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 :)

Exposure 101...

Mark Warren said:
Although some of the in camera indicators are useful, (focus assist particularly) when all is said and done (for me)... when I use my hand-held light meter, I've had no problems whatsoever, not a one with exposure.
Click to expand...

Really? I always seem to be a Stop to a Stop and a half off... What am I doing wrong?
 
a couple of answers to questions asked

a couple of answers to questions asked

...yes - traffic lights and stop lights are the same.

...the expression "thick" negative comes from exposing film stock and refers to a negative that covers the whole scenes luminance.

if you shoot a low key scene and don't overexpose for instance, most of your information will be in the toe of the curve and produce grainier blacks because your neg recorded to little information there - hence the term "too thin".

so - when people are referring to shooting a thick negative they refer to the importance of getting the most infos out of a negative for the grade to be perfect.

hope that helped
 
Joel Kaye said:
I'd use False Color more if I could put it on a button while edge focus assist is on another button. I'd hope that is on the short list for things to do.
Click to expand...

Same here, never used the False color mode just because of this. I find the focus assist very important in pretty much all the shots, and only if the exposure gets tricky I'd go for the False Color. But it would be great to be able to assign both to different buttons.
 
I'd just like for it not to measure outside the actual (recorded) image area.
 
Christian Tanner said:
...yes - traffic lights and stop lights are the same.

...the expression "thick" negative comes from exposing film stock and refers to a negative that covers the whole scenes luminance.

if you shoot a low key scene and don't overexpose for instance, most of your information will be in the toe of the curve and produce grainier blacks because your neg recorded to little information there - hence the term "too thin".

so - when people are referring to shooting a thick negative they refer to the importance of getting the most infos out of a negative for the grade to be perfect.

hope that helped
Click to expand...

Yes, thank you
 
UI

UI

On a similar subject to RAW metering, I'd be interested in seeing some more flexibility in the display of UI meters/menus in the various outputs. Specifically, it'd be great to see an option where the user could specify the position of the upper and lower meter bars as follows:
  1. RED mode outputs UI at 1280x848 for use with RED monitors and EVF.
  2. 720p (16:9) mode outputs meter bars overlapping part of the sensor's lookaround so that the information is fully visible on standard 16:9 HD-SDI or HDMI/DVI monitors.
  3. SXGA (5:4) mode pads the 1280x848 signal to 1280x1024 so that the full information is visible on standard HDMI/DVI monitors that don't support 1280x848.
  4. XGA (4:3) mode (might not be feasible) pads the signal to 1280x960 and scales down to 1024x768.

This may not be high on many peoples' wishlists, but for those of us who prefer to use a third-party onboard monitor over RED's own monitoring solutions; and with the RED ONE's current output format, it's practically a necessity to use an additional RED monitor (or EVF) just to see the meters.

I can't help but feel that a widescreen monitoring output format limits the capacity for on-screen information - I'd rather see 4:3 or 5:4 as standard for operators which would provide more space for more on-screen data. Would love to hear your input - Jim/Jared/anyone!
 
yes, please

yes, please

David Wyatt said:
False colour is a revolutionary idea that AFAIK is pretty unique to Red - it's very handy indeed...but Red should be putting all of their precious time into implementing this phenomenal tool into it being accurate in RAW view!!

Some of the other tools like the traffic lights (if they were RAW) or the RAW rainbow colour meter are good, very rough guides but they aren't particularly accurate in the sense that they may be misled by specular highlights that you might not care about. A definitive RAW false colour what-you-see-is-exactly-what's-going-down-in-the-RAW-world would not only be immensely useful but also unique (AFAIK).
Click to expand...

Apologies to our color challenged cohorts but I think this is the holy grail. I actually printed out the page from the manual with the color key for false color, laminated it and keep it at camera. Not only would I love to see false color based on RAW but also charted to IRE values or Ansel Adams Zones.

False color is terrific now, with some tweaking, IMHO, it would be the best exposure tool in the industry.
 
Blair S. Paulsen said:
Apologies to our color challenged cohorts but I think this is the holy grail. I actually printed out the page from the manual with the color key for false color, laminated it and keep it at camera. Not only would I love to see false color based on RAW but also charted to IRE values or Ansel Adams Zones.

False color is terrific now, with some tweaking, IMHO, it would be the best exposure tool in the industry.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that this is a wonderful tool, and the rainbow approach might be the best way to go as previously mentioned. The problem with small amounts of color viewed on the EVF or a small LCD is that it's tougher to tell exactly what you're seeing. If the false colors could be vivid, it would help tremendously and would make spotting exposure even quicker for our non-challenged brethren. Subtle color changes make judging things rough!
 
If I'm right, even if there are only some pixels in the dead zone (overexposed), you get the red light warning (very little highlights somewhere in the picture). I'm convinced, that some people are irritated by that and underexpose to much. Wouldn't it be a solution to have a menu, where I can say, how many pixels or how many % of the image I would allow to overexpose? That could be helpfull for a faster judging in low light conditions with less noise in the results. At least it could be helpfull to cut away overexposed pixels outside the framed image.
 
What I would like info on is this ....
My final/only finished product is BD.
I am (will be) using a S35 Scarlet and RPP's.
I will be using FCP.
What is the workflow and camera settings to produce highest quality 16x9 (1920x1080) BD, within these parameters?
i.e no compromises .... only target is 16x9 (1920x1080) BD ... using FCP and S35 Scarlet and RPP's.


and can this be equaled using Red One and RPP's or would 16x9 (1920x1080) from S35 "beat" 16x9 (1920x1080) from Red One?
 
I am very pleased with this post - As a new Red user, I have been relying on (and loving ) just having a live histogram. I honestly had no idea how to completely exploit the false color feature until reading to this point! .. oh and my vote for meters on the raw.
 
One more -All meters to Raw. Especially the traffic lights.
 
Back to ETTR

Back to ETTR

I like to shoot VariCam by setting my Zebra to 97 percent and putting a white card in the shot at the point of max illumination. I set iris to get full zebra on the card. That keeps my whites just under clip.

So, as a test, I set the Red One to iso 320 in the camera and did the same procedure (Zebra from 97 to 108, put up the white card and adjusted iris until full zebra) then I switched to false color and iris down until the red goes to orange.

However, I have to set my incident Minolta meter to iso 160 for it to agree on the iris with the camera.

So, if we are going to ETTR does this mean the real iso for Red One is 160?
 
Mark Crabtree said:
So, if we are going to ETTR does this mean the real iso for Red One is 160?
Click to expand...

In a low contrast scene yes, in a high contrast scene to protect the highlights you might say the real iso was 500. Real iso is a little bit meaningless with digital cameras.

Stephen
 
One of the "variables" in the ISO equation is the amount of headroom you allow above nominal white. ISO is not meaningless, but it's always been a bit rubbery, and especially so with RAW digital.

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