Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Motion & Video => Topic started by: D Fuller on July 10, 2015, 01:05:36 am
-
Michael's article "Understanding the Jargon of Video" is confusing the concepts of color sampling and bit depth in video. It is a confusing subject, so let me see if I can help to clarify things a bit.
He writes,
"An 8 bit image is described in video terms as having 4:2:0 colour sampling."
These are, in fact, two quite different concepts that affect the image in quite different ways.
Bit Depth (as most photographers will know) is the number of bits allocated to describing each pixel's color.
Color Sampling is about the resolution of the color the file contains. Color sub-sampling discards color resolution (without regard for bit depth) to save bandwidth. It happens in YUV color space before the signal is compressed into AVCHD or whatever codec is being used. A 1920x1080 4:2:0 image has 1/2 the vertical and 1/2 the horizontal color resolution. That means color is encoded at 960x540. (Luminance is encoded at 1920x1080.) When the image is decoded (whether for display, transcoding, or editing) the decoder simply up-samples the color information to 1920x1080.
Perhaps the most important consequence is that while the color can be just as rich as you'd hope, and as gradable as the bit depth allows, sub-sampled color will cause terrible problems if you try to do any compositing with it. Lack of color resolution will make any color-based keying or selection mushy. The color detail simply won't be there to give you clean, detailed edges to work with. This will not be helped by transcoding to a 4:4:4 encoded file; once resolution is gone, it's gone.
A couple of notes:
- 4:2:2 is significantly better. It discards half of the horizontal color resolution, but keeps all of the vertical resolution.
- All this sub-sampling happens in YUV color space (sometimes notated as YCbCr). RGB color is implicitly 4:4:4. (You can't do color sub-sampling unless you separate color from luminance.)
- It is possible to to encode 4:2:0 color at 16 bits. (No one does it because if you are going to increase the bandwidth, you'll get more improvement by increasing the color resolution to 4:2:2 than from increasing bit depth at 4:2:0). And it is possible to encode 4:4:4 color using 8 bits (An 8-bit RGB TIFF does that.)
.
EDIT: One more note--the article states that the Sony A7s cannot output 4:2:2 video to an external recorder. It can. It outputs 8-bit, 4:2:2 video at UHD-1 resolution via it's HDMI port..
-
Thank you for this concise info :)
-
Thank you for this concise info :)
Glad to help. I'm glad, as someone who has spent his life mostly in the motion world, to be able to contribute a bit here.
DAF
-
That's tremendous information and thank you.
One thing, as you know a lot of what we see and how happy we are with the footage is what we shoot. The numbers don't always tell the story and sometimes a camera with great numbers just won't perform to our style one with less will rock.
Test and verify.
IMO
BC
Test and Verify. That ougta be on a T-shirt. I'd buy it.
It's absolutely true. The brew of sensor characteristics, color science, compression etc. is way more than just numbers will tell you. And when you get into post, the whole story can change again. Cameras that look pretty good on set can crack when you try to grade them. Keyers can choke on choke on footage that looks pretty good to me on the monitor. You really have to test and verify the whole signal chain if you don't want any embarrassing talks with your clients.
David
-
Definatly! When resolution is gone, it's gone.
But now let me see if in practise I get the all point.
So the most important factor to take into consideration
When it comes to grading is 4.4.4 even if 8 bits.
Is that correct?
So I imagine that DNG files from BMC are actually
444 in 8bits like the tiffs? And not 10bits.
-
Definatly! When resolution is gone, it's gone.
But now let me see if in practise I get the all point.
So the most important factor to take into consideration
When it comes to grading is 4.4.4 even if 8 bits.
Is that correct?
No. When it comes to grading, bit depth is more important, especially if you have to push the image around very much. Banding will rear its head pretty quickly with 8-bit video. 4:4:4 is more important for compositing, where software has to discern edges between colors. And it's important for subjects where fine color detail is important--like some fabrics or mosaics--where low-resolution color will actually blend adjacent colors into their average. No amount of grading will get those colors back.
So I imagine that DNG files from BMC are actually
444 in 8bits like the tiffs? And not 10bits.
I don't use BMC cameras, so I've never looked into them very much, but unless BMC is doing something very odd in its processing, the DNG files ought to be 4:4:4--or to be pedantically accurate: Yes, DNG files are 4:4:4, so unless BMC takes the data through some 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 space on its way to DNG, the images they contain are 4:4:4 as well.
As I say, I'm not intimately familiar with all of the BMC cameras, but the web site says that the URSA puts out 12-bit DNG files.
DAF
-
Many thanks Daf. That was very usefull and now I get it.
But then I still don't get the point of having 10 or 12bits if
We don't have 444.
It's very rare that we wouldn't need both color and compositing tasks into a Project.
So, if both parameters are not top, it's always a compromise: what we'd gain in color we'd loose in compositing
and vice versa. Before Reading your post, I thought that the most important factor was the subsampling, now I realise
that all is tremendously important.
All that then means that: no compromises or hassles on the corner.
Both 12 bit depth or more and 444 would have to be from capture,
And there we are in cine territory.
And that comes to Budget...(to change a bit no?) it seems that the best deal for money still remains Red cameras, 16bits. I can not access Arri except on rental.
Edit: the Ursa is "affordable" too, I saw the prices this morning in Madrid: 3500 euros for the Ursa mini 4k, 8000 for the Ursa, 3200 for the Studio Camera
5.000 for the JVC GY-LS300 that has a super 35mm CMOS but not that good UHD 150 Mbps 422
compared to the 14.000 for the C-500 in PL mount, the 57.000 for the Sony FS65 (with impressive features I must say),
I think Blackmagic and Red are real bargains.
Who sells a R1? Have you seen one? Jannard was right when he claimed that the one who sell a R1 will regret it later.
Correct. BM cameras are 12bits.
-
Well... before I begin, I have to make a disclaimer. I love Red cameras. I owned a Red One, and a Red Epic, and I now own an Epic Dragon. So I'm not unbiased. They make beautiful pictures. Redcode is remarkable. It gives you the option of near-lossless Raw encoding that transcodes to a true 4:4:4 if you like, or, if you need a lot more record time, very good 7 or 8 to 1 compression. (That's my limit. I never go below 7:1 unless I'm shooting framerates that require higher compression to achieve the framerate.) All transcode to true 4:4:4, and 10 or 16-bit (my choice) when transcode them. It's a Raw format, so it's a very familiar concept to most photographers.
That said, i also use Arri cameras if they are right for the project, or GoPros, and I'm playing this week with a Sony A7s that I'm still not sure about. I'm open-minded, but definitely not camera-agnostic. I only have time to test and learn so many cameras to the level that I feel comfortable bringing them onto a set with a client.
Red has made a set of very good decisions about what you get to work with as a photographer. (They've also made some decisions that make me nuts, but that's a different conversation.) But you have to be willing to test and learn what the camera will deliver. The camera will not cover for you. It needs light. But if you learn it, and learn to understand light, it will give you lovely images.
(http://airstreampictures.com/photos/people/Rebecca-A001_C018-0001975.jpg)
Red Epic MX, Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 AIS
A Red One is heavy, but not heavier than the film cameras that I used for most of my life, and there are some advantages to a bit of mass. And it will make beautiful pictures all day long. It is a lot of camera for the money it costs these days. And both Red One and Red Epic/Scarlet are mature systems. Everything you need is available to make the cameras work as you want them to, both on set and in post. I'm not saying that's not true of the other cameras you mention; I don't know enough to speak about them. But it is true for Red.
David
-
Wasn't Graeme Nattress one of the enginerrs behind the Redcode?
In the past he was active in this forum.
I remember some posts, although as I studdied fine arts
The engineering jargon at this level was hard for me.
I don't own a Red camera but regularly edited Red material
And I must say that I love to work with Red.
I don't understand its color science but I think that
The implementation of metadatas the way they did with
RMD is really nailed and extremely usefull in post.
Blackmagic doesn"t have a separate file like RMD and
It's a pitty.
This is where the Scratch viewer comes in action in the
Sense that it sort of become what RCX is for R3d and if I
Create a prelook, I can export color decision or Lut, reusable
Elsewhere. But
The metadatas are not separated.
As you point, Red is a lot of camera for the money.
Blackmagic interests me for budget and size reasons. They too
Deliver solid imagery for a ridiculous cost.
I'not very fan of the dng but at least we're not talking about
Those horror museum compressed codecs. It's 2k only for the pocket
But I don't care...4k is overkill for my needs.
(i saw some bmpcc 2k upsampled at 200% compared side by side
With one of those Sony or Pana 4k, and it bloody stands still).
Their proxy files is Prores 422 at 250Mbps if my memory is correct.
Cheers.
-
snip
As far as 6k/8k to me that's a marketing arms race that is reminiscent of what still cameras went through, mostly with no real advantage to the content.
snip
I don´t agree.
First, this is a new sensor which is better in so many ways. I liked the MX but the Dragon is simply grown up.
Second, if you shoot 6k and edit in 2k you have so much flexibility to play around with the framing in post, it´s priceless. I won´t ever look back.
Third, we grab still frames from the motion feed. This is not to replace our existing systems, but there are jobs that are better suited for our dragon.
Cheers,
Ulf
-
Coot,
I agree with you that those semi-pro gear, in the end cost almost as much money to make them work properly than a Red system. And above all they are plagued with hassles in the pipeline. What you say is true for professional imagery production.
But my situation-needs is very different from yours. Coot, I'm not good at shooting, never was, never will be. This is why I never had a personal commercial webpage with
My imagery because my imagery is not at the level requiered to be sold professionaly and I'not the kind of guy to have a webpage to present my hollydays in Cancun or amateur stuff to be shared in facebook (i don't have a facebook account). Shooting is not my strengh.
I've never enjoyed that much the production and my territory basically is the editing. I hate shooting, I love cutting. So for me, a camera choice is nothing more than a tool to do my indy averageries that will never be played in any theater nor will be a source of incomes. They come from other part, and I have financial independence. I'm the guy you would hire for cutting stories, because I'm good at it, but on set I'm useless. I've always felt at home working for others, but when I got a camera in hands, I have nothing to say. If I was in your case, I would have made similar choices but what will I do with a Red camera? Amateur imagery, making-of, some erotic bondage kind of stuff. This is why a bmpcc is going to work for me in an amateur-indy reality, but if I'd need a profesional set-up, I would avoid BM for sure and go Red or Arri. I don't mess with the editorial tools, but the camera for me is like a hobby.
Ulf, great motion works in your site. The editor is good too, understands the tempos. Congrats.
-
;D
I just bought a bmpcc in germany
Found a strange vintage sunhood that can fit 3x3 nd filters in the US
Plus gage, plus extra batteries, plus a viewfinder, plus plus plus...
It' gona look strange. Very Mad Max.
I tell you guys: we're soooo cool in a editorial studio without
All this artillery, cablery, rigs,
-
Thanks, Fred. I always had in mind you planned to develop your camera skills, but anyway if you found your place that´s great. I am focussed on lighting and all that technical stuff and that´s fine for me. @James, I see your point, and of course you know what you´re doing. I had never thought that DSMC concept could work for us but honestly you´d be surprised to see the Dragon files…
Cheers,
Ulf
-
...I always had in mind you planned to develop your camera skills...
Yes, I tried in the past, starting by assisting and because of my contacts in the art milieu I had the chance to work with a few big names and learn directly from the bests, but I totally lacked passion.
I realised that one can not become good in something if he's not driven by truth passion.
Accidentaly, I started to editing and the "bang" effect ocurred, went back to one of my first love, as when I was Young in Paris I was in // to fine arts in a cine school where I started to learn the task and always liked much much better motion imagery than stills;
and as son as I started to cut, I felt naturally "at home" and had the passion I was lacking when I was trying to learn to shoot well.
In fact, in my assistance period, I was living the glamour life, surrounded by top models, sophisticated life style, but I was "dead-alive", very superficial and not really driven by the need to express myself.
It was a sort of parenthesis where I learned more on myself, on life and psychology than imagery itself.
Beleive me, if there is not passion, it's not worth. Some people are good producers and not that much good musicians. Very few like Prince can have both. The important thing IMO is being aware where are ones strengh and wicknesses and surround one self by the correct people, the ones that are better where we're not.
You see, Thelma Schoonmaker is hired to do one task in wich she excells, she doesn't touch a color App or a camera. This is possible in the very high-end, generally most of the people are obliged to do many things for budgets reasons and it's always a compromise. But we can not be everywhere and being good at everything.
Specially, I think that the photographers are more reluctants to delegate even if they can because they are used to control almost everything in teams that are reduced. In motion imagery, things get more complicated.
Cheers.
-
It seems to me that there is a difference in how you need to think about motion and still images (beyond shutter speed, etc. to the kind of image that's going to be useful to you in each medum). I think switching cameras helps that. It does for me anyway. Red's latest firmware for Epic has a real still/motion mode switch that can completely change the camera's setup. I think that might help, but still--the camera with matte box and support that works for motion might still not be the right thing to help you think about the still image. I dunno.
@fred- I think the BMPCC is interesting. Almost bought one when they cut the price in half last summer, but I've sold all my S16 lenses, so in the end I passed.
@BC- I can't get excited about BMC's other offerings either. They're just too odd for me. Like shooting video with a laptop or or a brick or some other oddness. No appeal at all. I guess i want the cameras I use to be beautiful in some way. And yes, I do think the Reds are. The Epic's not a world bigger than my Contax. One of my favorite things about the camera is that I can hand hold it supported by my chest or do the "human arm gimbal" and get some very nice shots. And I can do that most all day. I'm not rugged enough any more to do that with a R1 or an Arri all day.
RE: Arri- It's easy to love Arri cameras. The pictures are pretty, and most everybody likes them. And they work like ACs have expected cameras to work since forever. (Or that's the rep anyway.) But honestly, I prefer the color I get from a Red when things click. I think it's more "complex" and I like that. (I felt the same thing about the Dalsa sensor in the P65+ compared to the Kodak P45+ when I tested them on my Contax.) It's like the individual bits of different colors that make up the overall color we percieve are more present if I want to look for them. Or maybe that's just resolution. I don't know. I just like the pictures.
-
... but I've sold all my S16 lenses, so in the end I passed.
It's funny. When I was in Paris I often walked in the Boulevard Beaumarchais, wich traduced to english means "nicemarket boulevard". And nice it was indeed.
All those rusty boutiques with old S16 Angenieux, tons of Arriflex etc...
As being Paris, the old cine-photo boutiques where looking like fashion boutiques that no one uses anymore (the Zara effect).
At that time (90's) they would almost gift you the Berthiot or Angenieux
Now kids are buying a fortune in e-bay to put their hands on those vintage stuff. It's funny how history changes.
-
Daf, James
I agree with you. I like the Red color.
As we're not in an Arri forum, no cultist will hang me
Reading the following:
I personaly find the Alexa material boring. Surgical.
Not saying that because of log-c but bringing the
alexa files to life require more skills. Red is organic, and IMO suits more the owner. Alexa suits more the
Rental. Maybe I over simplify but Arriraw workflow is
More aimed to collaborative.
Arri claims that all p.prod devices can handle Arriraw natively but it's far from being the reality. Or you got the debayer, or the SDK but rarely both. Everything ingests R3d but not everything handles SDK natively. (I mean
At a source setting level)
On the 6k Red, it definatly may give more room for reframing
Stabs, however the framing remains the framing and a similar zoom effect is unevitable but there is more room not to loose resolution.
Now...6k for arquitecture? I apllaude. But when human beings are involved, I think we come to the paradox that we
Have to soften the skin in post because of the detail capture
That has more to do with a dermathologist studdy than actually fashion or feature. There is a limit in wich it deshumanize.
Question: are the MUA products suitable for more than 4k ?
I beleive the answer is not yet.
Ooopppsss...in one of those cultist forum, they would have jumped om me.
-
http://www.ducloslenses.com/collections/veydra-primes
Good lenses for BMPCC or PANASONICS
I wonder when the chinese will build a Red replica
-
Since this has gone way off topic...
A couple months ago I used the new Panasonic Varicam.
It costs about the same as a low end Alexa.
But it records 4k 4444 prores, and can work at 5000 ISO.
I used the camera in the dark. Results were amazing! I was putting ND.3 gels on 50w lights:)
If this camera was available where I'm filming now, I'd be using it instead of the Alexa's were filming with:)
-
I was putting ND.3 gels on 50w lights:)
I'm going to try that with the BMPCC ;D
Nice te see you again Bruce.
The fourth 4 , (4444) is that for the alpha channel?
If so, I imagine it is specially well designed for post FX.
Is that correct?
Is it RGB?
How heavy are the files compared to EXR or Arriraw?
I'm asking this question because I don't see-understand the importance of this in capture itself.
Would it mean that Green-screen would perfectly match the subject for ex?
why having an additional channel on capture?
-
The ProRes codec is called ProRes4444 because it has the ability to contain an alpha channel as well as 4:4:4 color. The Panasonic records an 4:4:4 signal using that codec, but does not produce an aplha.
-
That's my understanding too, thus
My surprise to see an alpha channel in capture.
The question is that if this not recorded channel
Acts as a zero data one (bypassed) or if it adds size to the file?
What's the point? The only utility I see is that a fx artist
Could use the files as it. But fx artists don't like very much
Those codecs don't they. Here they all bark if you
Don't deliver EXR.
Really I don't see the benefit of this prores flavour.
There must be one but I can't see it. And is it RGB?
-
ProRes 4444 is the name of the codec. It's named that because it is capable of holdinng an alpha channel in addition to 4:4:4 color. (I believe it is the only one of the ProRes codecs that can carry an alpha channel.) But that doesn't mean it has to carry an alpha channel.
So the Panasonic uses a Codec named ProRes 4444, but the video data it puts into that file is 4:4:4 color. No Alpha.
Similarly, ProRes 4444 is capable of holding 16-bit color, but you can put 8-bit color into it if you like. The file will be smaller.
-
Thanks Daf.
-
Aja made a camera?
On micro 4/3, I think it's a dead-end road.
On Lightworks:
Yeah, this bloody editor has won with Avid, more oscars
Than all the competion together by a huge difference.
Serious editors, at the very high-end are cuttin with it.
BUT...but but but...
It's a specialist's tool. Versatile? No. It's IMO the very
Best NLE for cuttin stories, and specially feature. In this,
It has no rivals and the way you work on it is completly
Different than any other NLE currently available. It gives
You a freedom and flexibility that you don't find anywhere
Else. And it's designed FOR the editor. Period.
The 2000 euros console is worth every penny.
Damn good in multicam too.
Everything in its implementation helps the story-teller.
And this is where the film ends and the director says "cuuut"...
LW needs a "old fashion" colaborative workflow.
This why it's almost inexistant in small houses because
They have better options out-there.
The specialists are not common, and LW is not for everyone.
Now, it's that good at what it does that once you start to get
Used cutting on it, you can't touch a normal NLE anymore.
All LW editors say the same story. But the "elite" that
Work on it has full editshare support (monthly expensive)
And they don't do anything else. It's cine stuff. i love it,
But I have to say that for the ones who need to be multitask,
It's definatly not a good choice.
On Avid:
Being discrete,
Avid is given the battle for the mass market lost. They know
BM is unstoppable.
They actually don't target anymore the market share in wich
BM is winning. Resolve will become the Photoshop of motion.
No one can stop this. avid targets the big productoon houses,
Broadcast, live...and they will be less and less involved
Into the segment we are in.
May they try to attract revenues and "kid" generation with a free version, it's not going to work. Realisticaly, probably will center
In the future on their broadcast marketplace. They are already strong in it where resolve is not going to put the mess.
IMO, the best options would be or Premiere Pro, or Resolve. (yeah...after effects...layers...)
Doing everything from A to Z in one of those platforms.
PP ingests almost everything, included ArriRaw native. I hate the package but it works very well to be fair.
If you don't mind roundtrippin to color-conform, Lightworks.
But it's very different and only makes sense if you put the editing tasks at the top of your priorities.
Now, yes...Lightworks IS intuitive. In a few days of practise
You're done.
Avid is unintuitive. Completly unintuitive. And as I pointed, they may not be suitable for the segment
We are in for very long time.
And something that pissed me off, when they sacrified DS,
The vendors were still pushing for newcommers to get into
Until the last minute. "buy this car that the company is
Going to stop producing in 3 months". Very stock-market
Kind of attitude.
Ps: LW has Fusion integration, and that is really powerfull
When you need to compo.
Ps2: a funny thing that is happening: the colorists, are now
Stepping away more and more from Resolve. Because they
Don't like the fact that it's becomming an all-in-one.
The competition, Baselight, Nucoda, Mistika, and Scratch
Are pushing the developpement to their color apps while Resolve
Is investing a lot of ressources to be the swiss army knife.
We will see more and more colorists using other platforms.
But BM knows that. They don't want the color artist on
An expensive standalone Baselight or Nucoda restauration stuff or the oscar winners editor market, they want to rule the WW multitask. The shooter
Who edit, color and deliver.
Prices will jump-down because of that. The more revenues
For BM, the less revenues for the small studios. Mathematic.
I hope everybody is aware and preapared for that.
Cheers.
D.F,sorry, this has gone way out of topic.
-
So I imagine that DNG files from BMC are actually
444 in 8bits like the tiffs? And not 10bits.
Blackmagic DNG's from any of their cameras are 12 bit LOG encoded files that generally unpack as 16 bit linear files in an application like Resolve.
They are far far better than 8 or even 10 bit tiffs. DNG is a tiff file basically by the way, with some extra metadata. cDNG is the motion version of a DNG which is also a DNG with timecode and audio.
They are unencoded and therefore do not have a colour sub sampling applied to them.
Colour sampling or chroma subsampling is the various ratios that get applied to how many times the luminance channel is "sampled" Vs the two colour difference channels.
That is what YUV is. (sometimes also called component video) It's fundamentally different to RGB which is what most sills photographers would be used to working with and what the BM camera stores DNG files as.
When we talk about colour sampling, we are talking about what's known as "encoded" video. It's in a video form ready to edit, do post work, watch etc. DNG's are basically like stills RAW photos.
So in YUV form, the Y channel is the brightness or luminance channel and is ALSO the green channel. It gets summed or subtracted from the two colour difference channels (the U and the V part of YUV) so therefore we're creating a video signal by taking the BRIGHTNESS signal and then multiplying or subtracting it from the brightness signal of the Red and Blue signals to generate the other colours.
This was a kind of way of having compression before data compression was around in the analog days, the logic being that green was the colour we're most sensitive too, so all the resolution was stored there and the colour could then be stored in two smaller less frequently sampled channels.
RBG has the brightness encoded within each individual colour channel. YUV does not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling
RAW video cameras like those from Blackmagic and Arriflex have un-mosaiced DNG files, so it's not really the correct terminology to describe them using video encoding terms because they arguably haven't been encoded yet. There is no 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 until they get turned into YUV video.
Many many many people also confuse that ratio with the CMOS bayer sensor ratio of green / blue and red pixels and assume they mean the same thing. There are many heated discussions on video oriented forums about CMOS sensors needing to oversample to be able to generate 4:4:4 video because they don't have enough pixels to generate "full bandwidth colour". Because the ratio of RGB photosites tends to be twice as many greens to blues and reds you get a lot of people sating CMOS sensors only have 4:2:2 colour which is also the wrong terminology completely (and ignores what happens during the mosaic de-mosaic process.
It's a RATIO for the ENCODED video
Sony, back when they introduced this novel new HD format called HDCAM that got used to shoot this new Star Wars film called the Phantom Menace was originally a 22:11:11 format ! Which compared to the original SD it was.
So that nomenclature now is very very basterdised and misunderstood and has pretty much lost it's original meaning :-)
Other RAW cameras like RED and SONY do other secret things that make it harder to work out what's going on. RED have an SDK that does some secret stuff and until recently, you couldn't get anyone from RED to actually commit to what the bit depth of the cameras was. (it's apparently at least 16 bit internally now, but was originally probably 12-14 bit)
RED also famously sued Sony a little while ago when Sony introduced their RAW format for the F55 / F65. From what I could tell reading the papers lodged, RED have a patent on the compression they do because they convert to the RBG sensor data to YUV FIRST and then apply different encoding and compression techniques to the Y signal from the UV signals. Sony tried the same technique of compressing the half encoded YUV signal and got sued. They later settled out of court.
By the way, someone was mentioned the Metadata being carried by RED ? DNG's have metadata embedded in the file itself as well, and It's up to the application handling the file to then interpret it.
JB
EDIT
here's a link to some DNG's from the little POCKET cinema camera. It's "only" a 1920 sensor size so tiny, but i think you'll find a camera that can shoot 24 of these every second is pretty compelling.
https://copy.com/s36D39T6q7oa
(these are quite old and from a prototype pocket camera, but you get the idea.
-
Even out of topic for awhile now,
This thread is tremendously interesting,
Thanks to the apportations of all you guys.
Clearly explained, it helps to clarify points in those
Technical areas.
I have a Blackmagic camera in order. Will receive it
From Germany very soon.
Never had the oportunity before to work with cDNG
And know nothing on the workflow in post.
It will be a complete discovery from scratch (no pun intended)
So in terms of looking for a workflow with BM,
I guess it should't be very different from SDK.
-
So in terms of looking for a workflow with BM, I don't
Really trust internet examples of hobbyists and I need
To find in the middle of the mess, where are the
Reliable examples of workflow pipelines.
I guess it should't be very different from SDK.
What do you want to know ? :-)
In all honestly, most of the time people who aren't making a living from a camera will find shooting RAW to be onerous. It's very taxing, It takes extra time and resources to manage and get through.
What is really nice though is that the BM cameras have RAW as well as several iterations of ProRes (and sometimes DNx) so you can switch between the codec you want, even on the same card ! So you can just choose what you need for each shot basically.
I'm about to start shooting an AMERICAN Science Fiction TV show with lot's of VFX...guess what format we're shooting ? Not RAW, not even 4K, but 1920 ProRes. And this is a big show.
Very very few have the patience and resources to deal with RAW for a whole shoot. Most don't want to deal, nor do they get enough of an adavantge to outweigh the baggage that comes with RAW shooting.
So, if you have the TIME and resources in terms of horsepower with your IT side of things then knock yourself out. But most be find things get a teeny bit better than ProRes for a lot more overhead.
JB
-
I just wanted to pop in here and say how refreshing it is to read a thread where there is a civil and mature exchange of ideas rather than the usual genital waving (mine is bigger and I'm smarter because I've known him longer and I've written some silly article) that goes on in some quarters. Not to mention how much this neophyte to video is learning from you guys!!
Kevin in CT
-
Compared to shooting a c-log and adding a lut, I find shooting raw about the same process, maybe even easier.
Totally. I think if you're shooting LOG then in terms of post, RAW is just the same steps with a different starting point and larger files. Some cameras even load their RAW files to a "log" looking start position cause that's what people are used to :-)
In Resolve for example, with BM DNG's, there's a RAW camera tab and a little check box where you can choose "BMD FILM" which is their take on LOG. But you don't have to start there, and Resolve (for example) still maintains the same precision, just working from a different curve.
I can see proRes capture if it's episodic and their doing the base edit on stage or in a trailer on set as they're shooting.
Yes. I typically shoot at least 200 mins per day of rushes and typically more like 300 mins on bigger days, across several cameras. And that's day in day out, over weeks. It quickly becomes terabytes of information.
Not saying either way is better, but I see people all the time complain about raw, then shoot some flavor of codec in a flat log, then the editor has to apply a lut and either let the nle transcode in the background or transcode prior to editorial, which has to be done anyway if they produce dailies.
Yes so in episodic drama all the editors use AVID because they have the shared storage so much better set up and organised. Typically we transcode all rushes to DNx for editorial and 264's for the various producers and TV network peeps to look at as well as dailies for us on set.
At the end of the day it drops on the colorists to try to get it all matched and sometimes that's difficult.
I'm not defending RED or saying shooting a proRes is a wrong way, I just think raw doesn't really slow us down, it actually allows us to speed up the workflow in the longterm as we usually come out with a pretty close proRes from either CineX or Resolve prior to editorial and depending on the production, whether you edit from a proxy, a flat log file with a lut, or attempt to edit directly from the raw, the time involved always seems to be the same.
Maybe it's because I oversee the process much like a still photographer.
Indeed. RED has always suited owner operators better. And those that shoot / direct.
I don't have any skin in the game and like to be camera agnostic and use the best camera for the job, but I have used RED on many jobs. These days though I find them pretty difficult to deal with as a company. I had some major issues which I'm not allowed to talk about because I had to sign an NDA before they would fix them. That kind of attitude isn't really the way I like to work.
I have noticed that Resolve has a much richer look to my R3d files, though Cine-x seems to hold more detail and a little more range, (but that's just an opinion, nothing based on fact).
Welcome to the club. Users of Sony RAW and Arri RAW have noticed the same thing. Like the differences between C1 and ACR, Resolve's de-bayering algorithm is very very very good and preferred by many and many in HOLLYWOOD like Resolve for this reason.
I have coloured using Resolve on Red ROCKET based systems for real time performance, but on output we switched off the RED ROCKET and use the software based RESOLVE de-bayer and it's much much nicer (though non realtime off course).
So even with the camera manufactures themselves OWN software, you can often get better results using other applications, and that's what I like about open formats like DNG.
My take on motion/video/film whatever we call it now, is there is no free lunch.
Where matching color and look is an issue for us is this "real" lifestyle look where we go inside and out, changing countries and cities and then trying to match.
Usually on a brutal schedule.
But I'd also argue that when you're on a punishing schedule is when you WANT the salvation of RAW....It lets you hide the sins of the shoot... :-)
JB
-
I think it might be time for a new thread. :-)
-
I think it might be time for a new thread. :-)
or not... this thread is very valuable and my personal thanks to all those who have contributed. It has made for great reading.
Perhaps we just shorten the thread title to "On video..."
-
OK, then. If it's proving valuable to people, let it continue.
When I started the thread, it was really with the hope that it might persuade Michael Reichmann to correct his "Jargon of Video" article. There is so much wrong information about video out there on the web, and LuLa is such a respected source that it really ought to be a dource of accurate information about photography...
But since then, the thread has taken on a whole different direction, and if people are getting good stuff from it, then rock on.
DAF
or not... this thread is very valuable and my personal thanks to all those who have contributed. It has made for great reading.
Perhaps we just shorten the thread title to "On video..."
-
OK, then. If it's proving valuable to people, let it continue.
When I started the thread, it was really with the hope that it might persuade Michael Reichmann to correct his "Jargon of Video" article. There is so much wrong information about video out there on the web, and LuLa is such a respected source that it really ought to be a dource of accurate information about photography...
But since then, the thread has taken on a whole different direction, and if people are getting good stuff from it, then rock on.
DAF
Yeah, the thread as started to have its own dynamic and truth that it was not anymore really the topic for wich you first wrote.
I apologize to DAF for been part of hijacking it and in the end when I realized that I was completly out of topic for so long I deleted my
latest posts because I didn't want to be unpolite to the thread's creator.
But I think it is indeed very interesting for many people, as I found in it very valuable informations-corrections and I'm sure not being the only one.
What I found particularly interesting in the all thread is in fact what I would like to see more often in internet.
Long time experienced cine pros, answering younguer and-or not so experienced people, all in a very educated way.
But more important: everything was very clear.
The most experienced helping the less experienced, clarifying points. It's that way IMO
that real knowledge is passed to the next generation.
I'm the "next" generation, and I feel thankfull when more experienced people take their time to answer and
pass the knowledge.
Yes, probably for very experienced people, this sort of threads may be too long and sort of boring,
but I beleive that many many people have extrated really good informations all along.
And this is priceless.
Thank to all you guys.
-
Does anyone work a non punishing schedule anymore?
LOL! No one I know. Right now I'm trying to work 8 scenes in 8 (apparently) different locations into a budget that is scaled for one day. It's just the way things are going.
What I like about raw is I know I've got most of the data available off the sensor and I hate shooting these flat logs on cooked files, regardless of camera, regardless of lighting and on set control. Even if you can apply a look to a monitor for a better view. You just never know what's going to happen in post until you get there.
Totally agreed. IMO it's as close as you can get to the ability to recover a shot that we had with film. The way you can, in Resolve, push the curves around to adjust the pivot points for contrast in a raw file gets me to where I want to be much better than anything I've done with baked footage.
My most common working method is to shoot using RedGamma of some variety (depending on what we agree looks nice) then in post, switch it all to RedLogFilm with a RLF to RG3 LUT as a starting point in Resolve. I find it gives me a lot of flexibility in getting where i want. Also, turning the LUT off and looking at the LOG gamma lets me see all the dynamic range the footage has to offer if I need to.
Like BC, I'm pretty tenacious in my hold on the coloring of the footage. I prefer to work with a colorist who is better than i am, but if the budget doesn't allow that, I will do it anyway, even if there's no money allocated for it. That's where the look is finalized, and it's my reputation.
Those camera maker videos where they show a well known DP shooting a short with a few ___fill in the brand____ cameras and saying how easy it is to hold the detail out the window are so misleading, because nobody knows the time element and budget they had for post, or how many watts they're pulling on the main subjects to balance.
They give the impression that all you need is a camera and some sticks and you too can shoot a movie.
Maybe the worst offender is Apple. Those "shot on iPad" spots are insane. "You can do this. It's shot on an iPad. On a crane. With an 18K. But you can do it 'cause you've got an iPad..."
Moving on...
P.S. I have two of the first red rocket cards, keep one in a mac silver desktop, one in a portable enclosure (which only allows for 2k). Now I don't bother because the new macs, even the new Imacs can crunch data like crazy and though not real time, can blow through dailies and proxy's almost into real time from the RED files and though I like Cinex as I think it holds a little more data, Resolve is faster, at least for me.
I agree, and it's not just faster, it has so many ways to approach and think about color that you can find a path that works no matter how you think about color. And I think it has an amazing color engine under the hood. It seems easier to get where I want, even if I don't need secondaries.
DAF
-
My most common working method is to shoot using RedGamma of some variety (depending on what we agree looks nice) then in post, switch it all to RedLogFilm with a RLF to RG3 LUT as a starting point...//... Also, turning the LUT off and looking at the LOG gamma lets me see all the dynamic range the footage has to offer if I need to.
I certainly agree 100% on this approach. And I smile because got the same "tic" of turning off and on the LUT to check the room available.
-
Totally. I think if you're shooting LOG then in terms of post, RAW is just the same steps with a different starting point and larger files. Some cameras even load their RAW files to a "log" looking start position cause that's what people are used to :-)
It's not necessarily that the files are RAW that makes them larger, That might true for Arri, where RAW files are uncompressed, and I don't know a lot about BM, but RED .r3d files are quite a lot smaller than equivalent resolution RGB files. How much smaller depends on what compression you are using. An hour of RedCode UHD (3840x2160) 24fps at 5:1 compression is about 198 GB of data. An hour of ProRes4444 (5.4:1 compression) is almost 3X as heavy--about 536 GB, and ProRes(HQ) (also 5.4:1, but only 10 bits) is 357 GB. You have to go all the way to ProRes (LT) (12:1) at 166 GB to get a smaller file than an .r3d at 5:1.
It's really shooting 4K or 5K or 6K that makes the files heavy, not shooting RAW.
JB, I'm sure you know this, but for those who arre wondering how this can be, it's because a RAW file contains only one value per photo site, but an RGB file contains three (one each for R, G & B).
RED has always suited owner operators better. And those that shoot / direct.
I'm sure this is true. But I suspect that outside of episodic TV, where sheer volume makes transcoding a barrier, it's more about training people than anything inherent in the workflow. Owner-operators and very small companies can adapt very quickly if they find something that suits them. For a larger company, with a lot of people and stuff, it's harder--more expensive and more complicated. And Red, at least, makes it more challenging by releasing more firmware updates than anyone in history, so the training is never-ending.
Like the differences between C1 and ACR, Resolve's de-bayering algorithm is very very very good and preferred by many and many in HOLLYWOOD like Resolve for this reason.
I have coloured using Resolve on Red ROCKET based systems for real time performance, but on output we switched off the RED ROCKET and use the software based RESOLVE de-bayer and it's much much nicer (though non realtime off course).
Are you sure it's the de-bayer that's better? I was under the impression that Red and Arri control the de-Bayer pretty tightly through their SDKs. In Red's case, they think it is necessary to keep control of the color science. They even shut down Scratch's early efforts at GPU de-Bayer to keep it within the SDK methods.
I absolutely agree that Resolve makes richer files more easliy than anything else I've used, but I always thought it was some magic Resolve was working once the video was in RGB. It is, however, well documented that software deBayer is different from Red Rocket de-Bayer, so doing software-only output from Resolve seems to really make the best of both the RED SDK and Reslolve's magic.
-
It's not necessarily that the files are RAW that makes them larger, That might true for Arri, where RAW files are uncompressed, and I don't know a lot about BM, but RED .r3d files are quite a lot smaller than equivalent resolution RGB files.
ARRI RAW is always totally uncompressed and so they do tend to be big. BM have had uncompressed, but recently changed to a lossless (ZIP style) compression which is 1.5:1 but still exactly the same as uncompressed and they also are now offering 3:1 compression as an option too, which for them is a lower file size that the new ProRes XQ codec. I know in the future they will probably do higher rates of compression.
And I think that was a large reason that RED was so successful and the true reason they were so revolutionary...They made RAW possible To go back to 2008 when they first started really shipping to have a way of shooting RAW (Arri weren't really there at that point)
How much smaller depends on what compression you are using. An hour of RedCode UHD (3840x2160) 24fps at 5:1 compression is about 198 GB of data. An hour of ProRes4444 (5.4:1 compression) is almost 3X as heavy--about 536 GB, and ProRes(HQ) (also 5.4:1, but only 10 bits) is 357 GB. You have to go all the way to ProRes (LT) (12:1) at 166 GB to get a smaller file than an .r3d at 5:1.
It's really shooting 4K or 5K or 6K that makes the files heavy, not shooting RAW.
Indeed, and that's what I was saying above, with BM's 3:1 compression and a similar rate in REDCODE, you can get RAW "for the same price" as baked in LOG ProRes files...
But I suspect that outside of episodic TV, where sheer volume makes transcoding a barrier, it's more about training people than anything inherent in the workflow. Owner-operators and very small companies can adapt very quickly if they find something that suits them.
It's more the case that contrary to popular opinion, 90% of what we see on TV is still shot 1920, and shooting RAW generally forces you to shoot "sensor native" so your origination resolution is higher than your delivery resolution. Usually it's a great thing, but not when you have hundreds of hours of rushes that need to be accessed across multiple workstations. It is an onerous amount of IT infrastructure to do that.
Are you sure it's the de-bayer that's better? I was under the impression that Red and Arri control the de-Bayer pretty tightly through their SDKs. In Red's case, they think it is necessary to keep control of the color science. They even shut down Scratch's early efforts at GPU de-Bayer to keep it within the SDK methods.
Yes, it's their de-bayer algorithm and their "precision", because they are 32 bit "float" they can dynamically adjust as needed. From what I understand (and I'm a DP first not a colourist / engineer) the SDK does the basic matrix conversions aka colour science, but the WAY those conversion are rendered is down to the Debayer / Demosaic. So, like C1 and ACR working with Canon files, they each produce a subtle but noticeable difference. It's alos one of those things that end up becoming highly subjective too.
And I think someone else was asking about Using C1 to do processing of motion DNG's earlier ? Yes it can be done and it CAN look good but it's rather tedious and not worth the effort for most. Also C1 has no tools for motion based colour correction. Many of the tools in resolve for example can be animated over time. So you can draw a window and grade inside that window differently, but you can also then track and move that window over time. C1 has none of those basic motion tools which you really miss....
I absolutely agree that Resolve makes richer files more easliy than anything else I've used, but I always thought it was some magic Resolve was working once the video was in RGB. It is, however, well documented that software deBayer is different from Red Rocket de-Bayer, so doing software-only output from Resolve seems to really make the best of both the RED SDK and Reslolve's magic.
Resolve is also a very very mature toolset that's been around a long time. They have been the number one choice when money was no object at the top end of town for many years. When Blackmagic bought them only a few years ago, a base system cost upwards of 500K. Since version 8 they've been making it easier and easier to use. V12 is totally amazing now and when I think back to how far they've come.
I started using Resolve in V8 and it was incredibly complex in terms of the UI. I'm also form the school that really prefers a colourist to be doing the work too, and I'd never needed to lear how to colour correct, but Resolve has now given me a better sense of what's possible and how to TALK to a colourist about what I want.
I urge anyone who hasn't used Resolve to download the LITE version now. Unlike a lot of other crippled demos, it's basically go not limitations to use it, other than the fact that it's output is limited to 1920 (but you can still work with 4K+ files) and some tools like 3D and noise reduction are disabled. But it's just as functional as a colour corrector and has amazing tool set for a free version.
JB
-
On Resolve 12,
Do we know how the roundtripp with Fusion is?
This point is important, as BM also owns Fusion,
Hope they made it as straightforward as with LW.
I have a question on DNG. The metadatas aren't separate, no?
John, you seem, correct me if I'm wrong, to prefer the DNG
Approach than proprietary files.
I wonder why. I really don't see the advantage.
Remember Phase one, Hassy...only Leica went DNG
But it's often true that brands tend to have their own
"magic recepy" like it's the case for Red.
True that Red color science is a bit of a strange animal
But it works very well.
What is the real advantage of DNG?
-
On Resolve 12,
Do we know how the roundtripp with Fusion is?
This point is important, as BM also owns Fusion,
Hope they made it as straightforward as with LW.
I don't use Fusion :-) I don't know how it is.
I have a question on DNG. The metadatas aren't separate, no?
No, as mentioned earlier it's embedded in the file itself.
John, you seem, correct me if I'm wrong, to prefer the DNG
Approach than proprietary files.
I wonder why. I really don't see the advantage.
Remember Phase one, Hassy...only Leica went DNG
But it's often true that brands tend to have their own
"magic recepy" like it's the case for Red.
True that Red color science is a bit of a strange animal
But it works very well.
What is the real advantage of DNG?
DNG is an open format.
It's non proprietary. It means that ANYONE can make an application to open and use DNG files. Right now if i store a DNG on google drive or drop box and open that window in a WEB BROWSER I can see a preview of the image ! You don't need to license or access or work through another SDK from the host camera manufacturer.
That means you're able to start working with an image in its more native form. You don't really know what kind of special work Sony or RED are doing to their files before they get to you(despite the fact they are "raw".
Philosophically, I like the idea of being transparent in the way the image is "processed". With an SDK, it's like you have to put the "film" through a special pre-wash and you don't really know what that pre-wash is doing....
JB
-
Thanks John.
I hope I don't bored everybody with my posts.
I post a lot those days because we have a heat wave
Here in Spain and part of Europe too. 800 deaths in
France so far. We've been spending all july with
Continuous temp of 40 degres c. Nobody sleeps,
Everybody is tired and moody. Never seen that in all
My life, so I writte and that way I don't think too much
Of the heat.
On Fusion, people are in a wait and see position. It's
Been asked in the cow for others and nobody knows.
About DNG files, I've been anticipating and started to explore
The workflow with the DNG available for download.
I must say that it is very simple. Clear and clean.
I would even dare to say minimalist. I like what I see.
Note: John, it's me who pointed the C1 //, then I erased
The post not to hijack too far the thread, but I expressed
Myself incorrectly.
James and others know me for some time, and I'm french,
Writing in english is not always easy. I lack vocabulary so
I compensate with a sort of street kind of lenguage that lacks
Greyscale or over simplify or over complicate to express
An idea.
I didn't mean using C1 in motion for the reasons you mentionned.
I would never do such a painfull and limited approach as
C1 is not built to handle motion work.
What I was trying to express, is that, for the little experience
I have so far with cinema DNG, it reminds me completly
A still photography approach.
Now, the fact that metadatas are stored inside and that no
Cinex is involved, is it in the end a better implementation?
I'm not sure. Cleaner and more universal it is indeed.
For ex, when DAF was talking about his workflow, I know
Exactly what he is talking about and what to expect.
Yes it's Red jargon and therefore no universal but in
The end universal for Red users.
Anybody could send me a customized RMD and it would
Match exactly and those can be loaded in camera too.
Maybe it's because I've been used to use R3D but I don't
Yet picture how the metadatas transfers can be done
With DNG in such a flexible way.
If I want to grade Red, (and I'm not a colourist), I would
Use exactly the same starting point as DF mentionned above.
So it's sort of standart and predictible within the
Proprietary sauce if I might say.
Not saying that DF approach is the only one possible but it's
Very much standart.
I also see that, regardless of the debayer quality, the fidelity
With different flavours of Luts is constant using RLF and from there
Fine tunning is done with confidence.
DNG is free but I don't see yet how to deal with the all
Workflow.
-
Note on Resolve:
I certainly agree with all you guys. Resolve is a complete bargain and I can't deny the quality of the engineering inside dealing with color.
As for me personaly, I never liked the interface. But it's just me.
Years ago I used Scratch for some time then gave-up. I don't know why french people like to intelectualized everything they touch but if I really think that Scratch
is a very refined tool, more aimed to full-time colourists, it pisses me off the Little mouse animations,
the hidden tools that appear when screen cornering had the divine quality to put me on nerves, and the scaffold arquitecture is too much personal and learning curve is
more demanding than Resolve.
Then, the wheels are very very precise but without a console they are completly painfull to use. It's hilarious to see people using the wheels as if they were swimmers.
So in the end, if I can not invest in a standalone Baselight or Nucoda, Resolve is the very best solution without the shade of a doubt.
a french product in a world dominated by US workflow mentality habbits.
And I tell you something. The 12 is a bomb. I beleive it could sink the competition.
At first, everybody will say that its editing capabilities will not replace a full featured NLE like Avid or Lightworks. Yes,
it may be right for feature.
But when people will start to edit one or 2 documentaries or advertising campaigns without roudtripping elsewhere, I'm not
sure if they will want to use their Avid NLE for very long except the broadcast and high-end cine crowd.
Here broadcast is 1080, 100% Avid, Grass Valley Infinity...
-
Now, the fact that metadatas are stored inside and that no
Cinex is involved, is it in the end a better implementation?
I'm not sure. Cleaner and more universal it is indeed.
I'm not sure what you mean by "cinex"
But essentially, the metadata carries information that the application opening the file can choose to use, or to not use or this can also be overridden by the user.
So for example in resolve, you have the RAW tab and in there you have the basic RAW controls, much like the RAW controls when you open a RAW image in PS.
From there you can choose to use "as shot" for things like WB, and ISO or you can overide them. You can also in resolve treat shots individually, or have a default setting for all shots, or use the metadata "as shot"
You can also control things like how much if any sharpening is applied. You can also set the colour space you want to transform to as well as the gamma. These are kind of presets to help you set up from the same "base" look. With RED files these would be things like REDCOLOUR 3 and REDGAMMA2. Exactly the same as with RED RAW really as well As Sony RAW and Arri RAW.
Attached is a screenshot for some tests i've been doing shooting with a few different cameras. I still think Resolve is also unmatched for being able to mix codecs and sizes in the timeline. Everything just "work's. You'll notice I've got different ProRes and DNG codecs all mixed in together. Look to the bottom left for the RAW camera controls.
Anybody could send me a customized RMD and it would
Match exactly and those can be loaded in camera too.
Maybe it's because I've been used to use R3D but I don't
Yet picture how the metadatas transfers can be done
With DNG in such a flexible way.
I'm not sure what you mean. For ISO ? For WB ?
Or do you mean for more sophisticated "looks" that are created in camera like when you adjust more finely some of the in-camera controls ?
The BM / DNG version of this is the same. The file load's and mostly you go with "as shot" which I have set a project default. You can choose the "BMD FILM" option in the tab and it starts you in the same way from a common starting point to then grade. Most LUT's are designed to work once you've applied the BMD FILM option in the RAW tab and BMD FILM is what is shot when you shoot ProRes.
You can do your own grade or have a shortcut with a LUT of your own, or the many other out there that people share and sell.
JB
-
I'm not sure what you mean by "cinex"
It´s BC´s short form of RedCine X :-)
-
It´s BC´s short form of RedCine X :-)
Ahh OK thanks !
So, then have we tried using R3D files directly in Resolve without going through Red Cine first ? What exactly extra are you getting by doing that step if that's what you're doing ?
JB
-
You can use RedCine X to just make adjustments that are stored in the RAW file and used by e.g. Premiere or do the entire conversation from RAW to your preferred codec. No problem to use R3Ds directly in resolve or premiere. Resolve is said to have the edge regarding image quality converting from Raw to whatever. YMMV.
Cheers, Ulf
-
Ahh OK thanks !
So, then have we tried using R3D files directly in Resolve without going through Red Cine first ? What exactly extra are you getting by doing that step if that's what you're doing ?
JB
For example, before the color stage, within the editorial,
I'm in Avid and want to assign different pre-grades in a batch process so I might cut the footage pre-corrected.
And let's say that I've been creating 3 differents looks in cinex according to the reels requierements. So using some bin functions (mainly "custom sift"), my timeline will display correctly the looks using the metadatas choosen by me.
Yes, this can be done too in Lightworks with the LUTs created in other platforms for ex, but what's interesting is that it comes from the source file itself through the separate RMD that can be reused and abused everywhere. It's the raw itself but a Little more featured than the controls we meet in source settings.
There are more practical applications or workflow styles, but at this stage of the edit you can already pre-grade and assign the looks without never touching the timeline itself.
Also, the fact that the file is a separate metadatas can be named. And many versionings can be created on file-names that have a meaning within the editorial an-or outside the nle.
I've been learning the hard way that naming in the editorial process is one of the most important part.
For example, "xxx-xx-x-WS#1" look and "xxx-xx-x-CU#7" look with a different set-up.
I would immediatly see in my timeline itself the color decisions just with a small email and the footage I see will have exactly the same look as it's creator. And if during the editorial more versions arise, they would be added in batch to the corresponding clips without interfering the editorial task as all happens at a bin level. And as those RMD are readable-writable in cinex and cinex being free, all the coherence is maintained from the source settings.
In the end of the editorial, I could revert everything to a gamma flavor pre to grading.
Of course, it's not going to be a final grade and there, I'am with you. But I think it gives flexibility.
RCX runs in less powerfull units, it's easy to work with. IMO it's got its place within a pipeline.
-
Attached is a screenshot for some tests i've been doing shooting with a few different cameras. I still think Resolve is also unmatched for being able to mix codecs and sizes in the timeline. Everything just "work's. You'll notice I've got different ProRes and DNG codecs all mixed in together. Look to the bottom left for the RAW camera controls.
Thanks John.
-
And let's say that I've been creating 3 differents looks in cinex according to the reels requierements.
Yes, this can be done too in Lightworks with the LUTs created in other platforms for ex, but what's interesting is that it comes from the source file itself through the separate RMD that can be reused and abused everywhere. It's the raw itself but a Little more featured than the controls we meet in source settings.
I guess then it's a question of workflow. I would never normally expect editorial to do any grading, and what you're saying (i think) is you can grade or pre-grade in the edit platform and then it can kind follow the file into your grade later.
Normally, I do a lot of work in testing in pre, make a LUT or a few LUTS's that then get applied to DNx Transcodes of the dailies and editorial use those, then once the episode is locked off, they are re-conformed back again and you grade from there. Sometimes based on the LUT's, but often not, just starting again.
I think maybe too, that the footage is already pre-graded( by the LUT) in my usual workflow, so there's less "need" or want to tweak a grade in the edit. And everyone knows it's an offline edit too.
JB
-
Absolutly. It's more a question of workflow style.
Really, what CineX is giving, is that instead of having
A sort of "camera raw" source settings panel,
It gives much more options and as it's simple
And can be runned in any workstation, I'd say that
It's an additional tool that we can integrate into the
Pipeline but it's not an obligation really.
-
I'm thinking also of another reason of RCX in a practical example.
LW for example can not control the source-settings like Avid can. And in Avid it's very much like ACR kind of control so very limited.
So if I have RCX open while operating in LW,
I can use RCX as a "super Adobe CameraRaw".
As an example, I currently have a Red footage that is under-exposed in Redgamma 4. I want to see the DR and switch in RCX to RedLogFilm,
the clip linked into LW will be updated with the new curve because if LW is unable to affect itself the raw material, it reads the associated RMD file.
So if you rebalance the shot in Cinex, LW will update the Red material. (if you save the look of course)
That is the same as saying that RedCineX is "part" of the NLE (or becomes part of it).
So in the end this Little App acts as a support in many aspects.
Here I colored a R3D on purpose in pink in RCX and this is a snapshot of a Lightworks bin.
You see that the NLE reads correctly the corrections done in RCX.
Do another correction and it will update it...etc...