Ask Mike Most Anything

[M Most]

Mike, I'd love to know: if you were in RED's shoes, what would you prioritize?

Good question. Read on.

How can RED help you win over all of the other folks ? Or should they just double down on image quality and value and eventually the haters will come around to the RED way because it is so far ahead in price / performance?

First off, I don't use terms like "haters" because at the level of the industry I'm usually working with, decisions like camera choices have little to do with emotion and a lot to do with needs, be they practical, physical, or financial. Now, that said, in the network/cable level television industry in which I spend most of my time, what Red sees as its biggest strength is, ironically, probably its single biggest Achilles heel, and that's their devotion to constant change. In the television business, stability is usually what's desired, and that's one of the reasons for the current dominance of the Alexa in my world. I have my own issues with Arri's choice of Apple ProRes as a standard recording codec, but one of the things it does bring to the table is stability over a wide range of software and for an extended length of time. With each revision of camera firmware and the SDK, Red often breaks what was already out there with the promise of an improved iteration. And that's usually been the case, each new release has been somehow better than the next. But the television business is about making a series of shows that need some commonality in terms of the work path and formats used over a period of many months, something that the rapid pace of change with Red doesn't really serve very well. The ease with which the ProRes files can be played and viewed on just about any computer that isn't based on Linux, using nothing more than Quicktime Player, gives a perception of simplicity and stability that is very appealing to those who just want things to work. They really don't want to hear about debayering, RAW, or anything else. So if I were to offer an opinion on what prevented Red from wider acceptance in the television community, it's probably that something else came along that seemed to have some of the same advantages in terms of flexibility (grading from LogC is quite simple, and bears a great resemblance to grading from RedlogFilm), but appeared more stable and simpler, as well as producing images that cameramen happened to like for aesthetic reasons I won't get into. If Red wants to regain footing in the television market, I would say they need to slow down a bit (which is not really in their DNA), emphasize stability, and offer a recording module that can record accepted, standard HD formats that can be encoded using RedlogFilm and a selected color matrix (Redcolor, Redcolor2) even if it seems a step backwards to them. The on board RAW recording can remain, and those files can be used when blowups and repositions are desired since those derive great benefit from the higher resolution. But whether they believe in it or not, what the television market wants is great images, simplicity, stability, and files that are already in the format they use. You don't see Arri really pushing ArriRAW in the television market because they understand that what ArriRAW brings to the table is much more significant in the feature market. Red doesn't seem to make that distinction, and although I kind of admire their unbending devotion to 4K and RAW, it's also what's keeping them out of a market that's pretty significant, certainly in terms of visibility.

Keep the focus on R3D grading... or offer an Alexa-like onboard ProRes / DNxHD workflow as well?

I think I just answered that. Serves me right for going off on tangents....

What would you work on most in future sensors / imaging pipelines - Colorimetry? Latitude? Sensitivity? Medium Format? Frame rate? Price? And how about that 4K laser projector and RedRay?

A lot of that is going to be as an answer to competition, and not necessarily to things that are needed by the industry. Sensors will improve in all of the areas you mention as a matter of course. The numbers game is going to constantly be played. Today it's Red at 5K, tomorrow it will be Sony at 8K, then ....???? Red at 10K? At some point it stops being about real improvement and starts being about numbers, but I hope it's not just about that. As for a projector, I think there are probably better things for Red to spend their time on, but I'm not Jim, and I'm not their product manager. Personally, I'd like to see them innovate in things like the supporting software, because I think the current metaphor for things like color correction could stand a serious update. I've discussed a number of ideas for that privately with Jim, but there has to be a development agenda for both their current and future products, and at the moment, that agenda seems to point elsewhere. RedRay has had perhaps the longest gestation period of any codec in history, and it's still not released. I'm not really going to prognosticate as to its near or long term relevance, time will tell on that. Personally, I'd like to see a single minded dedication to the cameras and what they produce, and leave the distribution to others, but that doesn't seem to be Red's way. So what I think doesn't really matter, but I do think if they move into other product areas, it shouldn't happen until they finish what they currently have on their plate.

I'd also love to hear what you think Blackmagic, AJA, Avid and Adobe should be doing.

I would start by saying that I think all of those companies are doing a lot of things right, and they're all doing it in ways that both complement and extend their existing products, a very wise approach. Blackmagic has really impressed me with their handling of the DaVinci line, something I was concerned about when the purchase was first announced, and even more concerned about when the pricing structure was revealed. But to my surprise and amazement, they have done exactly what they said they were going to do in terms of stabilizing, improving, and modernizing Resolve, so more power to them. AJA continues to innovate and they do it while maintaining a very high level of quality and reliability, something to be admired. Avid and Adobe are both seizing the opportunity afforded by the unexpected stumble of Apple in the pro editing market, and I'm glad to see that. In terms of what I think they should be doing, I think Blackmagic and AJA should continue doing exactly what they're already doing. For Avid, I'd like to see some specific things, such as simpler, more open, and more reliable relinking of non-native formats by allowing various criteria rather than the predefined fields that MC insists on at the moment. I'd also like to see resolution independence, which probably means killing DS, but so be it. They are already moving towards an open API for third party hardware, and that's something I really applaud. With Adobe, I've long been a user of Photoshop and After Effects, and those programs are being constantly improved. As for Premiere Pro, well, it doesn't really have significant presence in my world and so I really can't offer an informed opinion. They seem to be doing things right, though, as a lot of people here and elsewhere seem to be singing their praises.

[M Most]

We are using Assimilate Scratch for grading and following RECOLOR2 and REDFILMLOG for grading with a film LUT applied. The 3D LUT has been made by profiling the HP dreamcolor monitor and then making LUT depending on the stock it will be printed .
Do you also use a print LUT when using REDCOLOR@ and REDLOGFILM or should we grade on HP monitor color space of P3 and use an inverse LUT?

As I discussed earlier, I've largely abandoned the film targeted DI approach, but I'm not going to tell you that you can't work that way. If you prefer the results you get by going that route, by all means continue to go that route. As for the monitor, one of the problems with trying to emulate P3 on a monitor is that the 2.6 gamma and overall brightness levels used in the P3 specification are based on dark room viewing conditions, those you'd find in a projection theater. Since calibration usually means that the exact values called for by the specification are used, it creates a mismatch between the large screen/dark room conditions that the specification was designed for, and the small screen/not-quite-so-dark room conditions you're probably viewing it in. The P3 white point and chromaticity can be emulated, but the projection based viewing conditions cannot, so what you're seeing is not really an accurate portrayal of what you're trying to see. If you're using a monitor, you should be setting up conditions that are appropriate to a small screen, light emitting device, and that would probably mean Rec709 (whose brightness and white point are more appropriate to those conditions). You can use properly designed LUT's to get you to P3 based on the decisions you make, but without a projection environment, the display of P3 primaries, white point, and brightness level is really not getting you much. But if you really want to work that way, turn the lights off and get the viewing environment pretty dark so that your eyes can at least begin to judge the image they're being presented with in a somewhat accurate way.

[paulherrin]

maybe this is a silly question... but with what ideas in mind does one go about creating a look for a film or a spot, or even a single shot? how do you go about creative grading?

[Harcharan Singh]

but without a projection environment, the display of P3 primaries, white point, and brightness level is really not getting you much

Hi,

So can we go for any DLA projector such as JVC DLA series with HDMI output?

Thanks

Harcharan

[M Most]

maybe this is a silly question... but with what ideas in mind does one go about creating a look for a film or a spot, or even a single shot? how do you go about creative grading?

I can only speak for myself on that subject, because every colorist has their own process. In my case, I have always worked under the assumption that creative direction comes primarily from the cinematographer and the director. In the best case scenario, you're working with either one or both of them in a collaborative situation, and in the "best of the best" scenario, they give you direction in a very similar manner to directing actors, by telling you the emotional intent of the shot or scene, how it fits into the story, any story points that need to be punctuated visually, and any time of day feelings they want to enhance. Sometimes they give you something specific, which is fine, but I find that the colorist's creative contribution is often elevated when he is treated as a collaborative contributor to the process. I can't really say that there are any rules in any of this, other than latching on to what is in front of you and trying to see the nuances that would benefit from either less or more subtlety. For instance, if a scene is lit from light streaming through a window, you might want to enhance that by using an area isolation (aka Power Windown in DaVinci parlance..), some diffusion, playing with the saturation in the lit area, etc. Color is a more specific thing, and any time something is radically changed from the original photography, it needs to be done with the support of the creative team and with the emotional line of the piece maintained. In trying to enhance images, I usually try to bring out separation and depth. What I mean by that is to avoid color "washes" unless they're intentional, and separate objects in the shot by playing with contrast and getting the color balance just right so that the objects take on their original colors, which in the real world are almost always subtlety different. Separating those objects gives the image depth. And I'm not talking about the kind of depth that stereoscopic 3D creates, I'm talking about photographic depth, which to me is much more artistic, much more pleasing, and much more emotionally involving. So I guess what I'm saying is that there are some basic approaches, but since the colorist is not usually the creator of the images, "creative grading" is usually a collaborative process done with an emotionally motivated goal, not just playing with colors until you see something interesting.

[M Most]

Hi,

So can we go for any DLA projector such as JVC DLA series with HDMI output?

I wouldn't say "any" projector, but if you want to work in a P3 environment, you need to be able to set it up to properly display that color space at the proper gamma and brightness. You can achieve that with LUTs to some degree, but you're better off with a projector that has been designed to contain P3 within its projectable gamut. The DILA projectors are OK, and are particularly nice for Rec709 work, but the P3 color space was specifically designed around DLP technology, so you might want to keep that in mind.

[Chris Parker]

I actually have a question, which is about transcoding for TV work. I remember that you (Mike) said something to the effect that since most TV shows are still being edited on AVID's, there is a transcoding step involved even when shooting ProRes on an Alexa, but is there a time or cost difference in terms of transcoding from 4K HD R3D files to whatever deliverables are needed for TV post versus transcoding from ProRes to, again, whatever is needed for TV post? All the delivery formats get a bit confusing. In the end, are most TV shows finishing to a 24P HDCAM-SR tape master, 4:2:2 or 4:4:4? Color-corrected to Rec.709?

David,

On all the TV series we are handling dailies for, whether capturing .r3d or ProRes as the in-camera master, the process is very similar. Although AVID will have you believe that cutting native ProRes is easy, when dealing with tight deadlines of the high end TV world, it is not practical, and a transcode into DNxHD 36 is the norm (or ProRes Proxy for Final Cut based editorial departments). The time and cost is pretty much the same either way for the production.

And for the record, great thread!!

[mikeburton]

Hi Mike,

Was wondering if you could share some of your favorite monitoring options, LCD's, Plasma's, CRT's, projectors etc? For example, if you were to build your own studio right now from the ground up, what would be your preference and why? I know this is a loaded question but I'm sure its one that many would be interested to hear. Thanks in advance.

[M Most]

Hi Mike,

Was wondering if you could share some of your favorite monitoring options, LCD's, Plasma's, CRT's, projectors etc? For example, if you were to build your own studio right now from the ground up, what would be your preference and why? I know this is a loaded question but I'm sure its one that many would be interested to hear. Thanks in advance.

I really like projection for a number of reasons. The image is big (nice for my old tired eyes), the dark room with a large screen allows for a good deal of bounce back, which creates a kind of natural ambient light that I find comfortable, and most of all, DLP Cinema projectors are probably the single most stable, consistent monitoring devices we've ever had. But not everything belongs in a DI theater, so for television work, that's usually not an option. CRT's are still the most accurate without presenting other problems, and the facility that I work in now has 24 inch CRT's in most of the grading rooms, in addition to a plasma (either 42" or 50" depending on the size of the room). The plasmas are considered client monitors, but they are well matched to the CRT's. The problem with plasmas is that they tend to show severe banding during picture fades, and they sometimes display strange artifacts, like smearing on certain colors. While far from perfect, they're still pretty good, and the off axis performance (i.e., viewing angle width) is excellent, easily the best of all flat screen technologies short of OLED. I used to really dislike LCD's, but I find myself warming up the better ones as a substitute for the CRT in a small screen size that's color accurate. Both the Dreamcolor and the Flanders units are pretty good in terms of color accuracy and off axis performance, but as with all LCD's, the apparent black level is often dependent on the ambient light in the viewing environment. If that's set up correctly, those two monitors can be very accurate, and pretty comfortable to use as a primary display.

If I were to build something today that was intended for television work, I might consider having a Flanders or Dreamcolor LCD along with a plasma that would serve as both a secondary display for me, and a client monitor for, well, clients. OLED displays are coming and becoming more affordable and a bit larger, so in the future I would likely look at replacing the LCD with OLED as a primary display for television work. And if budget was really tight, the plasma alone could easily do the job in most cases. For a DI theater, it would be DLP Cinema, hands down. NEC, Christie, and Barco all make great projectors for that purpose.

[Luis Otero]

Hi,

So can we go for any DLA projector such as JVC DLA series with HDMI output?

Thanks

Harcharan

The best thing is to have your projector set to normal setting. Then profile it, and LUTs will take you to any colorspace you need (P3, Rec.709, sRGB, etc.).