HDforIndies Footage on www.vuze.com

[mikeburton]

RedGuy,

I understand, believe me, as a reservation holder myself I want to see it all as well. Understand, more is coming and will be what everyone is dying to see. Can't say anymore now
I think everyone will be happy soon enough.

 

[ChrisLyon]

Is anyone else not getting any seeds on the file "Stirges Crashing Waves - 720p"?

 

[Casey Green]

Is anyone else not getting any seeds on the file "Stirges Crashing Waves - 720p"?

yep - can't get that one to DL.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

For people who shot all those Barcelona's test shots

could be a useful TUTORIAL tip from DSLR experience>>>

QUOTE:

"When shooting in RAW mode under tricky lighting, sometimes it is useful to set a slight negative exposure compensation (0.3-0.5). This decreases the chance of clipped highlights, yet still allows one to increase the exposure afterwards. Alternatively, a positive exposure compensation can be used to improve the signal to noise ratio in situations where the highlights are far from clipping."

1. Clipped highlights

2. Signal to noise ratio



MORE>>>

 

[Casey Green]

I find this extremely interesting for multiple reasons,

1. These are tests. Early camera builds etc. If they wish to share what is RAW out of the camera with the community, consider it a treat!

2. Give an inch and they want a yard...

3. Has anyone thought it out yet that this just might be the beginning?

I know everyone is eager to see some footage and Vuze in accordance with others will be providing it. Please, show respect to Mike Curtis and Crew etc. They have great stuff and we would all like to see more.........RIGHT?

My Three cents + inflation.

Hi Mike,

While I see what you are saying, I'm going to have to agree with Emmanuel and Red Guy here. The posting of RAW uncorrected material is certainly appreciated and valuable to the community, however, if there were mistakes when shooting (or more likely grading) or the output can be misinterpreted as poor quality, this can be misleading at best to the outside world.

While the locations and subjects are indeed beautiful and intriguing, I think these particular clips may not the best to judge RED's image quality by.

There seems to be a lot of clipping in the highlights as well as noise in the low-end (cathedral, family), not to mention focus issues and sensor protect spots and flares (dancer). With the clipping / noise, this seems to be caused during shooting rather than any settings in REDCINE or RED Alert!, but I could be wrong.

I realize that these clips were probably just quick tests done mostly with available light, but since they are coming out now, I think it should be noted that the quality is not necessarily indicative of the Camera's abilities.

(perhaps some detail was lost in the grading process or output to QT, however.)

In all fairness, I think these images were recorded a while back when many intricacies about the camera were still being figured out and with some of the issues now fixed by firmware / hardware updates.

Certainly more information from the shoots would be helpful.

Again, please do not consider this an insult to those involved in the shoot and post process. I do very much value everyone's contributions on this forum.

-----------

[EDIT]

*See replies from Mike Curtis which state that there was a miscommunication and these clips were not ready to go live on the site yet. They were not the graded versions, and were to have descriptions to allow us to know what we were seeing was not finished. The clips were removed and will be re-posted when ready. Everyone is now on the same page.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

This is not possible to colour correct.

Shake>>Truelight>>Profile: Kodak Vision>>Display: rec709>>ColourSpace: Video

Wrong exposure set up in camera(or in RAW post!?): Clipped highlights, random noise made with High ISO speed...etc...

No any RAW developer software or even colour correction app could help later.

Game over.

Sorry to all but we still have to learn a lot.

 

[mikeburton]

This is the footage Mike suggested we post first. It is RAW and what they wanted people to see. Is it everything the camera is capable of? No. I think we are all aware of that. I appreciate everyone's opinion on the matter and know how sensitive this topic is right now.
Understand, this is just the start of a large bundle of Footage that will be made available soon from multiple sources. Please be patient and we will have some amazing looking footage coming shortly.

 

[Adrian T.]

"When shooting in RAW mode under tricky lighting, sometimes it is useful to set a slight negative exposure compensation (0.3-0.5)."

There is no such thing as setting an exposure compensation with RED. The RED One shoots RAW - exactly what the sensor sees. So to avoid clipping of highlights you can do one of the following:

• Use a higher grade ND filter
• Lower the lighting level
• Close the iris
• Decrease the shutter speed

Of course there's side effects with some of the solutions...

 

[Casey Green]

Yes, Mike, I realize that much more footage is on it's way. I was just a little surprised by the Barcelona footage, specifically. Hopefully newer versions will be presented when people have more time.

I will not harp on the issue as it seems everyone is well aware.

I know great stuff is in the pipeline... thanks for your hard work in making this all available to everyone.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

There is no such thing as setting an exposure compensation with RED. The RED One shoots RAW - exactly what the sensor sees. So to avoid clipping of highlights you can do one of the following:

• Use a higher grade ND filter
• Lower the lighting level
• Close the iris
• Decrease the shutter speed

Of course there's side effects with some of the solutions...

Maybe, I don't know.

For us that still waiting for RED only info where we could get an idea about shooting is from the RED Operations Guide:

RED Operations Guide, Chapter 6. SENSOR MENU Controls, Page 23.

 

[Adrian T.]

Maybe, I don't know.

For us that still waiting for RED only info where we could get an idea about shooting is from the RED Operations Guide:

RED Operations Guide, Chapter 6. SENSOR MENU Controls, Page 23.

Just what I said. Read the passage below the first picture:

Note: When recording RAW, Exposure and Color Temperature values are stored as metadata for use in REDCODE RAW compatible NLE and image processing applications.
The Exposure and Color Temperature values only modify the RED-LCD, RED-EVF, Preview HDSDI and HDMI monitor outputs. They do not affect the recorded REDCODE RAW video data.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Just what I said. Read the passage below the first picture:

Note: When recording RAW, Exposure and Color Temperature values are stored as metadata for use in REDCODE RAW compatible NLE and image processing applications.
The Exposure and Color Temperature values only modify the RED-LCD, RED-EVF, Preview HDSDI and HDMI monitor outputs. They do not affect the recorded REDCODE RAW video data.

To conclude is to say that for a bad look of the picture you could "blame" your wrong dealing with RED's RAW software (RedAlert and REDCINE).

I would leave the answer of this topic to the experts.

 

[Adrian T.]

To conclude is to say that for a bad look of the picture you could "blame" your wrong dealing with RED's RAW software (RedAlert and REDCINE).

Not only that! Once your highlights are blown during recording, there's no way to recover them. Neither with RedAlert nor with REDCINE.

So don't blow your highlights, unless it's the look you're going for - maybe you're more interested in noiseless shadows.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Go back to the first sentence:

"Note: When recording RAW, Exposure and Color Temperature values are stored as metadata for use in REDCODE RAW compatible NLE and image processing applications."

That is what I was quoting with Link>>> :

"Noise increases with the sensitivity setting in the camera, length of the exposure, temperature, and even varies amongst different camera models."

"A camera's "ISO setting" or "ISO speed" is a standard which describes its absolute sensitivity to light. ISO settings are usually listed as factors of 2, such as ISO 50, ISO 100 and ISO 200 and can have a wide range of values. Higher numbers represent greater sensitivity and the ratio of two ISO numbers represents their relative sensitivity, meaning a photo at ISO 200 will take half as long to reach the same level of exposure as one taken at ISO 100 (all other settings being equal). ISO speed is analogous to ASA speed for different films, however a single digital camera can capture images at several different ISO speeds. This is accomplished by amplifying the image signal in the camera, however this also amplifies noise and so higher ISO speeds will produce progressively more noise."

LINK>>>

So when shooting/recording RAW with RED your Exposure and Color Temperature values are stored as metadata.

So how you set up in camera is what you get in metadata (RAW) to work later with REDCINE to achieve your desired look.

That was a clear for me from the beginning.

So the look you get in RED-LCD, RED-EVF, Preview HDSDI and HDMI monitor outputs is not a look you would get in RAW.

Then you should test a lot and learn the way to work with Exposure and Color Temperature values in camera to achieve later in REDCINE desired picture look.

That's it.

Do lot of tests then write all notes and then try to make a right decision for every/each possible shooting situation.

 

[Casey Green]

[edit]

oh - nevermind. you have edited your initial post so many times now, that my earlier reply no longer makes sense.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Is somebody here able to describe the RED camera's key features of shooting or write a quick guide to shoot with RED?

 

[Jendra]

Hello Red Users.
I want to clear up some speculation about the footage you are looking at.

First I want to say that I am taking nothing personally and that I agree with Red Guy.

If you all are taking the time to shoot this great footage please
spend a few hours to make the footage sing. You were at the shoot
and yes your work is excellent. I would not post footage to a world wide
audience that I was not happy with. It is a reflection of your abilities
and sometimes no amount of qualification can justify what is shown.
I understand in the flowing river of production that it is hard to go back
and spend time with footage when you are knee-deep in real paying gigs.
I would rather see one clip that has dozens of CC shots.

JMHO:innocent:

I agree with you. I did not post it. Someone else did.
I personally would prefer to wait to show it until it looks good.

But I also have nothing to hide, so I didn't ask for it to not be posted either. I just wish it had proper credits and an explanation of the context of what this footage is so people don't get the wrong idea.


A VERY EARLY TEST
Some of you are correct that this was shot right after the camera came out. There was no manual. There was no knowledge base on the boards of other people who were using the camera and what they had learned. Would I do some things differently now? Of course. That’s why we test.

HOWEVER:
The camera settings/way it was shot are not what is causing the blown out highlights, noisy blacks etc. that you see. That is the post processing.

It is the norm in dailies that you print them brighter to see into the shadows. We shot over 3 hours of footage and they were processed as a “one light” setting, many batch processed, for editorial.

Obviously we are going to darken the park footage to make it look pretty. How it looks right now is significantly brighter than it was by eye. As a test, it's good to see what the camera was able to capture by pushing the gain up so much (in post) for those clips. Underexposure performance is subjective: judged by the tradeoff between shadow detail and noise, and one’s personal tolerance for noise.

I'm very impressed with the detail that is in there, seen in these clips and this camera cleans up real nice in the blacks.


IN REGARDS TO POSTING THESE CLIPS AT THIS STAGE:

Making it look as good as it can takes time. We shot four days in October (first public footage in Europe, we are told) and I am still not done grading it properly. I am doing a Lustre vs. Scratch grading test at Technicolor and there are many steps involved to doing things as thoroughly as I want to, for a complete understanding of how to make the best results shooting with this camera.

What makes the images so great is the great range the camera captures and the resulting flexibility in post. The flip side of that is dependence on post and having lots of variables. It's a learning curve for us all to understand all the variables. This has had the effect of some early impressions being not up to people's expectations, because the first trial of image processing is often not what turns out being the best. People need to try different settings to learn what they are doing and different settings are best for different shooting scenarios.

It's actually a little scary to me that the person doing your Red Alert/Red Cine processing is actually akin to your dailies colorist, and as a DP you want someone qualified to make those determinations. It's not practical on a real job for the DP to be very involved in every possible post software setting for every shot. But without artistic judgement and understanding the footage can come back looking VASTLY different than your intentions, and quite inferior to how it is capable of looking.

Which is not to say that was the case in this scenario. Mike Curtis is very knowledgeable, thorough and artistic, and all these settings for these dailies were chosen for a reason.


Please see the following link for an example of the difference the grading makes from these flat, noisy, drab images:
http://www.hdforindies.com/2007/11/spain-red-shoot-day-2-part-1-sitges.html


More graded stills from our Spain test shoot:
http://www.hdforindies.com/2007/11/more-stills-commentary-from-mikes-red.html

 

[Rick Darge]

I don't know what people are bitching about. I think this stuff looks great for what it is and am grateful you guys are showing it to us. I've been watching this material more often than other stuff. I think it shows what the camera can accomplish in natural light.

 

[Casey Green]

Hello Red Users.
I want to clear up some speculation about the footage you are looking at.

First I want to say that I am taking nothing personally and that I agree with Red Guy.

I agree with you. I did not post it. Someone else did.
I personally would prefer to wait to show it until it looks good.

But I also have nothing to hide, so I didn't ask for it to not be posted either. I just wish it had proper credits and an explanation of the context of what this footage is so people don't get the wrong idea....

Well put, Jendra. It definitely makes a difference knowing this now. It was a bit confusing when I first saw the footage. I would love to see the properly graded material.

Perhaps you can upload some stills to show everyone the difference in a proper graded version.

 

[Jendra]

There seems to be a lot of clipping in the highlights as well as noise in the low-end (cathedral, family),

I specifically meant to comment on one of the cathedral shots: "Alley into Cathedral." Because we were testing the dynamic range of the camera, we did not ride the iris. The shot is a one minute long Steadicam move. It starts in the shade of an alley, turns a corner to a bright open plaza and tilts up to the edifice of the pale stone gothic cathedral. Then we enter the dark cathedral all in one shot.

So for a continuous shot, and being one light dailies, we picked one overall Redalert! setting. When we grade this we will ride the grade and see more detail in the darks inside the cathedral, and yes, THERE IS DETAIL IN THE FACE OF THE CHURCH!

Frame Grab from One Light Dailies QuickTime:

Best RedAlert! settings for that part of the shot. (which I still consider ungraded)