EPIC MX Highlight Rolloff thread....

[Brice Ansel]

I'm sorry Brice, but I really don't understand what your post was all about. I know what the tittle of this thread is, but if don't agree, like or understand what is being discussed you can just abstain from posting. As I'm sure you have better things to do than reminding everyone what this thread is 'supposed' to be.

I'm trying to understand why Red sensors behave the way they do regarding overload highlight capture. I saw the same problem in Mark's Dragon footage. So, rather then trying to ignore this problem I'm trying to understand it. And no, I'm not asking what can be done to avoid it. I know how to avoid it. The problem and avoiding the problem are two separate issues. I'm trying to focus on the problem.

If anyone of you doesn't care or identify with this issue, you have plenty of other threads to visit. But if on the other hand you want to join the discussion and figure out if this is something that you might want to understand more about then by all means post your comments.

Brice, I think you done your bit. It would be great if you could walk off now.

Because I believe that since Brian exposed what the problem was so clearly, people can't ignore it anymore and will refuse the accept it, so I'm sure that from now on this will turn into a fight thread and is going to turn ugly and eventually die.

It's a shame because I think we are really onto something here.

Antonio,
as you said their is plenty of thread discussing about your issue.
This specific thread initiated by David was about a different feeling than yours about the rolloff.
He was saying on his first post how he did enjoy the smooth rolloff in highlights.
I think other RedUser share the same feeling.
The whole world get your point as you are making noise on Reduser since a few weeks now.
When I saw the mess you did with the frame I gently uploaded for you to make your point.
I have to say the funckiness you are talking about (#post 97) is the proof you don't knowa a cazzo of wich knob to push in RCX.
Seriously, if you can't get real black by pulling down the iso without an horrible violet in the white, I can't see the point for you to get the dragon.
And no it is not time consuming, it is really simple, a teenager could do it.
If I was you I would delete the proof of you incompetencie.
And move on.
B.

 

[Luis Otero]

Clipping, Pure White, and magenta artifacts..

Clipping, Pure White, and magenta artifacts..

Hello,

Let me chime in on what I interpret to be the difference between Clipping and Pure White, as defined by other before on this thread. Clipping is the outcome of overexposing the image to a point where details that were part of the scene or image being photographed are gone in the "raw" version of the file acquired (R3D, JPEG, TIFF, etc.). Pure White is, as suggested by the term, an image that is photographing something or some place where there is a no other colors. And Pure White can be created by intentionally clipping... Just an artistic decision.

Clipping is not a bad thing; in fact, it is either an artistic decision to allow such overexposing and lose the details (there are plenty of examples presented before), or the result of messing up the control of light hitting the sensor (also that has been presented here before with good examples).

Now, the artifact present on some images are the result, in my opinion, of Color Space conversion.

As a colorist, I have seen before the magenta present on the top-left of the image (Sun) and on the satellite dish by the chimney, of the shot that Daniel so kindly posted here, where overexposure was artistically allowed to happen.

Also, I saw them on Mark's video on multiple occasions, played on Quick Time. The TCs are presented at the "second" level only since Quick Time does not offer frame in its timecode. The most pronounced was 00:01:34, where the hood of the car has two extreme highlights. BTW, I watch it using several monitors, each calibrated at different color spaces. They were more evident in sRGB, which helps to prove my point. So, I do not think that Mark's original R3D has the magenta artifact bunt-in.

I also took Mark's video, converted to APR 4444, and generated a DCP using the QuVIS plug-in for Compressor, and watch it with the QuVIS DCP Player for Mac (10 days free trial, if you want to watch it), and the magenta was either not clearly seen, since it was softened or are basically gone and not present on the extremes highlights I will point out bellow. They appear with a pleasant roll-off, just like film. The only exception was the most pronounced magenta spots that I mentioned at 00:01:34 (two extreme highlight dots at the hood of the car).

The other ones are much less pronounced, and you need to look for them carefully if you do not have "train eyes" to pick them up: 00:00:26, 00:00:29, 00:00:31, 00:00:38, 00:00:40, 00:00:50, 00:00:54, 00:00:57, 00:01:06, 00:01:13, 00:01:38, 00:01:45, 00:01:50, 00:02:16, 00:02:23, 00:02:29, 00:02:36, 00:03:16, 00:03:25, 00:03:43, 00:04:08, 00:04:15, 00:04:22, 00:04:27, 00:04:29, 00:04:34, 00:04:38, 00:04:39, 00:04:48, 00:04:53, 00:04:57, 00:05:04, 05:05:10, 00:05:12, and 00:05:22.

I do have a detail description of where specifically in the image at each TC I found them. If someone is interested for me to posted such descriptions, I will gladly do it. Also, with Mark's permission, I can post the DCP file for download, and you can take advantage of the free 10 days trial of that DCP player to watch it.

I can attest to the origin of these magenta artifacts fact since in more that one occasions that I have graded images for theatrical release (with a film emulation LUT, and at around 16 fL of light intensity bouncing from the screen), when a transforming LUT is applied to bring it to the sRGB Color Space for web posting of the trailers, both intentional and unintentional clippings that look very well as Pure White on the grading studio, as soon as they are Color Space transformed, they present as strong magenta on those spots. The strongest the "Pure White" spot, the strongest the magenta is.

I hope this helps,

 

[Martin Stevens]

I'm thinking this is a language thing.

One person seeing something as a problem, the other sees it as a characteristic of the technology that needs specific solutions to attain the desired result (if it is a film look).

Here we have all posted numerous examples of how the EPIC MX sensor is more than capable of dealing with highlight rolloff (in this instance being compared to film's rolloff).

There is no use arguing semantics or trying to make any digital sensor behave exactly as film would behave, it will always be its own thing. If you truly desire the look of 35mm film then convince every producer you work with to allow you to shoot film on every shoot (and take on all the appropriate costs and advantages as well).

This thread demonstrates many situations where the so called "problem" is easily resolved with this sensor/capture medium.

At this point it feels like the only thing being bashed is the EPIC MX, (why, because it is not film?) Of course it is not film. It is a new tool to which we are all trying to apply photographic principles and decipher the best practices to attain a "look" we want.

It's not about measuring a digital film pixel vs and EPIC pixel as compared to what it looks like on the screen.

Film itself is limiting in many ways.

I feel the EPIC technology is quite the contrary. We have tons of room to explore.

David

Nice post.....Thanks!

 

[António Fagundes]

Hello,

Let me chime in on what I interpret to be the difference between Clipping and Pure White, as defined by other before on this thread. Clipping is the outcome of overexposing the image to a point where details that were part of the scene or image being photographed are gone in the "raw" version of the file acquired (R3D, JPEG, TIFF, etc.). Pure White is, as suggested by the term, an image that is photographing something or some place where there is a no other colors. And Pure White can be created by intentionally clipping is allowed.

Clipping is not a bad thing; in fact, it is either an artistic decision to allow such overexposing and lose the details (there are plenty of examples presented before), or the result of messing up the control of light hitting the sensor (also that has been presented here before with good examples).

Now, the artifact present on some images are the result, in my opinion, of Color Space conversion.

As a colorist, I have seen before the magenta present on the top-left of the image (Sun) and on the satellite dish by the chimney, of the shot that Daniel so kindly posted here, where overexposure was artistically allowed to happen.

Also, I saw them on Mark's video on multiple occasions, played on Quick Time. The TCs are presented at the "second" level only since Quick Time does not offer frame in its timecode. The most pronounced was 00:01:34, where the hood of the car has two extreme highlights. BTW, I watch it using several monitors, each calibrated at different color spaces. They were more evident in sRGB, which helps to prove my point. So, I do not think that the original R3D has the magenta artifact.

I also took Mark's video, converted to APR 4444, and generated a DCP using the QuVIS plug-in for Compressor, and watch it with the QuVIS DCP Player for Mac (10 days free trial, if you want to watch it), and the magenta was either not clearly seen, since it was softened or are basically gone and not present on the extremes highlights I will point out bellow. They appear with a pleasant roll-off, just like film. The only exception was the most pronounced magenta spots that I mentioned at 00:01:34 (two extreme highlight dots at the hood of the car).

The other ones are much less pronounced, and you need to look for them carefully if you do not have "train eyes" to pick them up: 00:00:26, 00:00:29, 00:00:31, 00:00:38, 00:00:40, 00:00:50, 00:00:54, 00:00:57, 00:01:06, 00:01:13, 00:01:38, 00:01:45, 00:01:50, 00:02:16, 00:02:23, 00:02:29, 00:02:36, 00:03:16, 00:03:25, 00:03:43, 00:04:08, 00:04:15, 00:04:22, 00:04:27, 00:04:29, 00:04:34, 00:04:38, 00:04:39, 00:04:48, 00:04:53, 00:04:57, 00:05:04, 05:05:10, 00:05:12, and 00:05:22.

I do have a detail description of where specifically in the image at each TC I found them. If someone is interested for me to posted such descriptions, I will gladly do it. Also, with Mark's permission, I can post the DCP file for download, and you can take advantage of the free 10 days trial of that DCP player to watch it.

I can attest to the origin of these magenta artifacts fact since in more that one occasions that I have graded images for theatrical release (with a film emulation LUT, and at around 16 fL of light intensity bouncing from the screen), when a transforming LUT is applied to bring it to the sRGB Color Space for web posting of the trailers, both intentional and unintentional clippings that look very well as Pure White on the grading studio, as soon as they are Color Space transformed, they present as strong magenta on those spots. The strongest the "Pure White" spot, the strongest the magenta is.

I hope this helps,

Great post Luis. But you begin by suggesting that clipping might be an artistic choice (I really doubt that) but it would seem to be a much better scenario if there was no clipping/artifacts/overload in the original file and people could then just add those funky artifacts in post to taste. NOt the other way round...

Because you then explained how and what needs to be done to get rid of the clipping. So that proves that it takes a lot of work on set, just so that your highlights don't clip, but just stay clean white, and then if you fail to get that right on set, then you have a bunch of work to do in post to get rid of those artifacts. Yes, unless you're Steven Soderbergh Imagine if you have to do that everyday on a TV show, it becomes very troublesome and expensive just so that people can make Red footage look without artifacts. That's why I believe most TV shows are shot on Alexa. Because this overload problem is not as evident, or easy to get as is on Red.

So I still question, why does the sensor allow for overload? Is not doing anything but trouble.

And no, David I don't want Red to look like film, I had enough of film. I don't like the way it looks, the way it feels and it just doesn't have any snap to it. So, you couldn't have got it more wrong from me. Red is my favorite digital image. But like everything else in life, its not perfect. And all I'm trying to do is to understand exactly why does Red allow for this reading of data overload.

I don't know how you see me suggesting that it should look like film... that's you saying. I just want it to look good. Without clipping. Without data overload. A clean white, glaring highlight.

 

[David Battistella]

On the clipping discussion.

If you point a camera at a light source like the sun, you have an immediate choice.

1. Expose for the sun and most likely end up with a silhouette shot.
2. Expose for the rest of the shot and allow the strength of the sun to blowout the frame.

This goes for all high contrast lighting situations, natural or staged. We all get our inspiration for lighting from the single source that illuminates the planet, the sun. Almost everything done in lighting is to emulate the characteristics of the sun, reflected light and how shadows are cast.

Generally speaking all of the examples posted in this thread are extreme situations, but in each case a creative choice is made. Inherent in each choice is a compromise, so we have to make the choice and get over it.

You can't make a choice based on the limitation of a film camera and then blame the camera because it can't perform a miracle that evn the human eye can not accomplish. That is simply asking too much.

Mark's film shows this camera performing better than the human eye in lowlight and also in extreme lighting.

That is something to get excited about, not shit on.

and you now what, the epic mx, in the right hands is just slightly, barely less amazing.

David

 

[Luis Otero]

Great post Luis. But you begin by suggesting that clipping might be an artistic choice (I really doubt that) but it would seem to be a much better scenario if there was no clipping/artifacts/overload in the original file and people could then just add those funky artifacts in post to taste.

Because you then explained how and what needs to be done to get rid of the clipping. So that proves that it takes a lot of work on set, just so that your highlights don't clip, but just stay clean white, and then if you fail to get that right on set, then you have a bunch of work to do in post to get rid of those artifacts. Yes, unless you're Steven Soderbergh Imagine if you have to do that everyday on a TV show, it becomes very troublesome and expensive just so that people can make Red footage look without artifacts. That's why I believe most TV shows are shot on Alexa. Because this overload problem is not as evident, or easy to get as is on Red.

So I still question, why does the sensor allow for overload? Is not doing anything but trouble.

And no, David I don't want Red to look like film, I had enough of film. I don't like the way it looks, the way it feels and it just doesn't have any snap to it. So, you couldn't have got it more wrong from me. Red is my favorite digital image. But like everything else in life, its not perfect. And all I'm trying to do is to understand exactly why does Red allow for this reading of data overload.

I don't know how you see me suggesting that it should look like film... that's you saying. I just want it to look good. Without clipping. Without data overload. A clean white, glaring highlight.

Antonio,

I am not saying that this is a problem. I am trying to prove that the situation is the result of Color Space conversion.

To address your comment about TV, if the images acquisition is only for TV, then the monitor used for monitoring the shooting has to be calibrated to the Rec.709 Color Space, and you will never have to do a lot of work in post. My point was that images graded at the "Film" Color space, when transformed to sRGB, where traditional computer monitors are set, you will beed to adjust the clipped areas since they tend to go magenta. However, you traditionally do such conversion or grade for sRGB Color Space for trailers, which in most cases are graded separately from the master film images.

If you overexpose using Alexa so that there is clipping, grade for film, and later on convert it to sRGB for a trailer posted on the web, it will create the same situation.

So today's lesson: if you want to over expose for artistic purpose (as it was done in film), do it is a controlled way, as any good and responsible DP will do.

Cheers,

 

[António Fagundes]

A glaring highlight can occur in many different scenarios, the sun being the most obvious. I don't know what line of work you do but not in every type of work is easy to be constantly controlling the camera. In many situations DPs and directors want their highlights to just go to the limit. But of course if that limit brings artifacts then is a cause for concern.

Believe me, this is the most important issue why many TV and film productions choose Alexa over Red. Because of how both cameras read glaring highlights differently.

I can almost swear on my life that if Red had a better highlight control, the industry would be almost 100% shooting Red.

I'm not saying you can't control this or work around it, you can. But that's exactly the problem, you have to work around it or you have to deal with it. And not every set is friendly with a camera that constantly needs checking especially if what you are shooting is hard light.

Alexa uses the OFLP filter or has more DR in the highlights, whatever it is it is friendlier to the artist. He can shoot whatever is in his mind's eye and not worry that the camera is registering overload instead of bright light.

From what I read this is the most common issue DPs that don't like Red have. Highlight performance.

it's a shame because in everything else Red is so clearly superior. I can only imagine what a camera it would be if it could control data overload.

But I think I made my point enough times. I know that my point has registered with a lot of people, but the argument with some people present here is just not going anywhere.

So this is out from me.

Good shooting ya all!

 

[Frank Cueto]

Wouldn't just cranking up the DRX solve the pink artifact? I know it does for us.

 

[Luis Otero]

Wouldn't just cranking up the DRX solve the pink artifact? I know it does for us.

Frank,

Yes, you are correct; 99% of the magenta artifact is gone with it. I traditionally have it always enabled because it does what it means: extend the dynamic range, specially for recovering details in the highlights.

 

[David Battistella]

Wouldn't just cranking up the DRX solve the pink artifact? I know it does for us.

YES! Absolutely. Mark even stated he forgot to crank the DRX slider in the previous thread.

Again, red is a system, camera and post processing (just like film) and just like film you have to understand the whole system.

David

 

[Brice Ansel]

Wouldn't just cranking up the DRX solve the pink artifact? I know it does for us.

I guess, pushing the DRX knob is too much time consuming.

 

[Luis Otero]

...Again, red is a system, camera and post processing (just like film) and just like film you have to understand the whole system...

Bingo, David...! Your statement is the bottomline of this discussion. If you do not know your tools, and how they work to allow you to get what you want, how can you expect to get it right?

Cheers!

PS: I think that Mark should render the video again with the DRx cranked all the way and most of the discussion will be gone.

 

[David Battistella]

PS: I think that Mark should render the video again with the HDRx cranked all the way and most of the discussion will be gone.

Not HDRx

DRX slider in Redcine x.

David

 

[Luis Otero]

David,

Thanks for pointing me the error. Corrected...

 

[António Fagundes]

Antonio,

I am not saying that this is a problem. I am trying to prove that the situation is the result of Color Space conversion.

To address your comment about TV, if the images acquisition is only for TV, then the monitor used for monitoring the shooting has to be calibrated to the Rec.709 Color Space, and you will never have to do a lot of work in post. My point was that images graded at the "Film" Color space, when transformed to sRGB, where traditional computer monitors are set, you will beed to adjust the clipped areas since they tend to go magenta. However, you traditionally do such conversion or grade for sRGB Color Space for trailers, which in most cases are graded separately from the master film images.

If you overexpose using Alexa so that there is clipping, grade for film, and later on convert it to sRGB for a trailer posted on the web, it will create the same situation.

So today's lesson: if you want to over expose for artistic purpose (as it was done in film), do it is a controlled way, as any good and responsible DP will do.

Cheers,

yes, DPs want to overexpose for artistic reasons and they have to do it in a controlled way then it has to be because it needs to be overexposed in a way that relates to the rest of the shot or scene, not because your camera can't handle it.

i read somewhere that no other than Roger Deakins when overexposing the sky or other such glaring highlight he doesn't even read the highlights value, he doesn't care where those highlights values are, he just wants them overexposed in relation to the rest of the scene. This is how many great DPs work, they don't want to work for the camera they want the camera to work for them. If Roger choose to shoot on the Red, he wouldn't be able to work the same way, because Red will not control data overload for him. And if you are famiar with his work, you'll know that he would never allow for a clipped highlight in his film. There is not one bad technical or artistic shot in that man's career!

Same with Jeff Cronenworth, his Red shot movies are perfection. But his lighting style is perfect for Red. He's a master of soft light. He even worked as an assistant for Sven Nykvist, the father if soft light.

But hard lighting is a different beast altogether... And I believe Red is not the best option for a hard light film. At least not until they choose to address that problem.

And yes Luis I understand that the clipping gets worse when cir space is transferred to sEGB, but Red is not the only camera that has to go through that conversion, every camera has, and this problem is much more evident on the Red footage.

That brings me to a whole other issue, I can't wait for the day when Red decides to make their color space ProPhoto instead of RGB. Only then will things really get interesting!

 

[Brian Boyer]

The short answer posed by most of the respondents is simply this: If you don't wish to overload the sensor, then don't overload the sensor. Control the amount of light reaching the sensor by whatever means you deem necessary and/or practical; reduce the aperture, reduce the exposure time, reduce the dynamic range of light in the scene... etc. What we do before the sensor is at least as significant (I propose more significant) than what the sensor does, or what happens after the sensor.

It is all about controlling the exposure. No?

Is it more complicated than that? Does it need to be? That can be difficult enough at times.

As to the question of why would you ever do this, one or two of us suggested that a lack of time or resources could be named as reasons, though not necessarily acceptable ones. Another might be the possession of a free and experimental spirit, as well as the confidence and understanding of how to prevent those artifacts. I think Brice, David, Phil and others have shown that artifacts are not an outcome written in stone... or rather the R3d. ;-)

Edit: Add Gunliek to that list, naturally.

I'm trying to help Antonio ask a question that, once I thought about it, seemed to be legitimate and applicable to all camera manufacturers and that no one has actually directly answered in this thread. I'm sorry, but it seems everyone is answering one question without realizing he was asking two.

The responses you mention eloquently and beautifully answer the question about the highlight rolloff capabilities of MX. They also cover ways to avoid blowing out highlights all together, if that's what's desired. What remains of his questions is this:

It's not about knowing how to avoid blowing out highlights versus not knowing. He's said many times he knows how to avoid doing so. It's also not about the level of craftsmanship in front of the camera (as far as the discussion he's currently trying to have).

"It is all about controlling the exposure. No?" No, actually. That's the solution to a different question.

His point is, if he WANTS the appearance of blown out portions of the frame where everything is white (like in Gunleik's example), why do cameras have to overload the sensor in order to do it? Why can't they stop just short of the overload value and just give an actual white pixel if everything beyond it is supposed to be white anyway?

People keep trying to answer an "art and craft of filmmaking" question when it's really a sensor/camera design question. Of course, it ultimately relates back to the filmmaking aspect but try to ignore that part for a minute.

Your point about the "possession of a free and experimental spirit" is well taken. But, could it be an option to turn this ability on and off in software and would this be a welcome addition to the functionality of a camera or would it be utterly pointless to have?


@David.

Thanks for starting this thread and trying to have a helpful dialog. However, from my standpoint, this second question isn't a film versus digital matter. It's not a question of learning how to expose correctly, although knowing how helps. It's not MX bashing. It's a question about sensor design philosophy.

It's not a rhetorical question I think I already have the answer to, but a bona fide query as to why all sensor manufacturers design them to behave in one manner and not another.


Even if people want to rip this post a new one, it would be informative if they at least started off by directly answering the highlighted questions.

Maybe my understanding of the subject isn't sophisticated enough to realize the answers to those specific questions have already been provided. If they have, please copy and paste them, along with the questions, into your reply. Thanks.

 

[David Battistella]

Wait. I just want to get this straight.

Are you suggesting that if Roger Deakins shot on RED it would look like shit because its RED and that RED does not produce a camera that can handle his lighting style?

I would guess that if we stuck it in his hands he would blow our minds.

His choices are his. I'm certain he has film stock preferences as well, but that does not make all other film stock shit, it just means he doesn't choose it. The same way Speilberg and Tarentino will only shoot film because that's where they are in their life and career, it does not actually mean that all else is inferior.

David

 

[Jason L]

Again, red is a system, camera and post processing (just like film) and just like film you have to understand the whole system.

David

This is the key to many problems. It's a RAW camera and just like film you can't just shoot a roll and print it and expect immaculate results, there's a lot more to the process than that.

 

[António Fagundes]

I'm trying to help Antonio ask a question that, once I thought about it, seemed to be legitimate and applicable to all camera manufacturers and that no one has actually directly answered in this thread. I'm sorry, but it seems everyone is answering one question without realizing he was asking two.

The responses you mention eloquently and beautifully answer the question about the highlight rolloff capabilities of MX. They also cover ways to avoid blowing out highlights all together, if that's what's desired. What remains of his questions is this:

It's not about knowing how to avoid blowing out highlights versus not knowing. He's said many times he knows how to avoid doing so. It's also not about the level of craftsmanship in front of the camera (as far as the discussion he's currently trying to have).

"It is all about controlling the exposure. No?" No, actually. That's the solution to a different question.

His point is, if he WANTS the appearance of blown out portions of the frame where everything is white (like in Gunleik's example), why do cameras have to overload the sensor in order to do it? Why can't they stop just short of the overload value and just give an actual white pixel if everything beyond it is supposed to be white anyway?

People keep trying to answer an "art and craft of filmmaking" question when it's really a sensor/camera design question. Of course, it ultimately relates back to the filmmaking aspect but try to ignore that part for a minute.

Your point about the "possession of a free and experimental spirit" is well taken. But, could it be an option to turn this ability on and off in software and would this be a welcome addition to the functionality of a camera or would it be utterly pointless to have?


@David.

Thanks for starting this thread and trying to have a helpful dialog. However, from my standpoint, this second question isn't a film versus digital matter. It's not a question of learning how to expose correctly, although knowing how helps. It's not MX bashing. It's a question about sensor design philosophy.

It's not a rhetorical question I think I already have the answer to, but a bona fide query as to why all sensor manufacturers design them to behave in one manner and not another.


Even if people want to rip this post a new one, it would be informative if they at least started off by directly answering the highlighted questions.

Maybe my understanding of the subject isn't sophisticated enough to realize the answers to those specific questions have already been provided. If they have, please copy and paste them, along with the questions, into your reply. Thanks.

Brian, I don't think people actually see what you are seeing, or understand what you understand. It's exactly about sensor design philosophy, not about Red. Although, Arri seemed to be quite smart regarding this issue and addressed it before Red did. Its funny because Red and Alexa share the same sensor (only use it in different ways, from what I read, Red takes much of the sensor's power to capture more than 2Ks, whilst Alexa gave that power to DR and color rendition). But I'm not entirely sure this is at all true, but it came from Roger Deakins himself.

I keep addressing this issue because like you so clearly explained, allowing the sensor to overload doesn't make any sense at all. Surely with technology being what it is in this day in age, this could be a past issue.

But for everyone that doesn't believe that this is a problem. Just wait. Let's count in our heads how much longer will take for Red to address this issue! It will be quicker then you think! Then, I wonder what you all will say...

Wait. I just want to get this straight.

Are you suggesting that if Roger Deakins shot on RED it would look like shit because its RED and that RED does not produce a camera that can handle his lighting style?

I would guess that if we stuck it in his hands he would blow our minds.

His choices are his. I'm certain he has film stock preferences as well, but that does not make all other film stock shit, it just means he doesn't choose it. The same way Speilberg and Tarentino will only shoot film because that's where they are in their life and career, it does not actually mean that all else is inferior.

David

David, that's not what I said at all. You people have to start to really understand what people say here, not what you want to understand. I just said that if he shot on a Red, he wouldn't be able to work the same way. He would either have to spend more of his attention to look after the camera's limits, or he would light differently.

But whatever he decided to do, it would look wonderful.

 

[Scott Crawley]

But, could it be an option to turn this ability on and off in software and would this be a welcome addition to the functionality of a camera or would it be utterly pointless to have?

I'm not an engineer, so bear with me. A pixel receives a charge and returns a value that designates a level of luminance and hue. That value is either absolute white (what some are calling "no data" or 0 hue, max luma) or any hue at a luma level of -1, -2 etc..

What benefit should we expect to reap by artificially limiting the system's response so that it is unable to return a value of maximum luma? That is essentially limiting the DR of the sensor, isn't it?

Why cripple the system when you can basically chose to do the same thing yourself each and every time you set exposure?

I suppose it would be a rather simple feature request to implement. Ask away... "Dear Red, there are one too many crayons in your box. Kindly remove the whitest one. Please castrate my camera. Thank You."

OK, that was cheeky humor, not meant to offend. I know very little about uploading looks to the camera so I will ask. Is it possible to do what Brian is asking via a look? Flut -1 won't do it, right?