Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: Notes on "The Jargon of Video"  (Read 72552 times)

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1376
Re: Notes on "The Jargon of Video"
« Reply #40 on: July 21, 2015, 06:14:00 am »

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.


« Last Edit: July 21, 2015, 07:35:07 am by fredjeang2 »
Logged

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1376
Re: Notes on "The Jargon of Video"
« Reply #41 on: July 21, 2015, 07:44:43 am »

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...

« Last Edit: July 21, 2015, 08:07:11 am by fredjeang2 »
Logged

John Brawley

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
Re: Notes on "The Jargon of Video"
« Reply #42 on: July 21, 2015, 08:11:40 am »


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

Logged

UlfKrentz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 529
    • http://www.shoots.de
Re: Notes on "The Jargon of Video"
« Reply #43 on: July 21, 2015, 08:31:01 am »

I'm not sure what you mean by "cinex"


Itīs BCīs short form of RedCine X :-)

John Brawley

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
Re: Notes on "The Jargon of Video"
« Reply #44 on: July 21, 2015, 08:32:51 am »

Itīs BCīs 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
Logged

UlfKrentz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 529
    • http://www.shoots.de
Re: Notes on "The Jargon of Video"
« Reply #45 on: July 21, 2015, 09:09:23 am »

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

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1376
Re: Notes on "The Jargon of Video"
« Reply #46 on: July 21, 2015, 10:49:37 am »

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.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2015, 06:03:31 pm by fredjeang2 »
Logged

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1376
Re: Notes on "The Jargon of Video"
« Reply #47 on: July 21, 2015, 05:58:14 pm »

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.
Logged

John Brawley

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
Re: Notes on "The Jargon of Video"
« Reply #48 on: July 22, 2015, 06:52:23 am »


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
« Last Edit: July 22, 2015, 06:53:54 am by John Brawley »
Logged

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1376
Re: Notes on "The Jargon of Video"
« Reply #49 on: July 22, 2015, 07:03:44 am »

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.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2015, 07:05:57 am by fredjeang2 »
Logged

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1376
Re: Notes on "The Jargon of Video"
« Reply #50 on: July 22, 2015, 07:50:17 am »

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...
« Last Edit: July 22, 2015, 07:57:25 am by fredjeang2 »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up