Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

13+ stops....

david farland said:
True...but don't you ever wonder what's your customers experience is regarding latitude/lighting etc in comparison to other cameras?

D
Click to expand...

It depends on which customers... some have figured out how to get the most out of the RED ONE and some have not... yet.

Jim
 
jenningsp said:
close it jim. close it now!!!! it's soooo boring :(
Click to expand...
Disagreed.

Comments such as those ones:
Jannard said:
It depends on which customers... some have figured out how to get the most out of the RED ONE and some have not... yet.

Jim
Click to expand...
...are generous. Nice to read them. We are not at war.

E. :-)
 
it's repetitive and self affirming.. how is that not boring?

pictures would be nice :innocent:
 
David... do you sleep?

Jim
 
Jannard said:
It depends on which customers... some have figured out how to get the most out of the RED ONE and some have not... yet.

Jim
Click to expand...

you mean "man who says cannot be done should not interrupt man who is doing." ?
 
jenningsp said:
wow.... this thread should probably be closed...

i really didn't want to start a recurring/boring/over-done back and forth between idiots, half of the RED staff, a billionaire CEO, the moderators and David Mullen.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but... HAHAHAHA. :)

The way I look at is, just keep doing your best to add more DR. It seems to be a big priority for Jim, so what more can we ask for? Whatever R1 is measured at now is going to be improved upon, so that's it. That's great news.
 
Is the claim 13+ stops linear or logarithmic?
 
Jannard said:
Try a curve instead of lopping off the tops and bottoms...

Jim
Click to expand...

As ND filters 0.3 visual density is one stop so ND0.6 is two stops... and so on...

My Kodak Vision 2383 print stock measures 3.3 to 3.55 visual density thats 11+ stops... more over Kodak Vision premier measures 3.9 to 4.3 thats 13+ stops...

In order to get a beautiful print I have to suppress the highlights and the shadows in a way that follows the toe and the knee of the print stock that I use... so we use a curve... that is creating rich shadows and smooth highlights.

Jim is correct on that...

On the other hand we really need info of 11 stops in order to have something to compress in order to get that rich full shadows that are pleasing to the eye.

More over, someone would say that I don't see 11 stops on a theater... I would give an example, if you lose sound sync by one frame is it immediately obvious? No, but you will feel that is something wrong, you will not feel satisfied from what you hear... That is exactly the same with image, you don't see it, but you can feel the absence...

As for the DR discussion, monstro will be there... I sense it... Jim is wiser now...
 
I see two things chew up "usable" dynamic range:
1) Tolerable noise floor (Black Point). Where the 'first stop' emerges from the noise floor is completely subjective. The closer you get to the noise floor the less 'certain' of the data you become. Different people will consider different levels tolerable. This could easily be the difference between 11.3 and 10.3 on what's considered tolerable as black point. But of the two probably the least significant.
2) Non-linear grading. Apply a film like S-Curve to the image and the top and bottom 2 stops suddenly become smooth gradients from "Black to Almost Black" and "White to Almost White". Almost White and Almost Black are your new visual dynamic range. Unless you want hard clipping you're going to sacrifice a stop or 3. Hence. "8 Stops" vs "11 stops".

*2cents*
 
Putting tests aside, and thinking about real world use of the Red One, I think a lot of the DR comes down to how good you are in post. There are lots of people out there who can make their footage look like it's only got 8 stops. But (not wanting to sound boastful) our feature came out looking like we got all 11.3 stops, a lot of the time. On screen, the dynamic range is astounding. It took a lot of work and a lot of software and a lot of skillsets to get there. But that's true with film too. I saw some S16 recently that had been through a crappy telecine and some appalling post, and the DR looked about the same as an early HDV camera. So I'm looking forward to my 13+ stops.
 
Deanan said:
Stops are stops but they are linearly recorded.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I should specify the way the sensor's pixel circuit handle the large signal values. Does it use logarithmic response too gain the extra dB (or stops), ot is it a linear response?
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I think to some degree this difference between measurable dynamic range in the lab and real-world experiences of shooters is partially due to the difference of measuring a RAW or LOG recording versus the visible range in the final color-timed image where the contrast has been set to the taste of the cinematographer.

Lately I've been shooting on the Genesis and switching in the DIT tent between the LOG ("raw") signal and one with a basic LUT where the contrast and black levels are set to what I consider good-looking, rich, etc. -- and it's interesting how much dynamic range is lopped off when applying this basic LUT to create a good monitor image.

I saw the same thing when I was shooting on the RED -- there was more dynamic range in the RAW files, but once I color-corrected them to what I considered a "pleasing" contrast, some of the detail in the high and low ends were crushed or clipped. I think it's inevitable that you'll want some of the low-end signal information to be crushed down in order to get rich blacks and less noise in the shadows. Hence why a measured 11-stop range in a lab becomes a working 9-stop range on the movie set when looking at a normal HD monitor displaying a simple conversion to Rec 709. Truth is that it is probably better anyway to work and light within a narrower dynamic range (i.e. light a little flatter) so that your RAW recording has more information than you lit for, giving you some leeway in final color-correcting.
Click to expand...
Thank you, this is certainly a very informative tips for DPs.

Mr. Jannard,
But I'm more interested in knowing the method of the sensor's pixel circuit convert from photo-charge to voltage; if it's linear or quasi-logarithmic response. A true measure of the camera's DR should be a measure of the sensor linear dynamic range (which is the 'film'), not the camera's DR. The more you have in linear DR of the sensor, the more artistic degree of freedom the DPs, or the image processing programmers, have in post image processing. You can only achieve this via low noise and large full-well capacity. This is only can be provided by sensor characterization from the sensor designer, or RED.
 
Maybe as you find it so boring Charles, you can enlighten us lesser mortals to the reasons why a fair latitude test between other cameras & Red is impossible. Just a line or 2 of meaningful facts will be fine.....
D
 
jenningsp said:
wow.... this thread should probably be closed...

i really didn't want to start a recurring/boring/over-done back and forth between idiots, half of the RED staff, a billionaire CEO, the moderators and David Mullen.
Click to expand...

No, you should be pleased that your question sparked the interest of such a bright and diverse group of people...
 
david farland said:
Maybe as you find it so boring Charles, you can enlighten us lesser mortals to the reasons why a fair latitude test between other cameras & Red is impossible. Just a line or 2 of meaningful facts will be fine.....
D
Click to expand...

I think the operative work here is fair. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be an agreed upon scientifically sound definition of a fair mesurement method for digital cameras.

The computer industry came up with the spec suites. It was not a trivial task, and it was not cheap to make the testsuites and specifications for their use. It is also expensive to do the tests, but it gives the public a way to compare the suitability of a given system for a given task. It is not good enough to base a choice upon, but it is good enough to narrow the field to the most appropriate candidates when ou want to buy a new system.

I think it would be a good idea to develop something like the spec suites for the digital camera industry as well. A sound and relevant set of tests with strict rules as to how it may be used.
 
oldphart said:
I think it would be a good idea to develop something like the spec suites for the digital camera industry as well. A sound and relevant set of tests with strict rules as to how it may be used.
Click to expand...

Me too. QE, FWC, DNR, spectral response, fourier transform, etc. are a good start, and DxOMark has other good ideas, but there is a long ways to go, and since imaging is inherently human, that subjective component will never be replaced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top