It ain't the camera: It's YOU !

[Scott Crawley]

Thanks for the figures, but the question was largely rhetorical, at least so far as capacity is concerned. What are the write speeds of the regular and turbo mags? The key is in the speed. These are Turbo Mags, not Big Fuckin' Fat mags.

According to Jim, not even 24 fps shooting at 4k is practical without compression due the the enormous amount of data that would need to be written. This isn't just a problem of capacity, but also the ability to reliably write all of that data at speed. Jim has always maintained that write speed has been the key factor in the cost of Red certified SSDs and that achieving those write speeds was absolutely critical in the successful operation of the system. This is why we use flash memory opposed to mechanical.

Consider then the amount of data coming in at 120 fps or 300 fps. Presumably it absolutely must be crushed to within mm of it's life just to get to the point where it can be written reliably. I think that is why we see a reduction in resolution at off speeds and such high compression requirements, it is because there is no alternative. These guys do not dump image data cavalierly.

Redcode and fast mags are the keys to the castle. This is why I am fairly comfortable assuming that Dragon comes with improved Redcode. Jim told us that making larger sensors was the easy part and that they were capable of that long ago. That may have been bravado, or for the benefit of the competition but I choose to take it at face value. I think the release of the entire line of Monstro sensors is dependent upon projections of Graeme's ability to hone the algorithm, and any advances in storage technology that may be in the pipeline. Maybe I'm a simpleton who should stay away from armchair project management and engineering. ;-)

No, not yet at least. The difference between the 256GB SSD and the 512 SSD are only a step apart, the increase ability to shoot for longer periods is the really the only major difference.

Turbo REDMAG Build 3.3 5K WS vs. Original REDMAG for 5K WS:

• 24 – 3:1 vs. 24 – 3:1
• 30 – 3:1 vs. 30 – 3:1
• 48 – 5:1 vs. 48 – 5:1
• 60 – 6:1 vs. 60 – 6:1
• 96 – 9:1 vs. 96 – 10:1
• 120 – 11:1 vs. 120 – 12:1

From the source http://news.doddleme.com/equipment/red-announces-epic-price-reduction-on-proprietary-ssds/

 

[Tim Watson]

A question for Mr. Will Keir-what the hell are you talking about? Epic is cleaner than anything else out there or that has ever existed. It is less noisy than any other professional video camera I have ever used, it is less noisy than 35mm film, it is way less noisy than 16mm film. I am being completely serious. I am not trying to bust your balls. I can't fathom a situation where one would complain that the epic is noisy. The only time it's noisy is when it's completely and hopelessly underexposed, and that's not the cameras fault. What situations are you in where you have noise issues? I am genuinely curious.

Nick

I completely agree with Nick. In my limited experience I have seen a "noisy" and yet perfectly exposed black suit in a Day Int scene, on a competitors camera.
While the Epic has created the Cleanest Night Ext tracking shots, (available light) Where Black was black, and clean. The cars Reflection in a glass building Was as clean as a mirror. and some well timed skateboarders were perfect in their level of detail, and lack of noise as they moved through the limited light available by street lights

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Been gone from this thread for a couple of days...

Won't comment on noise. some find it noisy, some "too clean"...

But I have some thoughts on exposure...

I think there is far too much focus on goalposts and overall exposure in images.

The best DP's I know (and I know that is indeed a subjective comment) expose for what they want the audience to see.

Usually that means getting skintones and character "right" for the scene and make decissions that makes the rest of the image support what is important, either by letting it go (into black or white) or by DOF choices or general compositions choices.
They have an idea of what they want the audience to see in the frame, and what is just a supporting part of that story.

Exposing for goalposts, is risky business, if that is your aim...

 

[Phil Holland]

I'm with you on that Gunleik.

Expose for what you want to see, and the important bit, how you want to see it.
Use the goalposts to protect yourself. Don't let them "steer the ship".

LOOM is a perfect example and something we can all see. Lots of varied exposures used properly to further the mood and the story. Wolski hits low key, high key, and well exposed midtones throughout. On that last very wide shot of the tunnel sequence I'm pretty sure the goalposts and stoplights were reporting over exposure on that sky, but that was done with a purpose. Using a gradual ND would have protected against that, but would have provided an entirely different feel which in this case wouldn't help the idea behind that sequence.

Just as much as it's an undesirable effect, overexposure is also a powerful tool. I think it's important to think how to creatively implement it and how to avoid it when it effects your shots in a negative way.

That's getting back on the what's technically a correct exposure and what a creative driven exposure is.


With that said, I often do my best to shoot a "fat" image so I can manipulate in post more freely (and wildly!). Meaning, if possible, fill up the histogram "bucket" with lots of data while keeping an eye on what can potentially hurt image quality.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Agreed Phil!.

But, I have one additional considerations, and an afterthought...

One is a bit datacentric...
A frame can only contain "so much info" datawise.
I find it better to fill that with more of the "right" info and less of the "not so much wanted" info. It is still fat, but easier to manipulate.
This is of course given that you have the lighting to make those decisions.

Afterthought
Blown highlights, crushed blacks and grain are all effects heavily used in analogue photography and films that I love.
In the digital domain - up to recently - and in TV especially, all those tools have looked "bad".
But with the current crop of cameras, these "no-no's", really start to look good again. No reason to avoid them, if they get the message through.

There are ways to shoot for very silky blacks (ETTR) and ways to shoot for high contrast and crushed.
Thing is that they do not give the same result and grain and character. So I find it good advice to try to learn to master the different ways of approaching a specific scene to get "that" tone.

SOmetimes that is through "fat"
Sometimes that is by underexposing the whole thing (gives some really fat colors!)
And sometimes it is ok to let parts/most of the image go, that being up or down, if THAT is what gives your main idea the most.

And of course, there are all the natural light situations where you just have to make "the best of it".

Just be conscious, and not too hung up in one "right" model.
There are plenty of expressions to be collected and found in photography...

 

[David Battistella]

Afterthought
Blown highlights, crushed blacks and grain are all effects heavily used in analogue photography and films that I love.
In the digital domain - up to recently - and in TV especially, all those tools have looked "bad".
But with the current crop of cameras, these "no-no's", really start to look good again. No reason to avoid them, if they get the message through.

I am so with you on this. While we know that when a pixel clips it clips and this seemed "less true" with film, I have to say that the EPIC clips in a lovely way. I mean a base image is one thing and the art of cinematography is another thing. There are so many aesthetics at play and when you factor in important things like filters, lighting, composition, the pixel peeping starts to fall aways.

I have always felt that in terms of color rendition the aesthetic of the EPIC image, when treated like film really outperforms film in grain and sharpness but you can do a lot to get it right where you want it. It doesn't have some of the limitations of film in that regard, in the freedom to really try things out and push the image.

Histograms only go so far.

I realize there many photographic situations that call for a pristine image and that is cool, but I totally hear where you are going with this point. You can indeed get some amazing looks out of the EPIC, as you have demonstrated with many of your excellent examples.

David

 

[Mark Phelan]

With that said, I often do my best to shoot a "fat" image so I can manipulate in post more freely (and wildly!). Meaning, if possible, fill up the histogram "bucket" with lots of data while keeping an eye on what can potentially hurt image quality.

+1. First person I heard drive that point home was Michael Cioni at a RED day in Lake Forest. Some of the best advice that evolved from the ETTR idea of the early days. Don't handicap yourself with a thin negative. What a perfect example and one lost on those who never have had the fun of developing their own film. Not much is more useless than a thin negative, there's nowhere to go because all the silver has been washed down the drain. All that is left is the plastic base that is pretty much worthless. Same goes for a thin image in the histogram, no place to go.

 

[Scott Crawley]

+1. First person I heard drive that point home was Michael Cioni at a RED day in Lake Forest. Some of the best advice that evolved from the ETTR idea of the early days. Don't handicap yourself with a thin negative. What a perfect example and one lost on those who never have had the fun of developing their own film. Not much is more useless than a thin negative, there's nowhere to go because all the silver has been washed down the drain. All that is left is the plastic base that is pretty much worthless. Same goes for a thin image in the histogram, no place to go.

Unless you are Gordon Willis...

 

[Mark Phelan]

Unless you are Gordon Willis...

HA! Good point. Which begs the question, had he been using the current digital fare back then, would he have given himself a thin file or a fat one and then create his look in post?

 

[Gunleik Groven]

What I am suggesting is not really a skimpy file, but...

It's more like:

Make sure you have enoughfatness in what you want. From an image, and don't spen crucial compression and encode/decode time and cycles and space in the file, for stuff you don't really need or want.

Like, I have seen hdrx kill shots, because you spend the same amount of processingpower to pricess two exposures synchronously.

If you need to shoot lowlight, bewarethat you'll have to gel to gel/filter/ettr a bit to get smooth blacks after post, OR accept the artefacts created, don't blame the cameras for physical consequence...

 

[Gunleik Groven]

In short:
The files are finite containers. Please fill them up, but fill them with as much relevant info you can and as little irrelevant info as you manage.
Compose!
Make decissions!

 

[Robert Hart]

QUOTE: "It is less noisy than 35mm film, it is way less noisy than 16mm film."

Are we talking about the slow speed Kodak stocks and a given available dynamic range? It will certainly be sharper than 16mm by the spadeful but less noisy?

If I could afford it and the X'ray scanners were not going to fog my film on its perilous journey to the lab and back, I would still be wearing the gate balls flat in my CP16 with that sweet slow speed stock.

With people commenting here about macroblocking artifacts in the Epic/Scarlett blacks because the sensor noise overwhelms the compression scheme, on the noise topic I wonder a little.

For sure, if film is pushed processed or high speed stocks are chosen and push processed and printed up to the degree an Epic can be hard driven in adverse lighting conditions, film will be noisy and maybe intolerably so. Motion picture film also cannot hope to yield the single frame grabs that the Epic can and does.


However I am a bit of a simple-minded soul. I am content to just want whichever to work - nicely. By and large, in the right hands, they all do.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Just nitpicking here... If you see macroblocking, the issue is probably something else, as that is due to dct encoding.

Have seen Matt use that word a couple of times, and been interested in screenshots, to see if that is indeed what he is seeing.

Btw, i am NOT in denyal about compression issues under certain conditions...

 

[David Battistella]

Just nitpicking here... If you see macroblocking, the issue is probably something else, as that is due to dct encoding.

Have seen Matt use that word a couple of times, and been interested in screenshots, to see if that is indeed what he is seeing.

Btw, i am NOT in denyal about compression issues under certain conditions...

id like to see screenshots as well. In the redone days I never really saw any compression in the r3d files and I have not experienced it at all myself but I tend to capture high detail scenes at 6:1 and I pretty much stick to 5k FF to always record the most resolution possible..

 

[Craig Parkes]

Craig, thanks for you voice. It's good to have perspective, still learning.

Not sure what you mean by "treelike." There are no trees in this shot. I believe you have this RIVER shot and the LAKE shot confused?

You are correct, I did have the shots and what frame rates were being shot confused, makes more sense now (but again, the same question applies - creatively shooting the river at 300FPS without additional light was pushing the edge of what the camera could do with the dark side of the rock, add in compression necessary for 300FPS recording and you are stressing your cameras capabilities significantly. As a test that's fine of course, and maybe in a practical situation you'd need the 300FPS to get the water slow enough for a creative effect, but maybe not.

 

[Vladimir Druts]

I'm not sure I can entirely agree. I think it's a mix of YOU and the camera.. The camera has its limitations specifically in DR and noise ratio. There is no denying that.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

I'm not sure I can entirely agree. I think it's a mix of YOU and the camera.. The camera has its limitations specifically in DR and noise ratio. There is no denying that.

As does any media/format you record anything to..

Trick is to be in charge and find out how to use it good, vs giving in because it does not something ou think it "should" do.

 

[Nick Morrison]

QUOTE: "It is less noisy than 35mm film, it is way less noisy than 16mm film."

Are we talking about the slow speed Kodak stocks and a given available dynamic range? It will certainly be sharper than 16mm by the spadeful but less noisy?

If I could afford it and the X'ray scanners were not going to fog my film on its perilous journey to the lab and back, I would still be wearing the gate balls flat in my CP16 with that sweet slow speed stock.

With people commenting here about macroblocking artifacts in the Epic/Scarlett blacks because the sensor noise overwhelms the compression scheme, on the noise topic I wonder a little.

For sure, if film is pushed processed or high speed stocks are chosen and push processed and printed up to the degree an Epic can be hard driven in adverse lighting conditions, film will be noisy and maybe intolerably so. Motion picture film also cannot hope to yield the single frame grabs that the Epic can and does.


However I am a bit of a simple-minded soul. I am content to just want whichever to work - nicely. By and large, in the right hands, they all do.

When properly exposed, Epic is w/out a doubt much cleaner than Film. In American Cinematographer that was the big "take away" when they were shooting The Amazing Spiderman on Epic. The RED media was SO MUCH CLEANER than film, that all the VFX had to be RE-RENDERED because it looked noisy by comparison. Usually...the VFX is CLEANER than Film and has to have "grain" added to match. But on Spiderman...it was the opposite...it wasn't CLEAN ENOUGH!

 

[Nick Morrison]

I'm not sure I can entirely agree. I think it's a mix of YOU and the camera.. The camera has its limitations specifically in DR and noise ratio. There is no denying that.

You may see limitations (compared to what? An Alexa? Valhalla?)...but compared to all the DSLR crap we (personally) have been shooting on for years, even our Scarlets seem like HEAVEN to us. We did a shoot in Florida last week with tons of shadows and sun, and the Scarlet's DR CRUSHED IT. Here's a frame grab:

 

[David Battistella]

Nice image nick!

just wanted to mention that the thread title has a double meaning.

It ain't the camera (messing up the images) it's you!

or

it ain't the camera, it's you (making great images)

i think both are true, but we know that great craftsmen never blame their tools, they just understand them better than anyone else.


david