Thread: FilmConvert's IPP2 profile looks terrible - what an I missing?

Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23
  1. #1 FilmConvert's IPP2 profile looks terrible - what am I missing? 
    Senior Member Kevin Marshall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Balitmore, MD
    Posts
    426
    Anybody using FilmConvert with their IPP2 preset? I've been testing it out, and while the DC2/RLF profiles are a bit dark (except the Epic-W one which is brighter for some reason), changing the footage to RWG/Log3g10 and FilmConvert's IPP2 profile makes the image vastly under exposed (roughly 1 1/3 stop), and heavily desaturated. I need to either boost the ISO (i.e. from 800 to 2000), or up the exposure in FilmConvert to around 16 to get the base exposure the same as in-camera.

    Does anyone know why there's such a disparity between the FilmConvert options?

    EDIT: Here's a quick comparison:
    Last edited by Kevin Marshall; 04-07-2018 at 03:58 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member Aaron Lochert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    1,158
    FilmConvert is hard to trust, if you test all the different color space/gamma combos with their respective FilmConvert profiles, even while even staying on the same camera, you'll notice every single one looks different. So it's hard to say what's what.

    I would imagine there's a 1 stop discrepancy thrown in there somewhere from them either matching old RED profiles to Alexa brightness, or compensating for the IPP2 ISO Calibration 2, or something like that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member Kevin Marshall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Balitmore, MD
    Posts
    426
    Yeah, I wondered if the recalibration played some factor in the difference between the Weapon Helium preset (darker lime the Dragon) and the Epic-W Helium preset (brighter as seen). But no clue why the IPP2 preset looks so bad. It actually looks more correct with the RAW settings on Rec.709 instead of RWG. It's all just very odd.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member Aaron Lochert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    1,158
    I don't think it looks bad, it just needs a 0.5 stop boost on the exposure slider and a node with some saturation behind it.

    IPP2 - Hard/Soft


    FilmConvert - 0.5+ exposure in raw tab, 100% Saturation node, FilmConvert 5213 - Dragon IPP2.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member Kevin Marshall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Balitmore, MD
    Posts
    426
    Yeah - I think FilmConvert just has a very aggressive toe with IPP2 for some reason. Here's another example (pulling from RED's samples). Using the RLF preset is a little under (but fine), whereas the IPP2 preset is a further 1 stop below the RLF preset:



    Ultimately it's all workable - I can just use the RLF preset, or add a push+sat to the IPP2 preset. I just don't know why they don't match to begin with - the various RLF presets match pretty well across sensors (except the Epic-W one). I want to mess around with creating camera LUTs, but I was hoping RWG/3g10 would've been less fiddly on FilmConvert's part.
    Last edited by Kevin Marshall; 04-07-2018 at 10:00 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Helsinki
    Posts
    181
    3g10 maps the mid gray lower than Redlogfilm, so if the filmconvert transforms are not compensating for that, then the image will be quite a bit darker.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Hollywood, USA
    Posts
    6,363
    My advice would be not to use this and instead color-correct the image in a real color-correction program. Every lighting situation is different, every director and DP want a different kind of image, so you need something with more variability and more range than just a set of presets. Having the ability to change brightness in different parts of the image at the same time is important, as is having the ability to gradually make an exposure change when the actor walks into light or into shadow. You can't do this with a program like this.

    I don't dispute there are people who need fast and simple tools to just get out a very quick image, but I think you're better off just turning the knobs yourself and doing it by hand.
    marc wielage, csi • colorist/post consultant • daVinci Resolve Certified Trainer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member Kevin Marshall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Balitmore, MD
    Posts
    426
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
    My advice would be not to use this and instead color-correct the image in a real color-correction program. Every lighting situation is different, every director and DP want a different kind of image, so you need something with more variability and more range than just a set of presets. Having the ability to change brightness in different parts of the image at the same time is important, as is having the ability to gradually make an exposure change when the actor walks into light or into shadow. You can't do this with a program like this.

    I don't dispute there are people who need fast and simple tools to just get out a very quick image, but I think you're better off just turning the knobs yourself and doing it by hand.
    Absolutely. I've been using Resolve for about five years now, and Apple Color before that when I was in school. I know a few people that are into the film emulation LUTs like Impulz, but I avoid them as I feel like I'm working against the LUTs to get a sensible image back, adding unnecessary time and complexity. The extra controls available in FilmConvert as an OFX plugin I feel are more helpful in essentially customizing the LUT - specifically getting away from "presets", and making the rest of grading more like normal.

    I also wanted the ability to export those into a LUT for camera/monitor usage (e.g. creating a show LUT), and wanted to avoid essentially concatenating LUTs, so again making those adjustments within the FilmConvert framework before exporting would be simpler and less prone to artifacts (based on my understanding).

    All this to say that I just wanted to make sure the problem was on their end, and not a glitch or user error - like if their IPP2 profile was expecting something other than RWG/3g10 as input. But it looks like their IPP2 transform is worse than their legacy one, so I'll either avoid it or work within its constraints.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member Kevin Marshall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Balitmore, MD
    Posts
    426
    In case anyone else cares about this - I think I've figured it out. Since the profile is labeled IPP2, I thought it might be meant to actually work in IPP2 as a Creative LUT, i.e. with no actual output transform. So I lowered the Curve setting to zero, leaving a Log3g10 image, and put one of the IPP2 LUTs in the next node. The curve looked fine, but the image was oversaturated, so I dropped the saturation control from 100 to aruond 40-50 depending on the selected stock. I personally felt it consistently pushed the image too magenta, so I put a bit of green either in the RAW tint or the Filmcovert Midtones.

    I'm happy because this means I can use FilmConvert as I had hoped - as an in-camera LUT as well as in post, it can work well within RED's IPP2 workflow, and I can still grade normally.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Toronto & Vancouver
    Posts
    3,994
    It does seem kinda weird; you would expect that all the different gammas/colourspaces (regardless of the camera even) should match or be relatively close to the film stock they're emulating when you select the correct source. If not, than why bother having the different profiles at all?

    Hell, ideally, if I had a 5D3/Standard "converted" to 5213, it should look relatively close to RED/IPP2 converted to 5213... And both should look close to 5213, otherwise what the hell is the point of FC?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts