Redspace looks flat?

[Eric Lin]

Hi all. I just started grading a feature I shot on the Red one over the summer. We are working off the RAW files in SCRATCH.

 

I liked what the Redspace gamma gave us on the Red monitors and in the QT proxies and wanted to use them as a base to start tweaking the image. When the timer applied Redspace gamma to the Raw footage in scratch, on the calibrated HD monitor I was surprised to find that it looks super flat and desaturated. On the Red monitors and the QT proxies I always felt that the Redspace was a little too contrasty.

 

Is it because I'm looking at it on a HD REC 709 monitor?

 

I'm slightly confused...

Help me wrap my head around this.

 

Thanks.

 

Best,

Eric Lin

DP

NYC

[Matthew Rogers]

Hi all. I just started grading a feature I shot on the Red one over the summer. We are working off the RAW files in SCRATCH.

 

I liked what the Redspace gamma gave us on the Red monitors and in the QT proxies and wanted to use them as a base to start tweaking the image. When the timer applied Redspace gamma to the Raw footage in scratch, on the calibrated HD monitor I was surprised to find that it looks super flat and desaturated. On the Red monitors and the QT proxies I always felt that the Redspace was a little too contrasty.

 

Is it because I'm looking at it on a HD REC 709 monitor?

 

I'm wondering if there is a bug in Scratch that you are encountering. I did a shoot last fall that they corrected in Scratch and I got a call that the footage was super dark while the proxies looked correct. It turns out that for some reason it was reading the metadata incorrectly and applying some crazy curve. Hitting reset put the clips back to the correct display.

 

Did you shoot the clips with Redspace on? What happens in scratch if you set it to REC709 or RAW?

 

I really advise people shooting to NOT shoot in Redspace. It makes you want to underexpose too far. Using REC709 and adjusting the saturation in camera makes a much better, noise free image when it comes into post.

 

Matthew

[Eric Lin]

I shot with Redspace on but used the histogram and exposed to the right without blowing my highlights. I definitely paid more attention to the histogram than the image Redspace was giving me.

 

I wonder if it is reading the metadata incorrectly. I'll try setting it to REC 709 and see how it feels. Flipping it to the RAW files looks the way RAW files do so that seems fine. I'm just surprised how flat it looked when the proxies and the Red Monitor all looks super contrasty sometimes too much so.

 

When you first popped the Redspace on in Scratch did you get that impression also?

 

Thanks.

 

Best,

Eric Lin

[Matthew Rogers]

I shot with Redspace on but used the histogram and exposed to the right without blowing my highlights. I definitely paid more attention to the histogram than the image Redspace was giving me.

 

I wonder if it is reading the metadata incorrectly. I'll try setting it to REC 709 and see how it feels. Flipping it to the RAW files looks the way RAW files do so that seems fine. I'm just surprised how flat it looked when the proxies and the Red Monitor all looks super contrasty sometimes too much so.

 

When you first popped the Redspace on in Scratch did you get that impression also?

 

AHHHHHH.....you can watch your histogram while using redspace, but the problem with that is it's telling you what's happening in Redspace, not the raw colorspace! It would be much better if the histogram told you what was happening in the RAW colorspace no matter what colorspace you were monitoring in.

 

I wasn't at the scratch session in question. They just called me to ask why everything was so dark and I suggested resetting the metadata as a possible solution. It almost sounds like Scratch is setting Redspace into RAW colorspace by accident. I know that when I pull the R3D files into color and set them to Redspace that it looks much more colorful and an s-curve has been applied.

 

Matthew

[Eric Lin]

AHHHHHH.....you can watch your histogram while using redspace, but the problem with that is it's telling you what's happening in Redspace, not the raw colorspace! It would be much better if the histogram told you what was happening in the RAW colorspace no matter what colorspace you were monitoring in.

 

I always used the RAW histogram to get the exposure right then just clicked over to Redspace and let it do whatever it did to the QT proxies. Generally when I exposed that way on the on the red monitors it looked too bright though the shadows always looked too thick (too contrasty in my mind).

 

In the scratch session when we pull the blacks down, it tends to be about what I expect. Others said that Redspace lifts the blacks a lot.

 

Eric Lin

DP

NYC

[Matthew Rogers]

I always used the RAW histogram to get the exposure right then just clicked over to Redspace and let it do whatever it did to the QT proxies. Generally when I exposed that way on the on the red monitors it looked too bright though the shadows always looked too thick (too contrasty in my mind).

 

In the scratch session when we pull the blacks down, it tends to be about what I expect. Others said that Redspace lifts the blacks a lot.

 

Ok, so evidently I was wrong about the monitoring in regards to the histogram. This is from someone at RED (rephrased): False color monitors the color space it is in, whereas the histogram always is based on RAW mode no matter what mode you are in.

 

Sorry about the confusion.

 

Matthew

[Rob van Gelder]

Not as I have experienced and have read on the forum from the RED-people:

The form or the histogram does alter when you switch between RAW and any other color space. Try for yourself: assign button 1 or 2 to "display RAW" and set your view (in video menu) to 709 or redspace. Then you can toggle and see how much the histogram changes.

 

False color IS related to 709 and (not 100% sure) to Redspace, but is NOT 100% calibrated to RAW, so the different colors that relate to a certain exposure (stops) in those 2 color spaces do not mach with the similar exposure values in RAW.

[ryan knight]

for future red shooters, couldn't one light for and expose for RAW, ignoring redspace or rec709 altogether and then color from raw once in scratch, or lustre or etc?

 

thanks,

 

rk.

[David Mullen ASC]

It's misleading to view flat images (I can't really call them "RAW" since you can't view a RAW image, it has to be converted to color -- what you are seeing is more like a LOG image) because a certain amount of shadow detail falls into the noise floor and you'll end up lighting with too much contrast on set thinking you'll have all this shadow detail to play with in post. Also, you may overexpose a bit looking at RAW since generally luminance detail (in a LOG image at least) is a bit lower than it is in Rec 709 broadcast gamma -- whites are around 70 IRE instead of 100 IRE for example. Though at least recorded detail in the bright highlights is more usable than recorded detail in the darkest shadows.

 

Personally, I'd rather view a somewhat contrasty Rec 709 picture on the set so that I'm forced to light within that range, knowing I am recording a wider dynamic range. As long as your viewing set-up makes you a little bit more conservative in exposing, that's a good thing because you'll be happier later in color-correction.

 

In LOG cameras like the Genesis, for example, I find it way too misleading to look at the LOG image because it's so flat. Going by that, I'd never have to use any fill light at all!

[John Sprung]

We've found an interesting and perhaps related issue on a Red show we just started. It looks like the Red Alert software blows away whatever RSX file you may have made, and instead saves a default one, even if you just open a few shots to spot check. That could be at the data wrangler's workstation, or in post. These default files can change you from Redspace to 709, for instance.

 

As the venerable CRT fades from availability, reliable repeatable quantifiable standardized monitoring is becoming a problem everywhere, not just for Reds.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.