9 1/2 stops...

[number6]

There have been times over the past year when I thought "Boy, I wish I knew more about this dopey DOP stuff and this grippy and gaffy stuff... now, I think I may have been better off starting with a clean slate (read: blank mind). I am confident with what I've heard about Build 16 that I WILL be able to shoot passable footage, and WILL be able to grade that footage.

I go forth with no fear. WHERE'S MY STUFF!!!

 

[Jason Sinclair]

Is it fair enough to say that the DR if properly tested using this camera must be taken into account using the full process of the raw workflow and some dp's have only been testing using the image directly out of the camera, and therfore all testing must take into account the processsing (just as it does in film) if it is to be representative in a reality workflow? Or am i just on a different planet?

 

[Chris Nuzzaco]

I'm anticipating/hoping for 11.something stops when I get under the hood tomorrow. As for how much is usable, thats debatable, especially given that this camera's compression is improving more and more.

By the way, I finally jumped into Red Alert! for a more critical analysis of some Red footage. I'm feeling much more oriented now that I've been able to get a good look at some files set to Linear Light with the DRX code turned off, as well as the matrix and curves disabled. OH... and yes, I dialed in ISO 100 too..

Everything makes so much more sense now, but I have to say, its hard to explain it. Seems very similar to Andromeda with regard to how the histogram looks and where channels clip, etc...

 

[Lachlan Ward]

This stuff Evin. Good Job. Good luck with the film.

 

[Jannard]

I'm anticipating/hoping for 11.something stops when I get under the hood tomorrow. As for how much is usable, thats debatable, especially given that this camera's compression is improving more and more.

By the way, I finally jumped into Red Alert! for a more critical analysis of some Red footage. I'm feeling much more oriented now that I've been able to get a good look at some files set to Linear Light with the DRX code turned off, as well as the matrix and curves disabled. OH... and yes, I dialed in ISO 100 too..

Everything makes so much more sense now, but I have to say, its hard to explain it. Seems very similar to Andromeda with regard to how the histogram looks and where channels clip, etc...

You may be a good card player, but don't expect the "river" to be kind to you if you expose at ISO 100 and expect 11 stops.

Jim

 

[Shawn Nelson]

Im still so confused. Back on Red day in August of 07 there was "10-1/2" stops of latitude, then there were further upgrades (such as the 'daughter board upgrade') that were supposed to noticeably improve DR further, so as far back as build 11 we should comfortably be over 11 stops DR. So why the heck do I keep hearing 9'ish now? Heck, it shouldnt even be at 10. If Build 16 is a massive improvement over a previous 11 stops then I'd guess a solid 12 a minimum. Or am I missing something? Not trolling here, I'm genuinely confused.

EDIT: Is this simply a difference of Red saying the noise in the lower two stops are acceptable to them (thus the Red Build 15 11+ stops) vs others saying only 8/9 because those lower two stops are too noisy? And then Build 16 will make the lower two stops "prettier" and thus hopefully get everyone else to agree with Red's existing definition of 11+ stops?

 

[Chris Nuzzaco]

You may be a good card player, but don't expect the "river" to be kind to you if you expose at ISO 100 and expect 11 stops.

I'm not really exposing at ISO 100, I'm simply using that setting to process at in Red Alert! When I'm done, I'll post some results, and hopefully some video showing the process I use to custom ISO rate cameras. I'm fully aware that my methods are somewhat "unorthodox" and even hard to explain at times, but I think a little video will make everything more easy to understand. There's lots of ways to achieve one result.

 

[reality]

EDIT: Is this simply a difference of Red saying the noise in the lower two stops are acceptable to them (thus the Red Build 15 11+ stops) vs others saying only 8/9 because those lower two stops are too noisy? And then Build 16 will make the lower two stops "prettier" and thus hopefully get everyone else to agree with Red's existing definition of 11+ stops?

It's people arguing about the difference between dynamic range which is measurable and latitude which is purely subjective. One persons 8 stops depends on his/her tolerance for noise and might be completely different from another persons' 5 stops or 11 stops. It's the same with film. Someone who wants butter smooth with very little grain is going to underrate the film and be much less tolerant than someone who loves grain.

 

[Esteban Sosnitsky]

Jim, when I saw those jpgs I felt like when you come into the transfer room, sit in front of the telecine and start color correcting your images. Your first look to the images is what correct exposure was at a set ISO. But then the images come to life with contrast and color. I love how this camera is so film based!!! But I think the problem is that besides exposure, camera owners have now to deal with grading and color correcting with a film based environment. And not everybody knows how to do that or what to expect from a RAW image.

Still, I wonder what would happen if you put a step wedge with 12 or more steps/stops evenly lit in front of the camera with a waveform monitor rating the camera at different ISOs? I just wish I had my camera so I could do this tests

I saw at nab this new chart that the Japanese are using to test their sensors, looked very interesting.

Still patiently waiting...

 

[Esteban Sosnitsky]

It's people arguing about the difference between dynamic range which is measurable and latitude which is purely subjective. One persons 8 stops depends on his/her tolerance for noise and might be completely different from another persons' 5 stops or 11 stops. It's the same with film. Someone who wants butter smooth with very little grain is going to underrate the film and be much less tolerant than someone who loves grain.

I dont think latitude is subjective!!!
Its a term referred to the log curve in which film chemically responds. Its measurable!!!!

 

[Jannard]

Im still so confused. Back on Red day in August of 07 there was "10-1/2" stops of latitude, then there were further upgrades (such as the 'daughter board upgrade') that were supposed to noticeably improve DR further, so as far back as build 11 we should comfortably be over 11 stops DR. So why the heck do I keep hearing 9'ish now? Heck, it shouldnt even be at 10. If Build 16 is a massive improvement over a previous 11 stops then I'd guess a solid 12 a minimum. Or am I missing something? Not trolling here, I'm genuinely confused.

EDIT: Is this simply a difference of Red saying the noise in the lower two stops are acceptable to them (thus the Red Build 15 11+ stops) vs others saying only 8/9 because those lower two stops are too noisy? And then Build 16 will make the lower two stops "prettier" and thus hopefully get everyone else to agree with Red's existing definition of 11+ stops?

There is a technical measurement for DNR (Graeme can explain better than I can). Basically, if you can tell differentiation it counts. But the noise levels of the science test are not likely to be acceptable to a critic. Hence the difference in numbers.

My 9.5 stop test was not designed to show maximum capability. It was a 5 minute test (including grading) to dispel the "I think RED is really 6-8 stops" comments I was hearing. It was also to point out that grading plays a huge part in the results people are getting.

Someone just posted that they measured 10.5 stops. I assume that is useable.

Jim

 

[Jan Reiff]

our tests with red earlier this year result an average of 9.5 stops, so we are on the same point.

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

We need a few really IN-DEPTH sticky threads on these matters... or a much more detailed pdf manual.

This cannot be a knowledge scattered among 1000 threads, all around Reduser.

 

[Kolja1981]

We get back the details captured in the shadow area of the picture. But what about the details in the highlights of your picture. If you overexpose a shot , you won't get back most details in the highlights. You agree with me ?

 

[Antoine Baumann]

Someone just posted that they measured 10.5 stops. I assume that is useable.

Jim

Yes it is useable, however it was a DR test, cloudy day exterior without additional ligtht. The shadows were at T0.5 1/2, the bright side of the face at T1.4 and the "super" highlights at T22.


Don't have the image right here but I can post it here if people would like. Anyway it will be in my personal white paper on red
(if build 16 doesn't come out before I finish the white paper ;-)

ciao,
antoine.

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

There is a technical measurement for DNR (Graeme can explain better than I can). Basically, if you can tell differentiation it counts. But the noise levels of the science test are not likely to be acceptable to a critic. Hence the difference in numbers.

My 9.5 stop test was not designed to show maximum capability. It was a 5 minute test (including grading) to dispel the "I think RED is really 6-8 stops" comments I was hearing. It was also to point out that grading plays a huge part in the results people are getting.

Someone just posted that they measured 10.5 stops. I assume that is useable.

Jim

Actually Jim most of us are saying 8 stops as workable stops. I also said it as a preference to acceptance on build 15. Secondly I said that it looked very nice (in build 16) with the "noise" as you lifted the shadows on her face and that it seems to be an improvement. To be honest your test shows exactly what I mean. Don't get me wrong I love your shot and I would shot it exactly the same but what I'm talking about is to be able to manage that shadow. In build 15 it would have to stay like that (or maybe be slightly darker), In my opinion there would be nothing there to "lift" it would break immediately. Now in 16 I see there's that possibility, though it still is noisy as soon as you do it (which is not wrong, it would most probably be on film as well).

I don't see how we're miles apart when you're talking 9.5 and I'm talking 8. All I'm saying is that 8 stops is what should be considered for you as workable stops (in build 15), if you ask for our opinion. We can of course agree that in ultimate condition you can find more range, but most of the times it wouldn't be acceptable to us - I'm now also talking grading. I would not lift "her" in grading because it would not look acceptable to me or my clients (and I believe your pic shows that). I would though shoot it like that, if I knew that it was exactly how I wanted it to look and believe me that I would and I have. During my DP years I was banned at least ones from every single mayor record company and a few agencies, because I shot it the way it should be and they felt it was to dark and couldn't do much about it. That it generally led to be some of their most successful music videos or ads didn't matter).

As for you others who are saying great shot all it needs is a little fill are kind of saying what I'm talking about.

I was just not agreeing with you Jim that in build 15 you could grade her face to "our" acceptance (I believe she would look one stop darker (in build 15) and therefor it wouldn't work - this is of course purely subjective and impossible to prove). Maybe in 16 and that is perfect. So this is just what we want to see and hear.

So Jim stop being grumpy with us. We're not trying to put you down. I love RED. I've been shooting film for 15 years. In the start of my career I made myself a promise, that I would rather starve then touch video. I kept that promise until know (I know RED is digital, not video, so it effectively doesn't count but still it sounds good :innocent. The RED camera does deliver brilliant pictures and shot right they're amazing. I know since I have done 10 shoots with it all over the world and they all have turned out great. It's impressive but it's not without flaws.

So you can either see our opinion as a good tip to other RED users. Or keep feeling we're ruining your mojo. Personally I'm not trying to talk down on the camera, on the contrary, I'm one of the huge fans, selling it out there all the time. Why? Well it's not to make money. It's because it delivers freedom. I can use it more freely than with film and that is a great advantage.

I think that you guys need to read between the lines from some posts. There's a lot of fanboys out there with both feet on the ground and we want to discuss the flaws of the camera out of

PS I'll ask the "pro's" if they can have a grading class with you after they've finished the DI on a RED feature


Fredrik Callinggard

 

[Álex Montoya]

Well, Fredrik, what we mean is that when people claim 9 stops in the EX1, they are not applying the clean, completely usable stops concept you are using for the RED.

What Jim tries to show is that the RED has a one or two more stops than most of them.

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

Well, Fredrik, what we mean is that when people claim 9 stops in the EX1, they are not applying the clean, completely usable stops concept you are using for the RED.

What Jim tries to show is that the RED has a one or two more stops than most of them.

I understand that and I would say that it looks like 9.5 stops to me from Jim's little test, but that was build 16. I was not agreeing with him that I believe he would have got the same result in 15. He even said it himself in this thread, "you could grade it in 15 but not with the same result".

It's always been clear that most of us that are talking about a lower DR are talking about actually useable (when it breaks it breaks and we wouldn't count that as a DR stop). We've been saying this because most discussions has always started with someone asking how they should interpreted RED's DR - that is a subjective discussion, not a scientific.

You can go out there shoot 8000 ASA for all I care, but if someone asks me how I think you should rate build 15. I'll say 320 ASA and consider 8 stops (most of the time I say between 8-9, maybe 9.5 stops, it just happened to become 8 only,for some reason, in this thread. I would never say 11 though). Why? Well because there's times where the camera will act "poorer" then other times, such as tungsten, or real low light environments with "tinted" shadows etc. Understand that most of the time it's not necessarily noise that is the problem. It's compression artifacts in the noise (especially in the blue channel), making it hard to fix in post, leaving you with crushing the blacks as the only solution.

I've also never had a problem with the clipping looking like video, which either leaves me to be very lucky or I do know how to shoot and grade? :innocent:

Yes it might be a safety measurement but I also think that most the people talking about 8-9.5 stops (NOT 6-8. Jim is referring to the extremes there) are coming from film background. We might be spoiled yes, but I do believe that when all of us saying this, we put it on a general level not when it's ultimate.

Furthermore us from film background would definitely not rate EX1 with 9 stops :usd:. So maybe there's a cultural clash here?

All in all I guess what I'm saying is that the people saying have 8-9.5 stops in mind (I say around 8) are only trying to be helpful. Saying that the other stops are only wishful thinking, yes you can find them if you want but it's very very likely that they won't look good.

So yes if you really want to say it, I guess that RED can be regarded to have more DR, if that is important to you. I don't on the other hand recommend it.

It's also important to say that I'm talking about build 15 and not 16. So that it has improved with build 16 pleases me as much as it does with anybody else.


Fredrik Callinggard

 

[Graeme Nattress]

First, are we talking dynamic range, the difference between the brightest and darkest thing you can record and still retain detail? Or are we talking lattitude which, to me, is by how much you can under or over expose an object and not clip or crush it.

As Jim points out, on a test chart, I can measure (ie see the "detail" over a range of 11.3 stops). Now, are all those stops equal "quality". No they are not. And they're not equal quality on any camera, or film for that matter. As they get darker, they get noisier. Film complicates things with a curve that actively squashes highlights and shadows. What we record is the linear (in the true, straight line sense of the word) light data from the sensor.

Next, how do you measure the light hitting the sensor? Sometimes tests are performed by using the stops on the lens, and ND, to produce an exposure ramp. This is an exercise fraught with the possibilities of human error and innacuracies in the lens markings, how closely and repeatably you can set them, and in the ND. These all add up.

A light meter reading is good, because then you can measure the range in a single shot. It can also be a real world shot - not artificial. This is what Jim did and illustrated well. Jim showed a subject 9.5 stops below non-clipping highlights. That means the subject was under-exposed by at least 9.5 stops, probably more. The subject itself has a dynamic range. We can therefore see that the range the camera recorded must be greater than 9.5 stops.

Finally, for repeatably testing, we use a 41 step Stouffer wedge. This is great as it can produce a repeatable, if boring scene of nearly 14 stops of dynamic range with 1/3 stop steps, numbered for ease of use. This will tell you a lot, and it's accurate, but it's not a real world scene.

Graeme

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

That means the subject was under-exposed by at least 9.5 stops, probably more. The subject itself has a dynamic range. We can therefore see that the range the camera recorded must be greater than 9.5 stops.

You're right Graeme I should most probably talk about it as latitude more than DR. If I do I definitely stand with 8 stops (build 15), my apologies.

As for the underexposure. I don't think that Jims stop was 32+.



Fredrik