Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Shut up and shoot that RED (NSFW)

Gunleik Groven said:
Closeup of eye

Of course there is noise at 1600 iso,

I just call it "texture" :)
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting that. I think that the 5K sensor, as old as it is, is so good that nobody needs to have a desire for Dragon. Sure, Dragon is better, but MX is just so good anyway IMHO. I'm talking from a stills perspective, of course. There's nothing wrong with noise/grain at high ISO.

There's some lovely shots in #212. My favourite there is the one where the girl has the scarf over her right shoulder. And what a lovely model. :-)

In post #216, the first shot of the park is very atmospheric - I like the muted yet strong colours there. But the one after shows the limitations of digital capture: its harsh treatment of blown highlights and neon colours; and purple shadows in the trees.

Technical question: I don't yet have a computer that can run Redcine, but can you export frames as DNG? The reason is that I'd like to be able to use Aperture or DxO for editing and correction. DxO is powerful but I don't think it supports the RED sensor yet, irrespective of format. And I don't think that DxO even supports DNG. Too bad because its correction tools are great. E.g. it does NR before debayering.
 
Greg F said:
Ahh Reality! One can chose to see what they want, as well was tagged NSFW so its not like its unknown! its known unknowns 0_o
Click to expand...

Tim Buchheister said:
I`m not impressed at all. Sorry
Click to expand...



I was quite in doubt about posting this stuff here...
Initially.

And then I see that

A) i get some replies
B) a lot of people follow it

But to me the next question is actually important.

What do you like/dislike with the images.

If you have a general dislike of nudity in images, I can understand that.
I was very ambivalent about that myself for a long while.

But if it is how they are done or technical stuff, I am really interested in that feedback.

I think I am (at least for myself) trying to balance a knifes edge, but I want to try to do that without losing an edge... :-)

So feedback on dislike is actually very welcome!

As long as there is a "because" involved.

To me it is important to think through and be pronounciated about why and how I do stuff.

These things.

And episodics for children.

I do both...

Cheers

G
 
@ Karim

AFAIK that is not possible, and I doubt RED will ever let the debayering happen out of their SDK. It has some historical merit. It was initially possible, but when competing solutions came along from Cineform and Iridas, RED shut that door.
It is a kind of "it is like that" issue.

I have seen "backroom" demos of software doing the debayering even after that, but RED will most likely not allow for that, and in the grand scheme, I think that has led us all to prosper as REDS own tools have had the chance to mature.
REDs controll over Red RAW/REDCODE is REDs main asset, and when we finally get to see that to trickle down to REDCODE RGB (which has ben around internally for a few years now according to posts by Jim, and which is the base for RED RAY), I think that decission will make a lot more sense.
Also. The debayering now is very good.

AND the 16 bit tiffs have the headroom to contain "all" info. If you export them (or DPX/EXR) in 16 bit linear with "flat" settings, you have the full unaltered image and can use whatever tool you prefer to treat the signal and channels. It is basically as "raw" as RAW.

Now...
Whether that is always a practical approach, that is a whole other issue.
I think it is better to judge what is needed on a per image/scene base- (also for moving images. After all, that is what I actually really work with...)
And in that judgement, I find it helpful to have a conceptual idea of what linear light means, what ISO changes do with the image and how white-balancing affects the signals in the three channels.

If you have that knowledge, you are pretty much in control...
 
703585_10151311441805126_514267878_o.jpg


465644_10151311441825126_2138872414_o.jpg


705204_10151311441845126_1242673003_o.jpg
 
704239_10151311444915126_825738696_o.jpg


Some more Vogue love...

THis is BTW on my old ZEISS glass... Which cost about 250 with a glued on PL mount...

Soft but the softness gets gentle... :)
 
622199_10151311629645126_237613501_o.jpg


@ Karim

That question of yours made me do a couple of tests...

As to how to get less noise from an underexposed image.

This is what I tried

5600/800/RLF

5600/4000/RLF

5600/800/linear

There is NO question the linear gives the smoothest image
 
Thanks Gunleik,

I've loved his thread. Your imagery is fantastic and really does the price reduction justice. I'm only hoping they could bring the price down a bit more and then maybe we could all produce work like this - I don't know how your doing it but those images pull you right in, they have a subtle, texture that is inviting and a bit secret (and quite low in price). I'm trying to find a cab driver to take my Epic off me in return for a trip to the station, but the barstards want cash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top