Histogram not tightly enclosed by raw-bars as in manual

[Chris McKechnie]

Here's the sample

[Christian Mario Löhr]

I seem to have a similar issue with my scarlet. I've been running 3.0 from the beginning and have tried reflashing and recalibrating but nothings changed. In my case the histogram shows underexposed areas a it should, with the histogram touching the left goal post. While overexposing the right goal post shows me that the image is clipping but the histogram doesn't touch the goal post. I've attached some photos below, I apologise for the bad quality. I shot them on my phone. Any ideas?

IMAG0154.jpgIMAG0155.jpgIMAG0156.jpg

[Andy White]

I seem to have a similar issue with my scarlet. I've been running 3.0 from the beginning and have tried reflashing and recalibrating but nothings changed. In my case the histogram shows underexposed areas a it should, with the histogram touching the left goal post. While overexposing the right goal post shows me that the image is clipping but the histogram doesn't touch the goal post. I've attached some photos below, I apologise for the bad quality. I shot them on my phone. Any ideas?

What ISO where you in for this? Looks like 640?

I say this as if you're in 800 you'll get the full parade - but in lower ISO's you'll stop before the goalposts (in increments).

I'd presumed this was normal... might be wrong?

[Christian Mario Löhr]

What ISO where you in for this? Looks like 640?

I say this as if you're in 800 you'll get the full parade - but in lower ISO's you'll stop before the goalposts (in increments).

I'd presumed this was normal... might be wrong?

Hey Andy,
I had the camera set to ISO 800. I'll give 640 and lower ISOs a shot tomorrow and see if there's a difference.

[ShaunMavronicolas]

This looks to be the normal behavior... on both our Scarlet and Epic (3.0 firmware), ISO 320 or 800, it makes no difference, the histogram will never get any closer to the upper goal post - that gap is always present. It was the same on 2.05 firmware. Wish this could be resolved, it makes sense that the histogram should touch the last goal post at clipping, sadly it doesn't. Our REDONE worked as it should.

[Andy White]

This looks to be the normal behavior... on both our Scarlet and Epic (3.0 firmware), ISO 320 or 800, it makes no difference, the histogram will never get any closer to the upper goal post - that gap is always present. It was the same on 2.05 firmware. Wish this could be resolved, it makes sense that the histogram should touch the last goal post at clipping, sadly it doesn't. Our REDONE worked as it should.

Are you monitoring RAW by any chance?

As that will cause this gap... as it's direct output and won't be changed by any of the (meta data) ISO's.

I'm looking at an Epic-X now, still on 2.0.8 - and when in RAW mode, this happens... and when not, I get touching the upper post at 800 and stepped degrees apart when using lower ISO's.

[ShaunMavronicolas]

Andy... yes, you are right, monitoring RAW. However, i just did the test again... it makes no difference, RAW or not, same gap. It does not change. Tested on Scarlet. I just did the test with the Epic too, same deal, gap is still there.

Tests with version 3 of firmware. Never tried this test on 2.05, only recall monitoring in RAW, so can't test that.

[Brant Hadfield]

I'm not sure if this is related or not....but Scarlet's video peak and SMPTE bars output of the HD-SDI max out at about 88% on a waveform. I have asked someone at Red about this, and have posted at least 1 link on this forum asking what people are doing about calibrating the output properly, and I've had no explanation nor reply to be honest. I'm not saying there's not a good reason, or a way to adjust the output to peak where it should. I just haven't heard anything yet.

[Andy White]

Andy... yes, you are right, monitoring RAW. However, i just did the test again... it makes no difference, RAW or not, same gap. It does not change. Tested on Scarlet. I just did the test with the Epic too, same deal, gap is still there.

Tests with version 3 of firmware. Never tried this test on 2.05, only recall monitoring in RAW, so can't test that.

Just as a final test (as this is a bit of a quirk IMO) - when you are not monitoring in RAW, did you turn off in the Menu or did you press the RAW button again?

I've noticed that the menu options turn off/on - but with RAW, it's an individual on/off switch within the menu...

If it's not that, then I'm out of ideas!

Odd that this is always the behavior you've seen... there must be a logical answer to this :)

[ShaunMavronicolas]

Hey Andy... using the menu or the side assigned button to switch RAW on/off yields the same results, as should be the case.

So then is it true that this issue is unique to just a handful of us and that no one else has the "gap"? Really?