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 :)

First night shoot with my scarlet.

Agreed, if this was a video not a frame grab the noise would be much more pronounced...not to say a de-noiser wouldn't do the trick...
 
Thank you for sharing, Will.
 
I also agree, that for a night ext this is pretty noisy, not sure how it would do in post compared to my old 5d, but i knew getting into the scarlet, low natural light wasnt its strong suit, def better low light cams on the market. But its not terrible by any means. i could deal with this no prob.
 
resolution is looking pretty good though. still get lots of detail.
 
Domenic Barbero said:
I also agree, that for a night ext this is pretty noisy, not sure how it would do in post compared to my old 5d, but i knew getting into the scarlet, low natural light wasnt its strong suit, def better low light cams on the market. But its not terrible by any means. i could deal with this no prob.
Click to expand...

I think it is important to remember how much those other cameras are doing to the image before you see it. This is RAW :) Next time I shoot at night ill take a 5D along and do some comparison.
 
You know...I think Will has a great point...I just graded and de-noised this image and it looks perfect. I think for most of us, who are coming from a non-raw workflow, it can be shocking to see footage that has not been processed. Would it be possible to get a 5sec or so clip of video from this shoot? I would like to process it and see how it comes out on the other end.
 
Benoît-Joan Clariana-Roig said:
Hey guys. Check the R3D at full resolution in Red Cine X.

Let's face it: it's really noisy at 800 ISO. This is what I was expecting, but this is really disappointing. FS100 is far far better in low light. :(

And don't forget it's a still : on a moving picture, it'll be even more visible.


PNG (so no jpg compression artefact):

Click to expand...

Yes at 1:1 pixel, you are right...
Scaled down gto 1080, my bet is I could get it pretty noisefree.

The whole oversampling argument (a different - I know - than Jims 4k argument, but it's the one with most weight for me...)

I think the softness of the lens is more of an issue at 1:1 than the noise.

At 1080 - looks fine here.

But you need light to get exposure. That is true...
 
Gunleik Groven said:
Yes at 1:1 pixel, you are right...
Scaled down gto 1080, my bet is I could get it pretty noisefree.

The whole oversampling argument (a different - I know - than Jims 4k argument, but it's the one with most weight for me...)

I think the softness of the lens is more of an issue at 1:1 than the noise.

At 1080 - looks fine here.

But you need light to get exposure. That is true...
Click to expand...

Agreed about the scaling. Just made a print of this and it looks pretty amazing :) I was running around and doing tests. Def wanted a faster, sharper lens at that point. But unfortunately it was in the car ;)
 
i would say that the image itself looks great and im sure after de noiser it would look fine, especially going to 1080, but with an image like this, it would not allow you to punch in quite as freely correct? the more you go into it, the more visible that noise is going to be right? either way using the cheaper cams, you cant really punch in at all on anything without noticing softness and other flaws. Its a good test though, Cuz now i know exactly what i would be in for on a no light night ext wide. itll work thats for darn sure.
 
Domenic Barbero said:
i would say that the image itself looks great and im sure after de noiser it would look fine, especially going to 1080, but with an image like this, it would not allow you to punch in quite as freely correct? the more you go into it, the more visible that noise is going to be right? either way using the cheaper cams, you cant really punch in at all on anything without noticing softness and other flaws. Its a good test though, Cuz now i know exactly what i would be in for on a no light night ext wide. itll work thats for darn sure.
Click to expand...

Sure, but the lack of sharpness is a bigger issue than the noise until 150% punch-in... IMHO
 
agreed sir
 

A006_C025_1213LR.0000000F by hurnal, on Flickr
It's incredible, the flexibility of the r3d gives you so many options.
this is at 2500 ISO, the png doesn't do justice to what I see on RCX, but still it holds pretty well. also did a little alchemy.
 
Nuno Ribeiro said:

A006_C025_1213LR.0000000F by hurnal, on Flickr
It's incredible, the flexibility of the r3d gives you so many options.
this is at 2500 ISO, the png doesn't do justice to what I see on RCX, but still it holds pretty well. also did a little alchemy.
Click to expand...

Even at 1024 x 540, check the TON of noise you get on the bottom/ left of the picture. This is not even exploitable on 1080p. And come on...are you all using a Scarlet to do 1080p ?

 
Benoît-Joan Clariana-Roig said:
Even at 1024 x 540, check the TON of noise you get on the bottom/ left of the picture. This is not even exploitable on 1080p. And come on...are you all using a Scarlet to do 1080p ?
Click to expand...

Good points, i think an extensive review on the Scarlet X would be helpful, i wish i had mine so i can shoot:

-Scarlet X at night at different ISO's with HDRX on and off
-A candle scene or the classic light the cigar scene

To the owners of the Scarlet X who received it, would that be too much to ask?
 
I think I can work with it. noise or grain doesn't feel strange to me. also I'm not a colorist so I think someone with the skills would be able to do a lot better with this. And although 1080p is a possible choice, like I said, this noise or grain at 4k would be acceptable for my taste.
So faster lenses can also be part of a solution, but it is great to find out what we have to work with. thats my only concern as someone who is behind the camera.
 
Nuno Ribeiro said:
I think I can work with it. noise or grain doesn't feel strange to me. also I'm not a colorist so I think someone with the skills would be able to do a lot better with this. And although 1080p is a possible choice, like I said, this noise or grain at 4k would be acceptable for my taste.
Click to expand...

A colorist is not Jesus or Santa Claus. You can't do miracles even on a moving pic in RAW.
 
Yeah, don't let Roger Deakins see how much noise is in his higher iso low light exposure before noise removal from his favorite Kodak stock in an Arri. He might just give up cinematography altogether and take up needlepoint instead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top