Nope. This is not true. And I think it may be causing you some confusion.
RedLogFilm is a gamma curve, RedGamma is a gamma curve, RedGamma2, 3 & 4 are gamma curves.
RedLogFilm is not what the picture looks like as "Raw" data, it's what the picture looks like with a curve that matches what you'd get with a Cineon LOG gamma in a film scan. It is applied to the image data just as RedGamma2 is, it's just a different curve.
If you want to see what the picture looks like without any curve, you have to choose "Linear" for gamma.
But you're right that RLF is good for Color-Correction (the best choice, IMO) but not because it's untouched. Rather, it's because the data is interpreted on a curve that makes it easier to work with using tools like those available in Resolve (which happened to be developped in a world that delt sith Cineon gamma film scans).
DAF
Yes. That's what I was trying to say and maybe it's my
Text that was badly written but this is exactly the message
I wanted to express. That's why in my post
I wrote in parentesis "not talking about linear" but yes it was
Not very well written.
The untouched Raw is of course linear. In Fusion if I disable
The redgamma (remove curve) or use directly the metadatas
And switch to linear, this reaveals the raw untouched.
What I meant by "the purest untouched" talking about RLF, and here I agree that it was not well written, I was refering to
A gradable material to work with. Rlf is less alterated than redgamma wich is another curve added to it (a contrast curve and therefore not as "pure" or untouched. But you're
Right, let's use more precise lenguage and my frenglish parentesis
Saying "not talking about linear" was a bit confusing.
Rlf is simply one less curve than their redgamma whatever flavour. But yes, RLF
is actually a curve and not the linear raw. And it's based on the Cineon standart. But redgamma is 2 curves and therefore
As a starting point for grading, it's too alterated. It works
For quick grades but not for more sophisticated looks
Where rlf is really the way to go.
In Fusion, I could see that Rlf is Cineon standart, exactly
The very same curve.
If I take the linear data and apply a standart cineon node, I obtain
Their rlf. Tested and verified.
So, sorry for my english, I sometimes write fast, and I think
My explainations are good and maybe there're not.
So for the readers a recap:
- linear is the raw datas untouched. (obtained by or canceling the gamma on the read node or switching to linear at a metadata
Level. It is the same)
- rlf is simply cineon standart log curve applied to the linear
That red called rlf. (this is what I called purest or untouched thinking of grading but Daf made me realise that my post
Could be confusing because indeed. The real purest untouched
Material is of course linear. But we're not going to use this
In an app like Resolve to color correct)
- redgamma 2, 3, 4 is another curve applied to the chain wich
Is a sort of S curve or contrast curve. It is linear+rlf (or cineon)+contrast curve.
It's function is to give a sort of fast viewable material
To work with when you do not need sophisticated grade.
It's an easy way to go somewhere quick. But it does not
Give the same latitude for grading seriously because
One more curve is one more curve, and not yours.
Now, if you're back into linear, you could decide to
Not use the cineon standart (or the rlf) and use another log
Curve. It is possible. Nobody is stucked with the rlf.
We can just cancel every curve and apply our own ones.
But it's risky. That means one has to be a colorist expert
Not to screw it. (this is when I started to screw it because
My experiment consisted in canceling all gamma and
Start to build my own curve and I'm not yet at the level
To do that so I started to put myself into a mess I didn't
Control. In other words, I was tricking the Cineon values
According to "my eyes" and that's guessing). Therefore, staying with rlf gives the
Confidence of consistency within a standart and assure
Predictible results. But a really good colorist can work
With the curves he-she wants.