Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: an idea on RLF workflow  (Read 11328 times)

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1376
an idea on RLF workflow
« on: July 30, 2015, 05:14:00 pm »

There are a lot of complains on the fact that Red does not provide a proper "oficial" LUT for their RLF.

But then I'm seeing something, and correct me if I'm wrong.

I could verify that RLF is Cineon standart curve.

Therefore, I don't understand all the noise about the fact that Red didn't provide an official LUT to work with
because all we have to do is working with a standard Cineon to Video LUT. No?
Therefore, that explains exactly why Red does not provide any "official" LUT. They don't need to.
RLF is actually the only log curve that matches exactly the Cineon standart. Nor Alexa or Viper etc...
So Red is not to blame.

Am I right here?

Also, I don't really get why so many Red users are trying to build 3D LUTS redgamma3 or 4 emulation if the proper Graeme said that their Redgamma2,3,4... aren't suitable for
sophisticate grading but is a facility given to produce fast decent results and that if you really want the best results, RLF is the starting point from wich you'd bake your own look.
So what's the point on trying to build LUTs reproducing Redgamma3 or 4?
Yes, the Redgamma emulation are made for Rec709 output, but again, what's the point of spending time building something that replicates a facility that was thought for fast instant results?
Couldn't people spend better their time building their own looks instead of trying to replicate an average rec709 version of Redgamma flavor?
  
« Last Edit: July 30, 2015, 05:25:03 pm by fredjeang2 »
Logged

D Fuller

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 608
    • AirStream Pictures
Re: an idea on RLF workflow
« Reply #1 on: July 31, 2015, 09:43:01 pm »

There are a lot of complains on the fact that Red does not provide a proper "oficial" LUT for their RLF.

But then I'm seeing something, and correct me if I'm wrong.

I could verify that RLF is Cineon standart curve.

Therefore, I don't understand all the noise about the fact that Red didn't provide an official LUT to work with
because all we have to do is working with a standard Cineon to Video LUT. No?
Therefore, that explains exactly why Red does not provide any "official" LUT. They don't need to.
RLF is actually the only log curve that matches exactly the Cineon standart. Nor Alexa or Viper etc...
So Red is not to blame.

Am I right here?
You're right. Just don't go on trying to understand why there is noise on the internets. You'll go mad.  ;-/

Also, I don't really get why so many Red users are trying to build 3D LUTS redgamma3 or 4 emulation if the proper Graeme said that their Redgamma2,3,4... aren't suitable for
sophisticate grading but is a facility given to produce fast decent results and that if you really want the best results, RLF is the starting point from wich you'd bake your own look.
So what's the point on trying to build LUTs reproducing Redgamma3 or 4?
Yes, the Redgamma emulation are made for Rec709 output, but again, what's the point of spending time building something that replicates a facility that was thought for fast instant results?
Couldn't people spend better their time building their own looks instead of trying to replicate an average rec709 version of Redgamma flavor?

I'll tell you why I use them. It's simple. If I've been working with my client on set using RedGamma3, for example, and if that's pretty close to where the grade should start, I set the Raw settings to RLF, and apply a RLF to RG3 LUT. so I get the RG3 starting point that everybody has liked up to now, but with RLF in the Raw settings, I find I have much more ability to take it where I want to go. Maybe it's just what I'm used to working with, I don't really know, but I've always imagined that it was because the tools in Resolve were built to deal with Cineon scans, so they are tuned to that sort of gamma. (The same seems to be true for Arri Log files as well.)

If I'm going to take the grade somewhere different than we've been looking at, I don't bother with the LUT. I just grade from the RLF-deBeyered file. I build a set of node trees that I use as starting points for the looks I'm using. It just depends on where the project is going.

But the use of LUTs for looks (especially ones you buy) just seems like some kind of plagiarism to me. Or at the very least, un-original. Maybe it's because I come from Yankee Puritain Workaholic ancestors, but to me that just seems like a lazy way to keep from learning what you need to get where you want to go on your own.
---

To BC's point about 7 stops-- I watched a doc called "Jazz on a Summer's Day" a couple of weeks ago. Shot on 16mm in 1958 (at the Newport Jazz Festival) when film had maybe 7 stops of latitude in ideal conditions, or 5 stops in most doc situations. The film was beautiful. We get all worked up about 12 or 14 or who knows how many stops of latitude when 7 stops, correctly exposed for the subject in front of the camera, is more than Enough.

It's all about pictures that have something to tell you.

DAF
Logged
business website: www.airstream.pictures
blog: thirtynineframes.com/blog

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1376
Re: an idea on RLF workflow
« Reply #2 on: August 01, 2015, 06:43:22 am »

Thanks guys. Very informative as always.

Coot, I like the look of the kid. The highlight shapes
Nicely his face while the sky is not blowned, where the subject is the subject
(and not the background).


What I find strange in the end,
Is that we have a lot of luts offers everywhere, film stock
Emulation...but the contexts?
I mean, a grade should be an intention, and that intention
Is indeed linked to the subject or product or brand's
Corporate image.
For ex if I see a Recuenco advertising of a certain perfume
Brand, I could verify (and it's logical) that they graded
Almost flat, with all the shots turning around the whites
With very little contrast.
And this is no accident, but because it corresponds to
The brand's corporate imagery. So nothing is never and
Should never be free but intentional and for a unique purpose.
this LUTs orgy we see now everywhere gives fast
"pleasing image", but unpersonals and often free.

Daf, If by "Yankee Puritain Workaholic ancestors" you meant, "hard work" kind
of vintage mentality, I beleive too hard work pays. At least, it's the only way I know
to understand how things work and eventually being able to be creative.
Knowledge is freedom.
Now puritain? naaa...let's just be bloody decadent. Sins and lust.
(no red Little devil smiley in this forum?)


Now, I'm studdying Aces. Far from being knowledgable
With Aces workflow. Still very much experimenting, guessing,
playing like a kid in legoland. But
Yes, this time it is not a mirage or false magic properties.
It gives a lot more room to work with. Not kidding.
And also avoids many unconsistencies between proprietary
Formats and camera brands matrix. This Aces
Workflow is worth a serious studdy.
I find way easier to match colors between different camera's profiles.
And it gives more room to avoid clipping in highlights and can even recover
what in other spaces was lost but without having to compromise on mids and lows.
In other words, there is much more to play with in all the range.
Exr is heavy to store
But I think the zip compression does a fair balanced. Or
Directly work from the R3Ds. (and try to figure-out who's got
It right, still very little info on Aces workflows, could find great
Stuff in french, or inside the Scratch pipeline...but we lack more
Imputs on Aces.)
I beleive Aces is the future, really.

Ps: I think however that the intent to standardized all proprietary Raw into the openEXR for all, wich makes sense, is not going to work
(I mean be widely adopted) in the sense that storage becomes serious and beyond the range of many users.

« Last Edit: August 01, 2015, 10:25:47 pm by fredjeang2 »
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up