Stupid question about setting LOOK

[Justin Marx]

Hey guys,

I'm new to the RED family, and I was shooting a few days ago and I played I bit to much with the LOOK on set and there was a lot of noise in the blacks.. I think I added to much to brightness, instead of adding light or removing an ND (stupid)

What is the best way to achieve a good look without having to basically start from scratch from RAW..

I guess my real question is what shouldn't I fuck with to keep my image as CLEAN And as exposed properly as possible without being RAW on set.

Do you guys always light to RAW then add the look?

I'd love to have direction on this.. THANKS SO MUCH!! and so happy to be part of the RED family!!

-- Justin Marx

[Carlos Dueñas]

Expose to the right. And you always get RAW with Red cameras, you have to process it in Redcine X and then get what you need (Prores 444, DPX sequence, etc).

[Justin Marx]

Expose to the right. And you always get RAW with Red cameras, you have to process it in Redcine X and then get what you need (Prores 444, DPX sequence, etc).

What do you mean expose to the right.. I know about RAW, just curious on how to make it look as good as possible on set without having to redo everything when processing through RED Cine X

[Carlos Dueñas]

Expose to the right of the histogram.
There is this thread that maybe you found useful
http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?59136-Looks...
this one is interesting too.
http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?57834-So...-how-do-I-do-it

[Mark Toia]

Hi Justin,

If you shoot correctly, expose consistently (not saying you don't) and don't keep adjusting your kelvin or tints in camera every shot... (just leave those as neutral as possible)
Then you shouldn't need to add any look other than what the camera sets for you. Just make sure it looks good in the 5 inche, 7inch PRO (NOT THE EVF) and that will translate out to your transcodes as you see it on the day... well it does for us.

Or do as I do... output in LOG / or view in log in RCX, set a single frame look that is generic across the board (either in RCX or FCP) Then copy that look across the lot.... and start editing.
If your exposures are consistent, you wont have to do much in the way of finessing any of the other shots.

but the secret is consistent exposures, kelvin and tints... Pretend your shooting a 5D for a moment, you have to get your exposures dead perfect with that, or your screwed...
Do the the same with the RED, then it's as easy as 1,2,3, .. but instead of a 5D, you have about 20,000 looks you can apply afterwards.

..... I'll be back.. hang on a min....
...
..
ok.. back..

... Just to prove it can be done, I quite literally put a single look on one clip (sorry it was a rush one) and dropped it over the rest, I just took a bunch of screens shots for you.. (i snuck a little window burn in there too :)...
but over all, only one shot had a grade applied, the others have the same grade copied to them...

Simple as that.

http://www.zoomfilmtv.com.au/ftp/JUNK/quick%20look.jpg


hope this helps.
take care..

[Justin Marx]

Thanks Carlos and Mark! Great stuff..

Consistent is the key.. Hey Mark, do you always keep your ISO on EPIC at 800?

Somehow because I am limited it my choices with the 5D I have learned what to do and not do.. I'm still on that learning curve with the EPIC.. The good thing is that RAW is forgiving..

I was wondering why would the histogram show you anything other than RAW info? I wish it would stay in RAW mode while I was in my look for proper exposure.. I don't see why you would base anything on it while in a look if you have changed a lot of settings you could burn yourself by basing anything on the look histogram..

[Mark Toia]

Hi Justin,

I'm just trying to keep things simple for you :)

I shoot at 320 ASA everything.. even at night. As far as Im concerned the chip is still 320, flick to RAW and the exposure stays the same.. so it must be. 320 sings for me...

However... I think it's best for (most) people that are not that good on the aperture to leave it at 800asa as a safe guard, you then have a stop up your sleeve if you bugger up.. Like a little insurance policy. Does not matter if your shooting RED, ARRI, FILM, anything.. never over expose. So leave it at 800asa, just for safety. It's a good place to stay.
I'm from a very high end photography back ground. I shot transparency for over a decade and had to keep my exposures within 1/4 of a stop. I've just taken this knowledge into my RED shooting and hence I very rarely over expose. I protect highlights like I protect my money in my pocket. :)..

Heres another crazy thing that I don't recomend... But I never look at the histograms, ever. I just shoot by eye. If it looks hot on the monitors or the EVF, then it is... I just simply roll back the aperture till it looks good.:001_smile:

[Justin Marx]

Hi Justin,

I'm just trying to keep things simple for you :)

I shoot at 320 ASA everything.. even at night. As far as Im concerned the chip is still 320, flick to RAW and the exposure stays the same.. so it must be. 320 sings for me...

However... I think it's best for (most) people that are not that good on the aperture to leave it at 800asa as a safe guard, you then have a stop up your sleeve if you bugger up.. Like a little insurance policy. Does not matter if your shooting RED, ARRI, FILM, anything.. never over expose. So leave it at 800asa, just for safety. It's a good place to stay.
I'm from a very high end photography back ground. I shot transparency for over a decade and had to keep my exposures within 1/4 of a stop. I've just taken this knowledge into my RED shooting and hence I very rarely over expose. I protect highlights like I protect my money in my pocket. :)..

Heres another crazy thing that I don't recomend... But I never look at the histograms, ever. I just shoot by eye. If it looks hot on the monitors or the EVF, then it is... I just simply roll back the aperture till it looks good.:001_smile:

Interesting, stuff Mark, and the simpler the better ;-)

I guess I just need to get used to my new baby just like anything else..

With the 5D I'm constantly adjusting ISO.. I guess the goal is to work between 320 and 800, just like I never shoot anything above 1000 iso with the 5D..

Do you base your lighting off of RAW on the monitor?

[Joe Kleber]

I just simply roll back the aperture till it looks good.:001_smile:

Which, if you think about it, is still "exposing to the right" but it's just doing it by eye and not by the histogram.

[Mark Toia]

Hi Justin,

Nope.. I leave the camera in default mode... I do nothing fancy with it at all other than set iso to 320.
RED COLOR 2 i think is the default setting... just use that.
Leave it 800asa...
If I'm outside, i leave the kelvin at 5600k and never float it.
If Im shooting inside under tungsten lights, I shoot at 3200k..
But I never transcode the two togeather.. I transcode day light and tungsten in separate sessions.
I like to make all my transcodes as clean and as neutral as possible, I hate burnt in color information, so I discard it set my own white balance.

Like I siad, expose like you would with your 5D, If it looks hot it is.. if it looks dark it is... float between them and you win.
It's as simple as that mate. Try not to complicate it for yourself.

[Mark Toia]

Which, if you think about it, is still "exposing to the right" but it's just doing it by eye and not by the histogram.

yes.. correct :) sort of.. but yes.

[Justin Marx]

Hi Justin,

Nope.. I leave the camera in default mode... I do nothing fancy with it at all other than set iso to 320.
RED COLOR 2 i think is the default setting... just use that.
Leave it 800asa...
If I'm outside, i leave the kelvin at 5600k and never float it.
If Im shooting inside under tungsten lights, I shoot at 3200k..
But I never transcode the two togeather.. I transcode day light and tungsten in separate sessions.
I like to make all my transcodes as clean and as neutral as possible, I hate burnt in color information, so I discard it set my own white balance.

Like I siad, expose like you would with your 5D, If it looks hot it is.. if it looks dark it is... float between them and you win.
It's as simple as that mate. Try not to complicate it for yourself.

You nailed it on the head Mark.. I was getting to much into the look and tweaking that I wasn't basing what I was seeing in the monitor or my skills.. I was playing too much!

Will start as clean as possible... Thanks..

[keith morton]

THANKS MARK!!

[DCC Erickson]

"I never look at the histogram" - that's priceless! Skill before technology, every time.

[Christopher Barrett]

I shot transparency for over a decade and had to keep my exposures within 1/4 of a stop.


Oh Man... I spent 15 years shooting 4x5 EPY, EPN & Velvia. I DO NOT miss chromes! Less than half the latitude of the Red and no more than a half stop of Push available. I am so glad to have worked through the transition. We have all the benefits of the easy new technology but the experience of having to nail exposure. I think shooting film can still be a great learning tool.

[M Most]

If you shoot correctly, expose consistently (not saying you don't) and don't keep adjusting your kelvin or tints in camera every shot... (just leave those as neutral as possible)
Then you shouldn't need to add any look other than what the camera sets for you. Just make sure it looks good in the 5 inche, 7inch PRO (NOT THE EVF) and that will translate out to your transcodes as you see it on the day...

Can you send this to everyone who shoots with a digital camera and make them sign a pledge to use it?

Thank you. :thumbup1:

[Dan Hudgins]

I was wondering why would the histogram show you anything other than RAW info? I wish it would stay in RAW mode while I was in my look for proper exposure.. I don't see why you would base anything on it while in a look if you have changed a lot of settings you could burn yourself by basing anything on the look histogram..

The "real" RAW hisograms have all the detail under 90% white bunched up at the left side, so you can see less and less as the ISO goes up.

The monitor processed histograms have mid-tone (18% gray card) near the center at about 46% or just left of center all the time. When using the processed histograms the highlight detail is bunched together on the right side of the histogram, so the space above 90% white is less than in a real RAW sensor ADC output histogram.

The exposure points for the sensor RAW are maybe about:

ISO 160 = 90% White at 100% sensor ADC for green pixels

ISO 320 = 90% White at about 50% sensor ADC for green pixels

ISO 640 = 90% White at about 25% sensor ADC for green pixels

ISO 800 = 90% White at about 20% sensor ADC for green pixels

ISO 1280 = 90% White at about 12.5% sensor ADC for green pixels

ISO 2560 = 90% White at about 6.25% sensor ADC for green pixels

ISO 5120 = 90% White at about 3.125% sensor ADC for green pixels.

The RED and BLUE signals are about 2/3 to 1/2 the green signals in sensor RAW histograms.

So you can see at higher ISO it would be very hard to read the histograms if they were showing actual real sensor ADC RAW data, and the peaks would not align for red, green, and blue since the sensor is not white balanced a 5000K, the green is more exposed, only the red and blue balance at any given K value.

In a Digital Cinema Camera you want 90% White card exposure at about 20% to 33% sensor ADC for the green pixels in order to have enough headroom for the highlights, while still having enough bits under 18% Gray to keep the noise and banding in the shadows in reason.

You can get a close guess on that by setting the camera display to ISO 160, then adjust the peak from a 90% White card to be between 20% to 33% from the left of the histogram. Then reset the ISO to 640 to 800 for monitoring. If you don't have a Kodak 90% white card, a piece of matte copy paper is close.

[Justin Marx]

The "real" RAW hisograms have all the detail under 90% white bunched up at the left side, so you can see less and less as the ISO goes up.

The monitor processed histograms have mid-tone (18% gray card) near the center at about 46% or just left of center all the time. When using the processed histograms the highlight detail is bunched together on the right side of the histogram, so the space above 90% white is less than in a real RAW sensor ADC output histogram.

The exposure points for the sensor RAW are maybe about:

ISO 160 = 90% White at 100% sensor ADC for green pixels

ISO 320 = 90% White at about 50% sensor ADC for green pixels

ISO 640 = 90% White at about 25% sensor ADC for green pixels

ISO 800 = 90% White at about 20% sensor ADC for green pixels

ISO 1280 = 90% White at about 12.5% sensor ADC for green pixels

ISO 2560 = 90% White at about 6.25% sensor ADC for green pixels

ISO 5120 = 90% White at about 3.125% sensor ADC for green pixels.

The RED and BLUE signals are about 2/3 to 1/2 the green signals in sensor RAW histograms.

So you can see at higher ISO it would be very hard to read the histograms if they were showing actual real sensor ADC RAW data, and the peaks would not align for red, green, and blue since the sensor is not white balanced a 5000K, the green is more exposed, only the red and blue balance at any given K value.

In a Digital Cinema Camera you want 90% White card exposure at about 20% to 33% sensor ADC for the green pixels in order to have enough headroom for the highlights, while still having enough bits under 18% Gray to keep the noise and banding in the shadows in reason.

You can get a close guess on that by setting the camera display to ISO 160, then adjust the peak from a 90% White card to be between 20% to 33% from the left of the histogram. Then reset the ISO to 640 to 800 for monitoring. If you don't have a Kodak 90% white card, a piece of matte copy paper is close.

Omfg, gotta stew on this for a bit to understand.. Thank you Dan!!

[Dan Hudgins]

Omfg, gotta stew on this for a bit to understand.. Thank you Dan!!

Because there should be some dark lift on the ISO 160 monitor adjusted histogram, the 90% white level may read a bit higher than that "chart" shows, like 30% rather than 20% like it would in a linear histogram.

The point of that chart is to get a better idea of what the actual sensor exposure level is for the given ISO, as the ISO setting does NOT change the sensor exposure, what changes the sensor exposure is the cameraman.

Exposing to the "right" means using the minimum headroom that you can get away with in order to decrease overall noise. But how much highlight head room you need over 90% white card subject depends on what you are shooting and how it is illuminated, does it show reflections and are they important. Oilly skin will have highlights two or more stops above 90% flat white card, so in general you need to shoot between 640 and 800 for most subjects, and at higher ISO like 2000 outdoors in sunlight where you have higher subject contrast ratios and need more highlight headroom. You can shoot at lower ISO like 400 in the open shade where the subject contrast ratios are lower.

[Mark Toia]

Can you send this to everyone who shoots with a digital camera and make them sign a pledge to use it?

Thank you. :thumbup1:

hahahahaha.. Thats funny..
For the life of me, I don't know why people make it hard for them selves. I was on set with some guys shooting EPIC, and the fiddling they were doing.. changing this, changing that.. they were trying to grade in camera I sware... I showed them my DUM ARSE SIMPLE way... and there mouths dropped. result perfect, on set on a lap top. They had plans to push there shots through hi end grading plateforms, convert to DPX.. oooooh the pain.

As I keep saying, if my 14 year old son can hold exposure, (and he does not even have a clue what a histogram looks like) then anyone can.

[paulherrin]

I would keep the camera between 320-800. It's a big sweet spot. You can go above that (I wouldn't ever go below 250) but below 800 is the clean, "noise-free" zone. You can get really good images above that, even without need for noise reduction.

If you do want to get crazy with your on set looks, and you're mostly exposing by eye, you obviously want to do as little as possible to your brightness and contrast type adjustments, as they will present you with an unrealistic view of what you're getting (or not getting!). Once you get a feel for it, you'll be able to adjust looks with more confidence. All that being said, I agree with Mark's approach. I like to see what I'm getting and as I've always worked digitally and primarily do post-production work anyways, I'm very used to "flat" images and know exactly where I can take them. It sounds like you're having fun and testing, so I'm sure you'll figure out what works best for you.

And by the way, there's no stupid questions here, and no reason to think so. In fact, this is a very good discussion to have as it is constantly evolving with the new technology... not the first time this has come up, there's about a thousand styles to shoot this camera and most of them are quite legitimately reasoned and executed.

[Justin Marx]

I would keep the camera between 320-800. It's a big sweet spot. You can go above that (I wouldn't ever go below 250) but below 800 is the clean, "noise-free" zone. You can get really good images above that, even without need for noise reduction.

If you do want to get crazy with your on set looks, and you're mostly exposing by eye, you obviously want to do as little as possible to your brightness and contrast type adjustments, as they will present you with an unrealistic view of what you're getting (or not getting!). Once you get a feel for it, you'll be able to adjust looks with more confidence. All that being said, I agree with Mark's approach. I like to see what I'm getting and as I've always worked digitally and primarily do post-production work anyways, I'm very used to "flat" images and know exactly where I can take them. It sounds like you're having fun and testing, so I'm sure you'll figure out what works best for you.

And by the way, there's no stupid questions here, and no reason to think so. In fact, this is a very good discussion to have as it is constantly evolving with the new technology... not the first time this has come up, there's about a thousand styles to shoot this camera and most of them are quite legitimately reasoned and executed.

Thanks a lot Paul! Great info here!

[paulherrin]

anytime. i should also add that if you're not using false color... you should be! it's awesome, along with the other exposure tools.

[Meryem Ersoz]

since no one has mentioned it - if you're twiddling with an in-camera look setting -

shoot a test shot of your subject - take it into REDCINE to set the look - import that look into the camera

trying to set a look off the onboard monitor in-camera isn't the way to go, to start - set it in REDCINE with a large monitor where you can see how your adjustments are affecting your footage...then export that look to the camera. the options in REDCINE match the options in the camera -

but mostly, I agree with Toia - shoot flat and you get the best possible starting point to color your frames...just saying that if you are going to fiddle with looks, do it in REDCINE first, where you can see the outcomes in advance...

[Justin Marx]

anytime. i should also add that if you're not using false color... you should be! it's awesome, along with the other exposure tools.

Of course! Love it.. Just back to my original post, if you screw with your look too much you will be exposing for your look via false color..

I think the moral of this thread:
-Keep it clean with your look via in camera look modification..

-If doing major looks, set your shot via raw, and use RED cine X to get you in the ball park. Then save that look to camera.

-Always check your RAW before pressing record

-Light as you would with FILM, don't light with your ISO or change stop just to get an exposure.. Aka, light with lights..

-Trust your tools but light with your experience..

Am I missing anything?

[Carlos Dueñas]

Am I missing anything?
Have fun ;)

[Justin Marx]

Have fun ;)

Given...... ;-)