Thread: "Blue noise" in the shadows. How do you shoot "black"??

Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 41
  1. #31  
    Senior Member Kevin Marshall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    356
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike P. View Post
    Sorry Arnold... I just figured since I put the whole word in there people would know what I meant. I'm one of those people that prefer home-made (but strongly implied) short forms to most other industry standards (particularly acronyms). My bad?

    But, yeah, the original .r3d looks like it's under tungsten (confirmed by Matt above), which doesn't help the blacks... That, in conjunction with the 400 ISO and slight underexposure, definitely don't help the blue-channel in the shadows. By the way, the blue channel is "weaker" on all daylight balanced CMOS sensors... something to do with R, G, and B's wavelengths (which are different) all hitting one plane/sensor (whereas with triple CCD cams, there was an entire sensor dedicated to just blue light.)**

    **take all that with a grain of salt, as it's just how I understood it (and I have a tendency to simplify things.)
    Just a quick note - shooting at 400 ISO would actually result in a more overexposed image than one shot at 800 ISO, not an underexposed one. Think about it: you're gonna open up a stop more at 400 than you would at 800 to get the same exposure on-screen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by Justin Marx View Post
    Be careful white balancing... I find it really messes with tint and makes things look like shit
    Do you mean be careful about white balancing in camera or cine-x? And as long as you white balance to the correct temperature, what should you be afraid of?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike P. View Post
    But, yeah, the original .r3d looks like it's under tungsten (confirmed by Matt above), which doesn't help the blacks...
    Why is that? Is it because the tungsten key light spills into the shadows (even though it didn't visually illuminate them in this case), and the sensor picked up that warm light in the shadows which inspired more noise (because the X sensor doesn't like tungsten)? Thanks so much for this feedback! It's really helping me out!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #34  
    Senior Member Kevin Marshall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    356
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Williams View Post
    Why is that? Is it because the tungsten key light spills into the shadows (even though it didn't visually illuminate them in this case), and the sensor picked up that warm light in the shadows which inspired more noise (because the X sensor doesn't like tungsten)? Thanks so much for this feedback! It's really helping me out!
    No, it's because silicon isn't as sensitive to blue (as pointed out by Scott earlier), so you need more blue light to get adequate exposure to prevent noise in the blue channel - hence why daylight tends to be rendered cleaner than tungsten. When you try to balance to tungsten, you're essentially applying gain in the blue channel to normalize the image. The ideal WB would be around 500K (if I remember correctly).

    That said, I've been working on a feature that's using a lot of tungsten lighting with the camera at 800 ISO, and that footage looks pretty fine. In my experience, it's only in darker situations (like your black background) that are affected adversely.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #35  
    REDuser Sponsor
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,719
    Follow my mantra:

    Rate the camera at 800

    Rate the Camera at 800

    Rate the Camera at 800

    Don't Rate the camera at 400

    Don't Rate the Camera at 320

    Don't rate the camera at 500

    Rate the camera at 800

    Rate the camera at 800

    You will be able to make nicer pictures. Someone a few posts before mentioned why - and yes - you are right.

    Rating at 800 will just open you up to a less dense negative.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #36  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    695
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Marshall View Post
    Just a quick note - shooting at 400 ISO would actually result in a more overexposed image than one shot at 800 ISO, not an underexposed one. Think about it: you're gonna open up a stop more at 400 than you would at 800 to get the same exposure on-screen.
    Depends how you define the image and it depends how you define "shooting at ISO 400" :)

    Is it the image the raw data or viewable corrected result? One could be overexposed and the other could be underexposed depending on the case. Is "shooting" exposing and adjusting the camera setting or just adjusting the camera setting for that value?
    Noah Yuan-Vogel | noahyv.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #37  
    Senior Member Kevin Marshall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    356
    Quote Originally Posted by Noah Yuan-Vogel View Post
    Depends how you define the image and it depends how you define "shooting at ISO 400" :)

    Is it the image the raw data or viewable corrected result? One could be overexposed and the other could be underexposed depending on the case. Is "shooting" exposing and adjusting the camera setting or just adjusting the camera setting for that value?
    I guess more what I was getting at was, in an example: shooting an f/4 at ISO 400 would be more exposed than f/5.6 at ISO 800 - and so shooting at ISO 400 instead of ISO 800 would likely not be (on it's own) a contributing factor to noise in the shadows. I had taken Mike's post to be intimating that it would.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #38  
    Senior Member Will Keir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    4,561
    I can't seem to find the white balance key in the epic menu. My tint is 27!!! How do I do a proper white balance with my epic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Justin Marx View Post
    Be careful white balancing... I find it really messes with tint and makes things look like shit
    Will Keir
    Creative Director ~ Jumping Rock Pictures
    Epic X & Dragon #2482 / R1 #3033
    Zeiss MKII Super Speeds Lenses

    "Why I choose film?
    The friendships, the adventure, the art."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #39  
    Senior Member Michael Millichamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    1,097
    Quote Originally Posted by Will Keir View Post
    I can't seem to find the white balance key in the epic menu. My tint is 27!!! How do I do a proper white balance with my epic?
    Hold down the white balance icon on the top of your lcd, then that opens up a sub menu where you can manually insert everything, including your tint.
    Scarlet-X #81 "Johansson"

    New short film: Necrophilia: A Love Story

    Donate to our Kickstarter!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #40  
    Senior Member Björn Benckert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    3,250
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Iannone View Post
    I too would like to know what people are using for reducing noise. So far, I've heard that Neat Video is excellent and Resolve does well also.
    Any demoniac or denoise filter will do quite well, most FX an CC packages has such a nodes/functions.
    Björn Benckert
    Creative Lead & Founder Syndicate Entertainment AB
    +46855524900 www.syndicate.se
    Flame - 3D - Epic - HAWK C 35-135mm - Milo MoCo - Droidworx Mikrokopter
    Reply With Quote  
     

Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

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