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...

8 stops lattitude, ie, 4 over and 4 under, for a real world object, is quite reasonable. 8 stops dynamic range is not.

I've seen B13 shots that captured a full 12 stop range, with detail all the way into the shadows and no clipping. If you keep the shadows dark, and in the shadows and don't try to brighten them to daylight, they hold up remarkably well. I don't think it's reasonable to expect to take some object that is 10+ stops under-exposed (compared to clipping) and try to put them at the level of mid grey. I don't know any imaging device that would successfully do that.

Graeme
 
Graeme Nattress said:
I've seen B13 shots that captured a full 12 stop range, with detail all the way into the shadows and no clipping. If you keep the shadows dark, and in the shadows and don't try to brighten them to daylight, they hold up remarkably well.
Click to expand...

Great point Graeme. I think way too many people are looking at it in the opposite manner and trying to take shadows and make them mid tones and highlights. Thats just a bad idea, and with that, I'm off to my first Red shoot.

:)
 
Cardmaverick said:
Great point Graeme. I think way too many people are looking at it in the opposite manner and trying to take shadows and make them mid tones and highlights. Thats just a bad idea, and with that, I'm off to my first Red shoot.

:)
Click to expand...

Exactly !!!
With digital, we try to believe ourselves in that everything is possible in post...
Wrong, post work can't change the nature of things. Sure it can improve, recover what is there, enhance, adding a mood, a texture, but certainly not changing everything.


Even a 12 bit file will crash with too much manipulations. ...and the same happens will film.
I remember when i did photo development, it took me a lot of time to get reasonable results (flashing etc...)....just... well... reasonable...

...and now we want to dramatically modify a single portion (shadows) of the image...it just won't "stay together".

I made some tests with the RED in a sunny day in a park with a bright white shirt, and i can assure you that i perfectly see the frabrics details AND white buttons AND the shadows under the trees on the same frame.

That says a lot about this camera.

But it's not a free ride.
 
I have another crazy idea which I won't hesitate to share :).

Can you grade different parts of a given shot in a different way.

Say, you motion track the face of the subject and apply a certaing CC just to the face, by actually isolating it from the rest of the image.

Then you "isolate" the background and work on it applying different kind of CC.

And the same with whatever element you want to change.

I guess this will be tricky and time-consuming, and if there's a lot of movement in the shot, it probably won't work.

But, what do you think?

Does this make any sense, or will it result in a Frankenstein of an image. :)
 
Jannard said:
It was a 5 minute test (including grading) to dispel the "I think RED is really 6-8 stops" comments I was hearing.
Click to expand...

I hadn't heard "6-8" but I've been hearing an aweful lot of "8/9 stops" which confused me repeatedly. I guess those people just have different standards. Is there no solid benchmark for noise? Such as, if Red footage was compared to well exposed Vision 2 5218 and the noise levels made comparable, how many stops does each have relative to each other?
 
Yes, secondary colour correction is something that you have to be good and careful with to get the best out of RED footage. Same goes for any high dynamic range source.

Graeme
 
karapetkov said:
I have another crazy idea which I won't hesitate to share :).

Can you grade different parts of a given shot in a different way.

Say, you motion track the face of the subject and apply a certaing CC just to the face, by actually isolating it from the rest of the image.

Then you "isolate" the background and work on it applying different kind of CC.

And the same with whatever element you want to change.

I guess this will be tricky and time-consuming, and if there's a lot of movement in the shot, it probably won't work.

But, what do you think?

Does this make any sense, or will it result in a Frankenstein of an image. :)
Click to expand...


... try Color...
 
Shawn Nelson said:
Is there no solid benchmark for noise? Such as, if Red footage was compared to well exposed Vision 2 5218 and the noise levels made comparable, how many stops does each have relative to each other?
Click to expand...

There are visual noise measurement standards, but in my opinion there is no solid benchmark for noise. Various film stocks and video sensors each have unique qualities, so the noise texture looks and feels and moves differently, even if you match up measurements like RMS and peak noise amplitude.
 
With all this talk about "latitude" and "dynamic range" I have to say that I subscribe to the school of thought that there is no such thing as "exposure latitude."

If you fail to place a scene brightness value on the appropriate point of your capture medium's curve, you may still be able to recover that brightness value, but you have sacrificed values at the edge of your scene. If the contrast ratio of your scene is lower than that of your capture medium, and the medium is linear (as is the case with digital), there may be no ill effects, but the real world is rarely so flat.

With film there is often a consistent relationship to brightness values and curve points, dictated by the nature of its response curve, and processing and printing techniques. In our digital RAW world, we have the option of push or pull processing every take, and the approach is much similar to that of the Zone System, where the "correct" exposure is one that utilizes, as much is as possible, the full range of the sensor. That's not to say that the tradition approach of matching scene values to fixed curve points is "wrong" in a digital RAW work flow, simply that it limits, to some extent, your processing options.
 
...and what they do with film in a scene where the subjects are in the shadows ?

They expose for highlights and:
1) they use reflectors or daylight spots
or

2) at least they use a side lighting to "pop" the edges.

..to bring some of the shadows within the recordable lower range of the media.

...so in the end...just to "believe" the scene is real.
You dont see the reflecting light, but it is essential in many occasions.

This seems to be true for any media.

this is a fantastic subject isn't it ?
 
Red red red i know this is not the place to ask this but jimm can we expect one more miracle from u?..............................................RED PHONE......
with 1080p resolution... lol i think am dreaming little more pardon me..lol have a nice time u Guys ......
 
karapetkov said:
I guess this will be tricky and time-consuming, and if there's a lot of movement in the shot, it probably won't work.
Click to expand...

It works but it's tricky and time consuming. :usd:

karapetkov said:
Does this make any sense, or will it result in a Frankenstein of an image. :)
Click to expand...

Depends on how far you push it.
 
Karapetkov, I have seen clips of Gunleik and asked him once, how he did get all these nice colors on his shots.
He didn't answer, or he didn't see my question. Well I use secondary color correction on some HDR material and I just got the right one for moving pictures and voila, got 75% where Gunleik is.
It took me one month to get to 75% there and probably another 3 years to get where he is now, or never since he will be much further then:-)

Good secondary CC will let you lock on the color in small bracket and on the zone with ability to track the zone.
Results, ....... priceless.
 
arun said:
Red red red i know this is not the place to ask this but jimm can we expect one more miracle from u?..............................................RED PHONE......
with 1080p resolution... lol i think am dreaming little more pardon me..lol have a nice time u Guys ......
Click to expand...

Please this is a serious forum.... and besides it has already been done:

watch
 
Jannard said:
Maybe I should delete that 2nd one? It is not a useable grade. It is just hyper-extended to show the info is there. Or were you kidding?

Jim
Click to expand...

Maybe you could show another inbetween image that shows an acceptable lift of the foreground subject?

I just showed people at my work this and they got pretty excited.

El Stupido
 
WYSIWYG or not?

WYSIWYG or not?

Antoine Fabi said:
This seems to be true for any media.
Click to expand...

Although one can "help" make the contrast and color higher in flat parts of the image that is within the range of the sensor, having a long scale sensor will not "fix" un-dramatic lighting.

IMHO it is better to make it look good in the viewfinder by using lighting to bring the subject contrast up and to hold it in the center of the tonal range since, even if the camera is 12 bits, the TV sets being used to watch the result on will be between 8 to 10 bits or less in effective contrast range. You need to light and expose with the whole image chain in mind from subject to end projection or viewing device. Best to shoot for the lowest comman denominator since if you don't you will need to tie your shoes...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top