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 :)

9 1/2 stops...

Well, I also feel that the lady's face is unnaceptably noisy, BUT, and this is BIG but and one that makes ALL the difference, all you need is a little fill light on her and you're set, great image. When shooting something like that, be it on film, F-35, Dalsa, whatever, you better throw some fill at that face or you'll just get different versions of noise on her, more or less pleasant depending on your taste, but noise/grain just the same. That's good stuff.
 
hmm I like that noise pattern jim, looks like it would be easier to reduce than currently what we're seeing with 15. Guys as far as the noise threshold remember there are a ton of tools out there to reduce that while maintaining great detail. Random noise is a lot easier to kill than mish mashed wavlet reduced noise.
 
SF Geek said:
I know it's not a cosmetics commercial First light. I'm just saying that it might not go over so well with the Red skeptics. I'm leaving it at that.
Click to expand...

Hmmm I think that it's a general deception, thinking that the ones talking about the DR are skeptics. I think the ones that are, are actually the ones that cares, they want the camera to evolve.

Great example Jim. Finally we're talking about something. I love the noise in build 16. It's less compression noise and more... just noise. It's a great step forward. As for me it also shows what I'm very often talking about. Were a shot is acceptable or not (to me). That's why I'm saying that you should stick with around 8 stops, that's in build 15, of course. Within those 8 stops I know I have salvageable footage, within my acceptance level. I think it's important for people to understand that it is an opinion and actually listen to it. It's these thoughts, from different users that can help you build your own acceptance level, but to ignore it is foolish.

Now as for my general thoughts, I'm happy that the noise level (or pattern) in shadows is improving. That has been my general concern. There's very often in my real life shooting and especially in my test shooting that I've found it to be (at times) disappointing. To tackle this problem, not by only giving some more DR, but mainly by making the noise "look" more acceptable, is very important.

This is a step in the right direction!

PLEASE! KEEP AT IT! Don't stop here :innocent:


Fredrik Callinggard
 
Noise is the biggest issue with build 15. If build 16 can reduce noise as promised I will be so happy rating faster than 160. Since I mostly shoot for TV broadcast I choose low noise over detailed highlights. I'm looking forward to having both.
 
SF Geek said:
I know it's not a cosmetics commercial First light. I'm just saying that it might not go over so well with the Red skeptics. I'm leaving it at that.
Click to expand...

No offense intended. I think the new technology will thrive or not on it's real merits, not the stuff we bat around on this board. For example, on the Che discussion, no one observed that the camera was facile enough to capture footage that would have been very hard on another platform. So, using an early camera and build, SS blows out a white shirt in the jungle. Big deal. The bottom line is that, if shooters get results they like (with whatever tech specs we carry on about), they'll use it. No need to edit ourselves here.
 
Mark Crabtree said:
Noise is the biggest issue with build 15. If build 16 can reduce noise as promised I will be so happy rating faster than 160. Since I mostly shoot for TV broadcast I choose low noise over detailed highlights. I'm looking forward to having both.
Click to expand...

If you're shooting for TV broadcast, then how are you seeing much noise when shooting at 320 ASA to 500 ASA on the RED? With 4K images downconverted to HD, the noise should be quite small and hard to see.

I have seen some noise when looking at the live 720P output, but that's partly because it is a quick and dirty live debayering.
 
Interesting. Looks like the new DNR sceme in Build 16 is effective. Wonder how it reacts to tungsten balance. So what was the over/under on that shot? I'm guessing around a Polanski (T11/16 split), maybe a touch more open.
 
Jim's post and people's reaction also brings something to mind that I've posted about before: misinterpreting the meaning of dynamic range.

She is 9.5 stops under the background. The camera has more dynamic range than is in this image, but not by much. Having 9.5 stops of dynamic range in an image does not mean that you will be able to pull the shadows up into a normal exposure without paying the price.

There is no format in the world where you'd let somebody's face fall 9.5 stops below the majority of your image with the mentality of "yeah, I'll just bring her up in post." That's not how dynamic range works. There is flexibility in these files, but no amount of flexibility will let you truly light in post.

Her face is several stops underexposed. To bring her face up to a "normal" level for the 2nd picture, she had to be processed at a different relative ASA. The noise you're seeing on her face is what you should expect to see when you process something at a 2-4,000 ASA equivalent. Of course it's noisy! It's a deep, deep shadow that he brought up for us to see.

So dynamic range does not mean that anything in that range can be pushed around to your heart's content. You can push stuff around a little, yeah... but not that far. Shadows are shadows, highlights are highlights and midtones are midtones. You can get away with more on the highlight side [if you have not clipped], but if your shadows [or her face...] are too dark for you... point a freakin' light at it.

Jim knows this - obviously he didn't shoot her like that with the intention of bringing her face back in post. It's just another good opportunity to point out that if you're seeing unacceptable noise levels in the 320-400 ASA range... you've messed up.
 
Correct Brook. I don't know of any camera where you can have the subject nearly 10 stops below the highlight and bring it back up to proper exposure in post and have it look noise free.

Graeme
 
At ISO 320 the picture is relatively noise free in all but the shadow areas. It is very noticable on my Panasonic SDI 50 inch plasma. Rating at 160 is like magic to make the noise in the shadows go away. At NAB I attended the screening of Rosencranz and Gildenstern are undead. The DP was answering questions for the audience and he said he rated the camera at 320 but set his key one stop hot. How is that any differant than rating at 160? The footage looked great with very low noise.
 
The only time I would ever consider shooting ISO 160 is if it was a low contrast scene with enough light. Then it is a good choice. But more often, I shoot ISO 400-500 and get very noise(almost)free images. But you have to nail the exposure.

Jim
 
BTW,

I purposely made the subject the darkest thing in the wide range image. Too often, people make the subject well lit and then argue whether or not the information in the shadows is OK or not. It is much easier to pass detail in the weeds than a face. I tried to make this as hard a test as possible... given shooting, grading and posting in less than 5 minutes. :-)

Jim
 
Sweet!

Can't wait for B16!

ATF
 
ATF said:
Sweet!

Can't wait for B16!

ATF
Click to expand...

I guess the lost point here is that you can do this with Build 15. It is a grading issue when people talk about only getting 6-8 stops from a RED ONE.

Jim
 
Jannard said:
I guess the lost point here is that you can do this with Build 15. It is a grading issue when people talk about only getting 6-8 stops from a RED ONE.

Jim
Click to expand...

I completely disagree Jim. I did my tests together with some of the most skilled people in the business (some of them actually took part in building the whole DI process) and they should know how to grade, even if it's RAW.

As I said the 8 stops is about a tolerance level and a lot of us found that 8 stops was ours. We're not saying that in BUILD 15 you couldn't push more out of it. We're simply saying that it didn't look good and that the tolerance level for the RAW file before it "truly breaks" was within that range (in that meaning that at the edges within our opinionated DR it was breaking already, just not as much).

As a lot of users seem to say in this thread - the biggest problem was the compression noise. With 16 that seem to be A LOT better.

So it's not a grading issue. It might be now in the future but with build 15 I disagree with you.


Fredrik Callinggard
 
weirdcrew said:
I completely disagree Jim. I did my tests together with some of the most skilled people in the business (some of them actually took part in building the whole DI process) and they should know how to grade, even if it's RAW.

As I said the 8 stops is about a tolerance level and a lot of us found that 8 stops was ours. We're not saying that in BUILD 15 you couldn't push more out of it. We're simply saying that it didn't look good and that the tolerance level for the RAW file before it "truly breaks" was within that range (in that meaning that at the edges within our opinionated DR it was breaking already, just not as much).

As a lot of users seem to say in this thread - the biggest problem was the compression noise. With 16 that seem to be A LOT better.

So it's not a grading issue. It might be now in the future but with build 15 I disagree with you.


Fredrik Callinggard
Click to expand...

You certainly have the right to disagree with me, but we have found MANY trained professionals that were incorrectly grading RED footage. I have done this more times than I want to count (with Builds prior to and including 15). And just because you found people that couldn't do it doesn't mean it can't be done. Graeme has seen me do it, as has Jarred, Deanan, Rob and Ted. Actually, all of them can do it. But you telling me it can't be done just doesn't hold water. Now if you (and your pros) would like to learn how to do it... that is another topic.

The good news for all is that Build 16 makes it very simple to grade RED footage. We have done all the work for you (actually, Graeme and the team have)...

Jim
 
Jannard said:
I guess the lost point here is that you can do this with Build 15. It is a grading issue when people talk about only getting 6-8 stops from a RED ONE.

Jim
Click to expand...

I was in a situation like your posted image today, where reaching this deep into the shadows would be preferable to clipping. Looking forward to seeing more.

So far BRAVO!

IBloom
 
ibloom said:
I'd like to know as much as I can about grading this footage. Sign me up.

IBloom
Click to expand...

I'll post it in a new thread in a bit...

Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top