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

Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23
  1. #11  
    Senior Member Kevin Marshall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Balitmore, MD
    Posts
    422
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike P. View Post
    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?
    Yeah, that's kind of their pitch, but it doesn't really pan out. I also got in touch with FilmConvert, and they told me that you need to double the ISO when using their IPP2 profile because "IPP2 was designed for better sensitivity." Seems to be better, but why they essentially built in a 1-stop pull in the IPP2 profile is beyond me. The Epic-W Helium DC2/RLF profile is also about a stop brighter than any other profile (including the Weapon Helium DC2/RLF), so there's weirdness all around.

    It seems to work fairly decent with other cameras' footage, so I don't know why their Red profiles are such a mess.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Toronto & Vancouver
    Posts
    3,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Marshall View Post
    Yeah, that's kind of their pitch, but it doesn't really pan out. I also got in touch with FilmConvert, and they told me that you need to double the ISO when using their IPP2 profile because "IPP2 was designed for better sensitivity." Seems to be better, but why they essentially built in a 1-stop pull in the IPP2 profile is beyond me. The Epic-W Helium DC2/RLF profile is also about a stop brighter than any other profile (including the Weapon Helium DC2/RLF), so there's weirdness all around.

    It seems to work fairly decent with other cameras' footage, so I don't know why their Red profiles are such a mess.
    It probably has to do with what you mentioned; the fact that there are a few different RED sensors now and they all use the same IPP2 and some (helium) are a stop brighter having remapped ISO (so 800 actually behaves like 800 and not 400 like on all the other sensors). Still bothersome though because they have different profiles for all the different sensors so you'd think it would've been taken care of during testing/profiling...
    Last edited by Mike P.; 05-08-2018 at 08:43 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    I documented this and sent it to FilmConvert last year. It's a bug and they just haven't bothered fixing it yet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    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.
    And DPs for the last 100 years haven't had preferences on what film stock they wanted to start from? People shoot with Alexa because "it looks like film". Almost nobody wants to start from a perfectly scientific blank slate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Senior Member Kevin Marshall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Balitmore, MD
    Posts
    422
    Quote Originally Posted by Gavin Greenwalt View Post
    I documented this and sent it to FilmConvert last year. It's a bug and they just haven't bothered fixing it yet.
    They told me it was the intended behavior, so I'm pessimistic about them fixing it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Marshall View Post
    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
    Yes, if the LUT is designed for base colour science, i.e. Log3G10 and RWG, the output curve should be set to none. Otherwise all bets are off.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Marshall View Post
    Ultimately it's all workable - I can just use the RLF preset, or add a push+sat to the IPP2 preset.
    Pushing Sat into a complex LUT designed for base colour science is not the best idea ever.

    RLF and Log3G10 are completely different gammas affecting everything else and same LUT won't work the same, regardless of the manual tweaking. Some aspects of a complex LUT cannot be adequately compensated with post tools.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gavin Greenwalt View Post
    And DPs for the last 100 years haven't had preferences on what film stock they wanted to start from? People shoot with Alexa because "it looks like film". Almost nobody wants to start from a perfectly scientific blank slate.
    In that case same LUT should be used for monitoring, affecting exposure and lighting decisions.
    Otherwise, head-scratching in post is a likely scenario.
    http://i68.tinypic.com/drcb4y.jpg


    Analog > Camera feel optimization http://omeneo.com
    Digital > Camera performance optimization http://omeneo.com/primers

    imdb


    "Como delfines en el fondo del oceano
    volamos por el universo incentivados por la esperanza"

    "L'esperanza", Sven Väth
    "It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards"
    Jung/ Carol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    In the newest version of Resolve, if you select RWG and a standard gamma curve (2.2, BT.1886, REDgamma4, etc.) in the IPP2 raw settings and then drag the contrast slider to -1.00, you get a properly exposed result with the FilmConvert IPP2 setting. Not sure if this is better or worse than raising the ISO, but they seem nearly identical.
    Last edited by Evan B; 01-18-2019 at 05:47 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Hollywood, USA
    Posts
    6,280
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike P. View Post
    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?
    It's for reasons like this that I'm not a fan. At best, I think all Film Convert does is give you some interesting and/or different looks, but I'm skeptical as to whether it really looks like a films look per se. And what I see sometimes damages the image. But I own it just on the possibility that a client will specifically ask for it. So far, they haven't.
    marc wielage, csi • colorist/post consultant • daVinci Resolve Certified Trainer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Toronto & Vancouver
    Posts
    3,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Evan B View Post
    In the newest version of Resolve, if you select RWG and a standard gamma curve (2.2, BT.1886, REDgamma4, etc.) in the IPP2 raw settings and then drag the contrast slider to -1.00, you get a properly exposed result with the FilmConvert IPP2 setting. Not sure if this is better or worse than raising the ISO, but they seem nearly identical.
    Properly exposed/matching the DC2/RG4 stuff or properly looking film emulation? Still kinda frustrating, and uncranking the contrast so much makes me apprehensive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
    It's for reasons like this that I'm not a fan. At best, I think all Film Convert does is give you some interesting and/or different looks, but I'm skeptical as to whether it really looks like a films tock per se. And what I see sometimes damages the image. But I own it just on the possibility that a client will specifically ask for it. So far, they haven't.
    I think they do some decent things with grain, and it can often look good... But, yeah, I definitely don't have a ton of faith that it's an accurate emulation.

    Originally they had comparison frames -- the filmstock shot, next to a simultaneous redmx shot, and then the redmx shot with FC on, and they looked quite close (like pixel-peep close). But I think they should've had a shoot-guide basically saying, 'you have to use these settings (proper exposure at this ISO, WB, gamma, light sources, etc.) for the most accurate results with camera xxxxxx. Outside of that your mileage my vary.' It's just tough because content captured on film is still colour corrected/graded, but FC is applied more towards the end of the chain (because of the grain)... Or maybe I've used it wrong (which, again, a guide to maximize results would be helpful).
    Last edited by Mike P.; 02-12-2019 at 12:27 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Senior Member Timur Civan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    LA - NYC
    Posts
    1,664
    The issue is as follows.

    EpicW’s (mine included) sometimes have a bug in the SDI/Prores out, that makes it look like its a stop to hot. So what happens, is the PRORES/SDI look one way, the RAW is recorded as correct to the light meter.

    This makes the LUTS you apply on RCX or DAvinci seem dark if you expose to the monitor.
    Director Of Photography
    RED Weapon Helium - Gemini
    --Official Sigma Pro--
    www.TimurCivan.com
    Timurcivan@gmail.com
    9175894424
    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