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 :)

Traffic lights below 250 ASA

all three lights everytime off? build 15 or build 16? if build 16 its the same when you in RAW preview?
 
Does your histogram simultaneously show clipping?
 
It was definately over exposed. Tried playing with shutter/aperture, going from really under to extremely over and nothing changed. I think I was in rec709 space. The same happened with the spot meter, if I remember correctly it wouldnt go beyond 85 ire. Tommorow I'll check with raw and redspace.
 
Traffic light and ASA setting

Traffic light and ASA setting

This is because at ASA below 320, the RGB monitor path is rendering images BELOW the level of the sensor RAW data. When at ASA 320 the RGB path and sensor RAW data are in agreement, and above ASA 320 the RGB path is rendering images ABOVE the level of the sensor RAW data

i.e. ASA 320 is the "native" camera response.

As the traffic lights and histogram are displayed in RGB space, you may not see the traffic light clipping when at the the lower ASA values, even though the sensor may be.

So, if you are going to shooting below ASA 320, I'd recommend that you assign VIEW RAW to one of your user keys to allow a quick spot check of sensor RAW levels.
 
Stuart,

I have assigned one of my user keys to view RAW, but the camera always defaults back to Red Space when you switch back. I prefer to shoot in REC709.

I spoke with two reps from Red about this last week, and neither understood why this is a problem. Can you fix this bug?
 
View Raw

View Raw

Well that happens because we want you to shoot REDspace :-)

I'll check..
 
Stuart,

I am finding a big difference between what Red Space shows as proper exposure and the Raw image. If I expose for Red Space, the Raw is underexposed... significantly. The net result is a very noisy image. Rec 709 is much closer to the Raw, which is why I prefer it.

I do like the the color in Red Space.
 
I'll agree to that. I find REDSpace quite confusing, since the raw file ends up quite underexposee. Even though I shoot for theatrical release and will do a film out, I prefer using 709 for metering and definately not redspace. I prefer playing safe with the highlights but not over do it. Also the raw image is so washed out that again I find it confusing while shooting.
 
REDspace v's RAW

REDspace v's RAW

Well you should certainly feel free to use which ever you prefer, however our recommendation is REDspace...
 
Stuart,

Could you provide a technical explanation of Red Space? I called the headquarters last week, and could not get anything beyond: "it's like, you know, the best".

Why is there such a such a difference between Raw and Red Space? I had a white wall crawling with noise last week. In Red Space it looks properly exposed, but viewed in Raw, it's dark.
 
RAW v's ..

RAW v's ..

RAW and REDspace are looking at the same image using different matrices and tonal response curves (color and gamma)

RAW shows you what the sensor is seeing, REDspace shows you how the data is typically processed in post production.

Hence if you look at REDspace you are in very good shape, that's why we recommend it as the camera viewing default.
 
Stuart, RAW view does not seem to be exactly linear, but it's much closer to linear than Redspace or Rec709. Is there a small curve being applied to RAW view?

For Petros and Sportshoter:
I've had good luck using the Raw view to set my highlight exposure and then lighting to Redspace. I also use the False color mode with each to see how tones are falling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top