F55: Replicating CineEI mode in Custom Mode… S-Gamut3 included. ;)

You make great points, one thing I've read about S.Gamut3 is its designed to work with different color temps (and not go nuts with exposure range either). So since maybe Custom Mode color isn't really Sgamut3 it will cause problems at some point. I just don't know. My test was too simple to tell.
 
What I don't quite understand is that whether on an A7 or a Red or Canon DSLR or whatever, I select my WB and later on I apply a standard LUT and then I adjust/tweak my colours to taste. It's a pretty standard workflow. Why is it we would suddenly need 1000+ LUTS to cater to very variable WB setting if Cine-EI had adjustable WB?
 
Ben Scott said:
What I don't quite understand is that whether on an A7 or a Red or Canon DSLR or whatever, I select my WB and later on I apply a standard LUT and then I adjust/tweak my colours to taste. It's a pretty standard workflow. Why is it we would suddenly need 1000+ LUTS to cater to very variable WB setting if Cine-EI had adjustable WB?
Click to expand...

AFAIK the canon log is a lot less flat.

Sony 'decided' that EI was for post work and doing the colour balance off a grey card is trivial

(if you are shooting with a 1st who can board and using a colourist)

Lack of WB a non issue if you are used to certain 'cine' workflows - people keep wanting to clutter up 'cine' mode with all sorts of crud like NR, WB et all - I vote keep it as pure as possible.

The lack of onboard RGB histo/wfm is to me a far bigger issue.

My last shoot I was trying to workout the colour of my location and had to evalute colour by using the RGB histo on a stills togs 5d2.

(a side note. If you are scared at shooting 'off colour' you should try some tests - I do a test of shooting a tungsten scene at 55ook and seeing if I can correct it - with 10bit basically you can - do this as a confidence builder.. not on a shoot!)

S
 
I have never worked on a production in television or feature or promo where adjusting WB wasn't a part of the process.

It's very different if you're one-man-banding it in which case you can do what you want, but the reality is it is limiting the way people can use their cameras, and limiting how they are perceived in certain areas of production.
 
Well I come from professional stills where shooting a grey card is a SOP, of course with raw that is all you have to do on location because the WB is just meta (and maybe give it a twink to keep the client happy if they are onset monitoring)

IMO stills have been looking better than video for years - so bow to the stills people when it comes to colour.

With the thinner 10bit (not raw14bit) codec you need to get 'in the ball park' or you can clip a channel - which is basically all you care about - not clipping a channel

I would do that by pointing the cam at a grey card, evaluating the RGB histo/wfm and making a choice of which of the three is closest.

The colourist is then presented grey for every scene/setup and can work from some consistent givens - if the operator constantly tinkers with WB then the colourist is presented with an inconsistent mess.

Balancing from a grey card is trivial if you are any form of colourist - that is node one.

With true horrid green lights you might need a magenta lut to keep the director onside, so that is one extra lut to build - not thousands.

--
Sony need to strip the camera (menu) back.. not add to it - but they do need RGB histo/wfm, ideally bigger than a gnats turd.


S
 
Last edited:
I understand how to balance an image either in-camera or in post and whether video or stills - and I don't think a quick glance at Instagram or wherever would support your claim about stills looking better than video these days.

They can both look as crap or amazing as the person behind the lens and the processing. Not seen Storaro bowing to Zack Arias recently.

I'm talking about the practical use of the camera on set in a mixed camera or 'standard' environment. Unless shooting raw it is a huge limitation and something that I've already had to deal with the fallout from with clients on set.

I think we're agreeing. Sort of :)
 
Ben Scott said:
.. something that I've already had to deal with the fallout from with clients on set. /QUOTE]

Out line that situation?

I think the 'argument' needs splitting to 'on set experience' and 'ability to get there in post'.

You would agree that shooting a Red at 3200 in daylight would give the client a bad experience on set but (as long as you shot a grey card) have minimal impact on post?

My clients have a crappy on set experience with my Old DP1 monitor (often in SD and often showing some dodgy scaling!)

Now to offer a client a great on set experience, well that is a different chat from the 'need' for WB settings to actually creat images (in post)

S
Click to expand...
 
Sam the original frame grabs can be downloaded from dropbox if you like, the link is at the end of the article. All in DPX file format.

Ben Scott said:
Why is it we would suddenly need 1000+ LUTS to cater to very variable WB setting if Cine-EI had adjustable WB?
Click to expand...

We wouldn't need 1000+ LUTs. To be more like RED or ARRI we just need color temperature we can dial which only affects the preview monitor or VF and not necessarily the underlying recording.

Remember with RED you can adjust all the color, etc.. settings you want and it does not affect the underlying recording, you do that later in post. But the benefit of being able to "paint" your monitor on-set is invaluable. As a DP, for other crew members, producers, and overall for the entire production. Pre-visualization is a big deal.
 
Last edited:
Ben is right - without that 'new' CT setting we would (in theory) need a thousand LUTs

In reality I figure a puke green lut 4500, and the ones available would do.

S
 
Imagine a shoot with Alexa, F55, Dragon - all chosen for various reasons and functions. Even without a DIT, you want to rough in those cams on set.

You can scale that up or down. I did a shoot this time last year at Brands Hatch using 8 different types of camera at once - From Red down to AF101. Being able to rough them in before turning over was a massive benefit.

In summary, it limits the way certain people like to work and that means it limits the opportunities for my camera/me to be hired for certain jobs down the line until it is not an obstacle. But even if it is fixed down the line people will have had one bad experience with it and never tried it again not know it is fixed.
 
Where are you guys getting this 1000 LUTs from?

How many LUTs do you use in post, 1 or 1000 depending which color temperature you're working with?
 
A hell of a lot of people working with Red R3Ds set a metadata wb, add a standard LUT and then adjust colour without delving back into the raw controls. Likewise, a lot of people in both high-end post houses AND smaller productions set a wb in Redcine and then transcode that either to pro res or dpx or similar.

They certainly don't produce a new lut for every WB variant. They have a lut and tweak colour afterwards.

I'm happy for Cine-EI WB to be baked in if it can be varied and for me to sort it out from then on in. From Sony's point of view surely it would a lot easier to implement that than a new 'monitor only' wb variance. Would be great though, don't get me wrong!

EDIT: The 1000 LUT thing was in response to the idea that you/Sony would need a LUT for all the different white balances which has been raised a few time on the forum and elsewhere.
 
Im confused about how the 3 Ctemps available mean you cant 'rough it in' in EI - Also there is Custom which allows Full WB six odd gammas and a host of other 'paint' facilities

Of course if it elegantly implemented I don't care if it happens - Id just prefer sony put their effort into a RGB WFM so I can actually see the colours Im recording!

Shooting with a fungle of cameras Id get the ops to pop a shot of a macbeth card and match em all in Resolve.. one click.

S
 
Ben Scott said:
A hell of a lot of people working with Red R3Ds set a metadata wb, add a standard LUT and then adjust colour without delving back into the raw controls.
Click to expand...

That is interesting to me - all the stills I work go through C1 or Lightroom - it just doesnt happen any other way except the odd newspapers shoot with a 1500hrs deadline.

I expect all FS7 footy to go through Cbrows, Resolve or a NLE that supports LUTs

(incedentally I think shooting raw and then baking it in post is kind of just a waste of data - which I could call imcompetence as it is not best use - one look? .. C300 50mbs)


S
 
I want my cake and to eat it it too. WFM, LUT monitoring, WB, the lot.....

As for the rest - well yes that's the quickest way to do stuff as of right now. But many's the time you might not be Directing something and they want everything to near enough match there and then. The cameras need to cater for annoying people on set :)
 
morgan_moore said:
That is interesting to me - all the stills I work go through C1 or Lightroom - it just doesnt happen any other way except the odd newspapers shoot with a 1500hrs deadline.

I expect all FS7 footy to go through Cbrows, Resolve or a NLE that supports LUTs

(incedentally I think shooting raw and then baking it in post is kind of just a waste of data - which I could call imcompetence as it is not best use - one look? .. C300 50mbs)


S
Click to expand...

Most Red-shot Hollywood movies have a 'onelight' done in redcine before being exported to DPX and then being graded. At first glance you go 'that's crazy you are missing so much not having the raw' and then you shut up and realise they probably know what they're doing.

I use Catalyst Browse purely for viewing footage. Haven't used it in a job workflow yet at all. Will give it a go at some point.

All my pro stills and timelapse stuff goes through Lightroom.

EDIT: I should add that I think there's now a few Red movies from 2014 that used an all-raw workflow.
 
This thread on fire, I can't keep up.

Regarding 1000 LUTs, please read my post #30.

It wasn't 1000's of LUTs that would be needed.. I thought it was 1000's or infinite de-bayering algorithms required if Sony allowed custom white balance because of the RAW mode?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top