Vision Color causing crazy red pop

[Tyler Clark]

C300

VisionColor C300-CLOG_Kodak Gold Gen.6 200_CIN

OSIRIS Vision X Log 32

 

Does anyone know why these LUTS are causing this red to pop so intensely? Everything else looks so natural. I have to go in and key back the cape on every shot.

 

 

[Jay Young]

I don't know about the lut, and it wouldn't be quite as intense on actual film negative, but the old adage holds here:

 

Kodak = RED

Fuji = GREEN!

 

Old Kodak stocks always popped red.

[Tyler Clark]

I don't know about the lut, and it wouldn't be quite as intense on actual film negative, but the old adage holds here:

 

Kodak = RED

Fuji = GREEN!

 

Old Kodak stocks always popped red.

 

Thanks for the Tip! As far as the luts go I tried fuji and kodak and they both had the same problem. I ended up creating my own curve off the C-log footage in the meantime but would still love to hear from anyone who would know why this happens.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Well how red was the cape on the day ? Saturated colors of any hue often get funky when it comes to LUTs-- which is why we used to do camera tests for wardrobe all the way through the post chain to see how things would render.

[David Mullen ASC]

Seems to me the LUT is doing what it was designed to do, give you a very poppy red like in some Kodachrome slides or prints.

 

Have you ever seen a Technicolor dye transfer print projected? The reds are so intense that they are almost three-dimensional, which is why 1950's movies often did titles in red.

[Tyler Purcell]

I mean it's an emulation LUT, not a true film scan LUT, so of course it's going to exaggerate the look.

 

All you've gotta do is bring the red channel down a bit and it will be solved.

[Tyler Clark]

Well how red was the cape on the day ? Saturated colors of any hue often get funky when it comes to LUTs-- which is why we used to do camera tests for wardrobe all the way through the post chain to see how things would render.

 

 

Seems to me the LUT is doing what it was designed to do, give you a very poppy red like in some Kodachrome slides or prints.

 

Have you ever seen a Technicolor dye transfer print projected? The reds are so intense that they are almost three-dimensional, which is why 1950's movies often did titles in red.

 

 

I mean it's an emulation LUT, not a true film scan LUT, so of course it's going to exaggerate the look.

 

All you've gotta do is bring the red channel down a bit and it will be solved.

 

Thanks for the tips guys! Not to say the gear makes the image but would a 10 or 12 bit camera have handled it better? Or at least allow for more range when dialing it in? Currently when I mask the cape, the adjustments look unnatural pretty quickly.

[Tyler Purcell]

The bit depth pertains to how many colors are being represented on screen. Strong red and blue are more subjective to color compression like 4:2:0 vs 4:2:2. The C300 is an 8 bit 4:2:2 recorder, so the resolution of the red and blue channels is half of the green channel. This is most noticeable on the edge between the red jacket and background, which has small jagged edges on it.

 

However, in terms of the redness of the jacket, higher bit depth would make the red not as flat. Uncompressed RGB would help separate the red from the background.

 

This is why "raw" and 12 - 16 bit 444 formats, have become the "industry standard" when it comes to digital capture.

[David Mullen ASC]

"Handled it better" is not quite the right phrase because that implies a mistake was made when, as I said before, the LUT is probably doing exactly what it was designed to do -- less compression, a higher color subsampling scheme, coupled with a higher bit depth would make it easier to color-correct with minimal artifacts... but the red saturation level is a function of the original object, its exposure, and the color space used for recording and for the display LUT (and the display setting itself.) And maybe the dyes in the bayer filter in the camera...

[Adrian Sierkowski]

As mentioned; it's doing what it's supposed to do, which is why a day or so testing colors/fabrics and your LUTs would've saved tons of work later on.

[Mark Kenfield]

Accurate or not, it looks great to me!

[Jay Young]

Did anyone else notice it says "Kodak Gold"?

 

I must have shot 10,000 rolls of that 20 years ago. It's not a Vision stock, its a C-41 process still film stock. Wonder if they used the same formula?

 

Anyhow, Kodak Gold was a consumer 35mm negative film that was higher in contrast, and printed with very punchy colors, as that's what consumers of the day wanted.

Of course, this would be toned down a bit on VC print paper (or dye sub. at the Wal-Mart) but still get a little punchy color.

 

On your digital version, you don't have that physical paper to affect the color pop.