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 :)

Cinema camera or Video camera?

I think it's great that you guys show this and it's very enlightening to see and I hate to be the devils advocate, but it's just that I don't understand what this has to do with DR? In the post Jim says that there's plenty of ways in grading to make it look like it has 7 stops of DR.

I understand that smoothing white clippings out makes it not look like video, which is very important and is something that needs to be understood more, but what has that to do with actual DR?


Fredrik Callinggard
 
If there's detail in the highlights, the camera has the dynamic range. It isn't a look - it's actual information that's really there.

The problem is that people are throwing that information out when they grade. The RAW data the RED captures is not clipped - but because of where the white-point is set in the grading process, people think the information is gone, without ever putting forth the effort to see if it's there.

Trouble is, if RED sets the white-point higher, people will complain of "flat" footage. If they set it low, people will say it's "clippy". RED could define a set of gamma curves to produce an "optimal" image, but this would defy the principle benefit of the RAW workflow. I suspect Build 16 will include some tools to help facilitate this.

The bottom line is that RED footage needs to be graded by someone who understands what look they want, and what data is available.
 
Yes but isn't this example more about grading it properly so it doesn't clip in an ugly way and therefor end up looking like video?

To me there's two problems that can occur, ugly white clippings and this is a great thread showing that this can (a lot of the times) be prevented. The other issue is blue channel noise in shadows, which can be worked around in post with taking the blue channel and compare it with the green and.... etc

To me though these examples here are just showing how to prevent from getting that horrible "line" to white clipping, by giving it a smooth transition and therefor look nicer. It does not really show me DR.

But maybe I'm wrong......
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
OK, I hate to be the one that shoots off on a tangent, but... That's a nice fisheye, looks like a 6mm or thereabouts. Is it the Nikon (or Century conversion) or something else? What did you use for a reducer to get the entire FOV on frame?
Click to expand...

5_1211761866.jpg


It's an Evin Grant special. They don't call him a Ninja for nothing.
 
weirdcrew said:
Yes but isn't this example more about grading it properly so it doesn't clip in an ugly way and therefor end up looking like video?

To me there's two problems that can occur, ugly white clippings and this is a great thread showing that this can (a lot of the times) be prevented. The other issue is blue channel noise in shadows, which can be worked around in post with taking the blue channel and compare it with the green and.... etc

To me though these examples here are just showing how to prevent from getting that horrible "line" to white clipping, by giving it a smooth transition and therefor look nicer. It does not really show me DR.

But maybe I'm wrong......
Click to expand...
No... it is about both... throwing away info you have and then making it roll to clip (when it actually does) more nicely. Two separate issues. The 1st is DNR, the second is just nicer.

Jim
 
bad ass. It can walk, right? :)
 
Brook!

WTF IS that thing? For the thread, I know how to use histograms, and I am not going to blow out my images. But that gizmo!? I get that you have some structural items, an EVF and a Red One, but what is that flying saucer thing on top and what is the lens piece right below it?

dn
 
Another solution ( that might be less cumbersome) would involve the 85mm f/1.0 Repro-Nikkor in a relay system, though there you're dealing with another lens not much more common than the 6/2.8 and on the expensive side.
 
Brook Willard said:
Pictures just don't do it justice. It looked like the monster from Cloverfield.

6mm.jpg


Alright, I'm done leading this thread astray. Sorry guys.
Click to expand...


That thing gives me the creeps, it feels like it's watching, like some kind of mobile HAL9000 or something. I feel a bit weird when optics start to feel like a real eye watching. :blink:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top