC..I've never been brave enough to do it but you can put them underwater ! My favourite trick is to take the barn doors off and then grab a plastic water cup and turn it into a little diffuser.  They slot right into the barn door holders !

Eventually I have managed to shame some gaffers into getting them for me after pulling "my lights" out on a job they are doing....They are very versatile.

The second thing I bought was a geared head.  It's very hard to learn how to operate wheels without practicing and none of the jobs I was doing would pay for a geared head in the rental package.

So I bought one so that I could use it and learn how to operate using wheels.  Many remote heads on cranes use wheels, and they offer a very different feel to a stick head in regular drama.

Notice these purchases are also camera agnostic.  They don't go out of date and I still use them today....OK the head I inflict on my assistants to get THEM to learn how to operate wheels...

The dedo's are 20 years old now and have paid for themselves many times over and more importantly, gave me a way of lighting when I had nothing and was by myself.  That's their true value.  They made my work better.

I'm not saying YOU should get dedos, but you should consider your own visual approach and lighting should be the very first thing you work to hone and understand.  The camera just captures what you do with light.....

Think about a lighting package that gives you the most flexibility, that you can easily manage by yourself and will make your work better...

Honestly it will be the single thing that makes the biggest difference to your work.  Not the camera you use to capture it...

I actively avoided buying a camera as long as I can.  Even today, I've not really bought cameras.  I have inherited some from Blackmagic, only because it's a kind of payment-in-kind for testing for them...

I'd rather rent the best camera for the job.  I know that not everyone can do that and it depends on the work, but even on the lowest budget stuff I was doing I always rented the camera.  I could often negotiate a really good deal with the camera rental company.  And thats something to do...try to foster a relationship with a good equipment supplier...

JB

My geared head on one of the first jobs I had it on...extra points if you can name the camera and lens...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/johnbrawley/2315390671/in/album-72157626229445665/

Here's a short film from years ago where it was a very small crew.  I lit a bath scene using some xmas lights stuck to foam.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/johnbrawley/379214503/in/album-72157594516953312/

And even a car interior with rope lights...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/johnbrawley/15729533605/in/album-72157594566402764/

[fredjeang2]

3 experienced pros, all pointing the very first
Importance of lightning.
I think it's quite clear.

I also have the feeling that audio is dead key too.
Almost nobody focuss on audio. However the audience
Is very forgiving in terms of image quality.
No one goes to the cine to be delighted by how great
The zillion Ks sensor of the X camera displays.
The only ones who are concerned with this are us.

But audience will not forgive a crap audio.

In Spain, the level of doublage actors is very high and known
WW for that. (as medecine by the way). To the point that
I prefer to watch a french movie dobled in spanish than the
Original in my own lenguage. Big difference!

[D Fuller]

3 experienced pros, all pointing the very first
Importance of lightning.
I think it's quite clear.

I also have the feeling that audio is dead key too.
Almost nobody focuss on audio. However the audience
Is very forgiving in terms of image quality.
No one goes to the cine to be delighted by how great
The zillion Ks sensor of the X camera displays.
The only ones who are concerned with this are us.

But audience will not forgive a crap audio.

In Spain, the level of doublage actors is very high and known
WW for that. (as medecine by the way). To the point that
I prefer to watch a french movie dobled in spanish than the
Original in my own lenguage. Big difference!

As this is a camera forum, audio doesn't get much attention. But my preference there is always to hire a good recordist with his gear.

[bcooter]

As this is a camera forum, audio doesn't get much attention. But my preference there is always to hire a good recordist with his gear.

Sound is something you just can't mess with.   I agree with Fred because you can get by with some weak imagery, but bad sound is just awful.

We own a bunch of radio lavs and honestly ONLY use them for a few quick insets or personal work.  Never on a production (well we did in Moscow, but that's a way too long story).

We have a great soundman in LA ok sound guys in other places and even our very good one complains that I want his mix saved by him and into each camera.

I hate running a scratch mike, but I've found his mix into the R1s sounds identical to his wav files he hands over.

Ive compared them two dozen times and can't find any difference, though he is good.

Once the edit is completed I have a sound tech that finishes the mix and the difference to what we can do ourself is a billion percent better when he does it.

Even a good on set sound guy can mess up.    I keep a set of old cheap Panasonic headphones I love, because they have no sound suppression and hear everything, good and bad.

We were on Location and I heard a hum.    I kept telling the sound guy I hear a hum and he kept saying it's all clean.

Then half way into the day he hears it.  Turns out an HMI ballast was packing up and since we were all on mains it was producing feedback.

At that point we had to live with it and luckily when we went to sound sweetening the hum was above the dialog so we got lucky.

But sound, yea it's not a diy job.

IMO

BC


P.S.   On broadcast I now hear a lot of bad sound.  Even on budgeted shows, which kind of amazes me that they squeeze the budgets that tight.

[D Fuller]

Sound is something you just can't mess with.   I agree with Fred because you can get by with some weak imagery, but bad sound is just awful.

We own a bunch of radio lavs and honestly ONLY use them for a few quick insets or personal work.  Never on a production (well we did in Moscow, but that's a way too long story).

We have a great soundman in LA ok sound guys in other places and even our very good one complains that I want his mix saved by him and into each camera.

I hate running a scratch mike, but I've found his mix into the R1s sounds identical to his wav files he hands over.

Ive compared them two dozen times and can't find any difference, though he is good.

Once the edit is completed I have a sound tech that finishes the mix and the difference to what we can do ourself is a billion percent better when he does it.

Even a good on set sound guy can mess up.    I keep a set of old cheap Panasonic headphones I love, because they have no sound suppression and hear everything, good and bad.

We were on Location and I heard a hum.    I kept telling the sound guy I hear a hum and he kept saying it's all clean.

Then half way into the day he hears it.  Turns out an HMI ballast was packing up and since we were all on mains it was producing feedback.

At that point we had to live with it and luckily when we went to sound sweetening the hum was above the dialog so we got lucky.

But sound, yea it's not a diy job.

IMO

BC


P.S.   On broadcast I now hear a lot of bad sound.  Even on budgeted shows, which kind of amazes me that they squeeze the budgets that tight.

Amen to every word of this.

As it is true with photography that light is far more important than what camera you shoot on, it is true that the most important thing for good sound is mic placement. Somebody has to pay attention to that (as well as the other technical aspects of sound). If the photographer does that it is always an afterthought.

[fredjeang2]

A question on grading, specially with LUTs.

I have the sensation, the more I grade, that the very key factor that comes first, and very specially with LUTs is before any intervention, to nail color temp. Would you confirm that?

But does that means that in the case of a RLF or an ARRI log, or a BM flat, I obligatory have to first apply a Rec709 lut (not talking about display color management) first (if my output is Rec709) before any color balance?
Or... color balance node is placed first before the delog node? (that's what I do)


I got the sensation that the trick resides in the order but still a bit uncertain. What comes first or should comes first with log material?


The scenario being this one:  I got a Prores file in log. Let's forget about raw. Would you follow a divine order? (like: first a log-to-rec709 node, then a color temp adjust, etc...)

Because I don't see how can I adjust my color temp in post if what I see is a washed file. So I have to delog it first but in fact I would put myself the color temp node before the delog one. (or if it's raw just affect the metadatas)

That part is still a bit vague to me. I need more flying hours.

the order I would work is this:

A) display color management set to rec709
A1) color temp adjustment node or metadatas adjust if raw  to get the more neutral posible colors
+ A2) look LUT plus grading nodes to refine

then

B) display color management disabled
B3) delog node like  logC to rec709 (according to the camera)

the delog node would be the very last one in the chain.

B4) conform

Is that correct for you?

outchhhh...completly out of topic! (as always we end like this...lol)

[D Fuller]

A question on grading, specially with LUTs.

I have the sensation, the more I grade, that the very key factor that comes first, and very specially with LUTs is before any intervention, to nail color temp. Would you confirm that?

Yes. Absolutely. The reason is that there are transforms of the color relationships that are part of the color science for the Raw-to-RGB transform that are affected by white balance in ways that are very hard to reproduce in RGB space.

But does that means that in the case of a RLF or an ARRI log, or a BM flat, I obligatory have to first apply a Rec709 lut (not talking about display color management) first (if my output is Rec709) before any color balance?
Or... color balance node is placed first before the delog node? (that's what I do)

No. Or, actually, it doesn't matter. Because the white balance happens as part of debayer, before any of the RGB processes. It precedes any LUT and any grading.

I got the sensation that the trick resides in the order but still a bit uncertain. What comes first or should comes first with log material?

The scenario being this one:  I got a Prores file in log. Let's forget about raw. Would you follow a divine order? (like: first a log-to-rec709 node, then a color temp adjust, etc...)

Because I don't see how can I adjust my color temp in post if what I see is a washed file. So I have to delog it first but in fact I would put myself the color temp node before the delog one. (or if it's raw just affect the metadatas)

That part is still a bit vague to me. I need more flying hours.

This is different. It's not "white balance" in the sense we use it in photography, it's "setting white and black points" in a color-grading sense, which is different. Fundamentally, it's different because you are not adjusting the way the camera sees color, you are just adjusting color. So it has no relationship to the camera's color science any more.

In this case, you really need to use the LUT, because, as you say, it is very hard to judge the white and black points on a LOG image.

BUT.

I don't rely on my monitor very much when I set a white point. I look at the scopes. I only really rely on the picture monitor for that if I want the whites to be, well, NOT white. Like very warm or cool or something. Otherwise, I find a clear white part of the image and line up the RG&B on the scopes, then do the same with black and back and forth until  I'm happy with it on the picture monitor.

the order I would work is this:

A) display color management set to rec709
A1) color temp adjustment node or metadatas adjust if raw  to get the more neutral posible colors
+ A2) look LUT plus grading nodes to refine

then

B) display color management disabled
B3) delog node like  logC to rec709 (according to the camera)

the delog node would be the very last one in the chain.

B4) conform

Is that correct for you?

outchhhh...completly out of topic! (as always we end like this...lol)

I don't understand why you're changing the display color management. This is not really my area of expertise, but in my view, the calibrated monitor should hold be set to the target calibration and left there, otherwise madness ensues, and you can never be sure of any reality. (or color.)

So if you're grading to a REC709 target, the monitor stays calibrated to that, and the LOG-to-709 LUT transforms the picture so that it is accurately represented on a REC 709 monitor. It is wise to put the LOG-to-709 LUT in the last node, or even as an output LUT because it can hard clip stuff, and if it's earlier in the tree, you can't get that stuff back. (Presumably if it's at the end, you don't care about getting  it back.) I know some people who like to put it in the middle so they can grade the log material before it and the 709 material after it, but I just find that confusing and very hard to keep consistent.

Any of this help?

[fredjeang2]

Very much!! Many thanks Dave.

The part you explained on "....So it has no relationship to the camera's color science any more". is something I sort of caught by myself but was
still vaguish. Now I got that part ultra clear. Thanks to you. This is an important part to understand.

The scopes are important too. Yes!

On the changing color management display at the end, previous to apply the rec709 LUT was indeed confusing. But that's my fault because I expressed myself badly.
I had in mind the viewing Luts and not the color management display as in Scratch or Resolve that is happening in-board if I might say. In the case of a viewing Lut, not disabling it will result in doubling the effect of the rec709 node in the end. That won't affect the conform itself because it's just a lut for viewing but it's never nice to see suddenly a super crushed rec709. Sorry for the confusion.

[AlterEgo]

Because the white balance happens as part of debayer, before any of the RGB processes.

at least in raw converters WB happens either before (for example RPP) or after (for example ACR/LR) demosaicking... not as a part of demosaicking.

[D Fuller]

at least in raw converters WB happens either before (for example RPP) or after (for example ACR/LR) demosaicking... not as a part of demosaicking.

That is, perhaps, correct. If you know something about that, it's a discussion I'd love to delve a little more deeply into.

In this case, knowing a little bit about Fred's workflow, I was distinguishing between the raw conversion and grading environments in Resolve.

It's not as clear to me how raw conversion works in ACR (specifically, what affects demosaicing and what is simply RGB transforms) but in Resolve, with Red Raw footage, for example, white balance in the Raw settings does something more than just setting a white point. It is part of the Red SDK, and is, as I understand it, part of the camera's color science. If WB is right for the raw conversion stage, the RGB image that gets produced out is much easier to grade with Resolve's RGB tools.