My scarlet just started doing this out of nowhere. I will light and get a beautiful image on my LCD but then when I bring it into my computer it is really dark. It looks like it is crunching the blacks. I'm shooting 2 feature films right now and it has ruined 2 of my days. I've reset my camera, upgraded firmware, calibrated the blacks..... Nothing has helped.
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
Footage looks great on LCD, Horribly dark when I view on my computer. Please Help!
- Thread starter John Hale
- Start date
Marc Wielage
Well-known member
It's as if the two monitors are in different color spaces!
Tell us how you calibrated each monitor, and what color space you intend for the final show to wind up in. If you're trying to use Rec709 (normal broadcast HD), be warned that not all monitors can be adjusted to go in that ballpark. That's especially true for cheap LCD displays and modest computer displays.
Don't be sure that the footage is "ruined" unless and until you take it to an experienced colorist and look at the material on a real calibrated monitor in verifiable color space. And next time, shoot lots and lots of tests before embarking on a feature. Know what the limits are in terms of exposure range, and where the histograms have to be in order for the colorist to give you back the pictures you need to see.
Tell us how you calibrated each monitor, and what color space you intend for the final show to wind up in. If you're trying to use Rec709 (normal broadcast HD), be warned that not all monitors can be adjusted to go in that ballpark. That's especially true for cheap LCD displays and modest computer displays.
Don't be sure that the footage is "ruined" unless and until you take it to an experienced colorist and look at the material on a real calibrated monitor in verifiable color space. And next time, shoot lots and lots of tests before embarking on a feature. Know what the limits are in terms of exposure range, and where the histograms have to be in order for the colorist to give you back the pictures you need to see.
Matt Ryan
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 22, 2008
- Messages
- 4,381
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
- Age
- 39
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA.
- Website
- pro.imdb.com
Go into your Scarlet and reset all settings to factory default. Also, check your lcd brightness on camera and make sure it isn't too high. You may have an in camera "look" set that is boosting contrast or you have something else affecting the image. It's an R3D though so if you're histogram and goal posts were okay you should have a decent image. Also, what ISO and compression setting do you have setup?
Care to post any R3D's directly from camera so we can check them out and see what's going on? It's kind of hard to diagnose from your description. It sounds to me like it may be your computer and not the camera.
Care to post any R3D's directly from camera so we can check them out and see what's going on? It's kind of hard to diagnose from your description. It sounds to me like it may be your computer and not the camera.
- Thread starter
- #4
I have been shooting on this camera for almost a year and have never had this problem. I use all the tools and have been professionally color correcting films for several years. I've never had this problem. It is not a slight difference. It is like night and day. I have also reset to factory settings and calibrated. Nothing has helped. This is a still of what it looks like after I've brought it into my computer. It looked really good on my LCD as well as on the external monitor. I'm not sure how to show you what I got on LCD.
THE AFTER:
![A010_C007_0914Y90001186After.jpg](http://[URL="http://s928.photobucket.com/user/jgh7d7/media/A010_C007_0914Y90001186After.jpg.html"][IMG]http://i928.photobucket.com/albums/ad121/jgh7d7/A010_C007_0914Y90001186After.jpg)
[/URL][/IMG]
THE AFTER:
- Thread starter
- #5
Gabriele Turchi
Well-known member
i guess you should upload an R3D snapshot ..
g
g
Bob Gundu
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 10,238
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Toronto, ON Canada
- Website
- www.10fh.com
Can really help until we see the R3D files. Doesn't need to be the whole clip. A single frame will do.
- Thread starter
- #8
Matt Ryan
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 22, 2008
- Messages
- 4,381
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
- Age
- 39
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA.
- Website
- pro.imdb.com
host it somewhere like WeTransfer and paste the download link here.
- Thread starter
- #10
Matt Ryan
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 22, 2008
- Messages
- 4,381
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
- Age
- 39
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA.
- Website
- pro.imdb.com
hmm. Honestly never seen something like this before. It would appear from the meta that it is just severely underexposed. Have you filed a support ticket yet? I know you probably didn't expose it like this, but speaking from the metadata everything looks normal. Crazy...
Also, have you tried re-installing firmware? Or even rolling back firmware versions to see if that helps?
Also, have you tried re-installing firmware? Or even rolling back firmware versions to see if that helps?
Bob Gundu
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 10,238
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Toronto, ON Canada
- Website
- www.10fh.com
From the R3D, it looks like the sensor is hungry for light. But the shot is salvageable. You need to crank the ISO to at least 3200 or even 5000. If it's too grainy for you, you'll have to do use NEAT IMAGE plugin to clean it up.
- Thread starter
- #13
I have not rolled back to a previous firmware but I did upgrade the firmware and it did not help. If the monitor can't even get me close then I'm just guessing.... I'm at a loss... I have a ticket with RED but the first time it happened they told me that my monitor must have gotten switched to RAW mode. After the 2nd time, I am positive this is not the case. I have not heard from RED as of yet about the 2nd occurrence. Thanks for all of you guys time. I have an overnight shoot tonight, hopefully I can find a solution by then.
Marcos Montenegro
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2011
- Messages
- 1,000
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Baltimore / D.C. / Guatemala / Chile
- Website
- www.kasunelstudios.com
What LCD monitor are you judging exposure with? The 5" RED touch? If so, have you tried using another one? If so, does the problem follow the body or the monitor?
Patrick Tresch
Well-known member
I don't know what's happening here but there are serval things that can scew it up :
- 5.6'' touch LCD way too bright (set to maximum in a dark environment is dangerous...)
- In dark environment the LCD is a liar and we tend to underexpose as we see the picture bright without any noise... much less noise that what you get on your R3D (don't know if it's due to the too clean SDI direct output without compression to R3D and decompression?
- Exposure set to 1 instead of 0 (it's like +1 stop just like form 1600 wich is acceptable to 3200 wich is a dead end.)
- Have you really shot/monitored on set at 400 asa as meta data is saying?
- Are you uploading any presets after reinstalling your Firmware?
- Have you shot looking at a RAW to check? Make a fast test shoot in RAW view and look at it in RCX, have you different results?
It's what I can tell...
Pat
- 5.6'' touch LCD way too bright (set to maximum in a dark environment is dangerous...)
- In dark environment the LCD is a liar and we tend to underexpose as we see the picture bright without any noise... much less noise that what you get on your R3D (don't know if it's due to the too clean SDI direct output without compression to R3D and decompression?
- Exposure set to 1 instead of 0 (it's like +1 stop just like form 1600 wich is acceptable to 3200 wich is a dead end.)
- Have you really shot/monitored on set at 400 asa as meta data is saying?
- Are you uploading any presets after reinstalling your Firmware?
- Have you shot looking at a RAW to check? Make a fast test shoot in RAW view and look at it in RCX, have you different results?
It's what I can tell...
Pat
Zac C
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 1,156
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
- Location
- Utah
- Website
- www.zaccrosby.com
We need to know lens data, or an iphone pic of what it looks like on the LCD
There is no way this should look the way it is without some indication on the LCD, even the histogram should show this was underexposed.
There is no way this should look the way it is without some indication on the LCD, even the histogram should show this was underexposed.
- Thread starter
- #17
I shot/monitored at 400 ISO. I don't have any presets other than keys and guide overlays. I have not tried shooting in RAW. I use old manual Nikon lenses. The f stop was no higher than 2.8 at any given point of the shoots. The histogram on the LCD looks like it could represent closer to what I get on my computers but it is a problem if none of my monitors can get me even close to what my file will look like. All I can do is guess, and that is no way to professionally operate.
Patrick Tresch
Well-known member
You'r right. I think you can also go safe and shoot looking at the RAW mode. Ugly picture I must admit but if it's the way you can be sure that you don't have a monitoring problem (RC3/RG3) it's worth the hassle. Try to make a log file and send it in to red if this persist. And lastly check if you have changed something (hidden) in the camera metadata that could harm your monitoring (Flut, gain, brightness, exposure...).
Pat
Björn Benckert
Well-known member
I find it a bit odd that you do not mention where your histogram was at while shooting? Looking at the monitor is a bit like looking at a video tap of a film camera as it does not say much or actually anything about exposure.... But looking at the under/overexposure meter and histogram at 800 iso is giving you a very accurate indicator for whats going on at the sensor.
So my guess is that you had monitor levels set very high and then exposed to taste which can be quite devastating. So look at the goal posts on each side of the histogram, if they are not visible then you have the range of the imagery within the range of the sensor. in this case your picture would start to burn at 20000iso so it's quite far from being overexposed to say the least....
Mark Phelan
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 2,720
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 38
John, looked at it in RCX and the histogram tells the story, you're not properly exposed. In the early days it was said to ETTR, expose to the right, meaning make sure you have enough latitude. Nowadays the mantra is make sure you have a fat histogram, meaning pretty much the same thing. I don't see that with this clip. It's very narrow and ETTL, meaning it's going to be very dark. What does your histogram look like on the rest of the clips? And more importantly, what does it look like while you're shooting? Forget what it looks like in your viewfinder, what is the data telling you?
Yes, it can be salvaged, but that's not the point. Need to know what was not right here and my first suspicion is a thin histogram, but that's only based on what I see here.
Yes, it can be salvaged, but that's not the point. Need to know what was not right here and my first suspicion is a thin histogram, but that's only based on what I see here.