HDRx footage...

[Stefan Auer]

Doubt it. EasyHDR has been described as having the effect “baked” in, meaning you can’t separate the x track from it, nor do you get a choice in motion blur, MM is it… so if that’s going out to a monitor its going to be WYSIWYG.

Yes I know, I was talking about HDRx

 

[Leo Sardello]

Hope someone who knows will confirm or deny this.

I hope so.

I don’t get the confusion. EasyHDR™™ will show results in the monitor path as stated a page or so ago. HDRx™™ will not. So if you want to know what a scene might look like with HDRx™™ on set in monitor, you turn EasyHDR™™ on and look at it. Then you turn it off and switch to HDRx™™ to shoot.

Or is it the ease of doing this that concerns people? At worst it’s going to be drilling through some menus right? At best you should be able to assign each option to one of the many user definable buttons and switch back and forth.

 

[Leo Sardello]

Yes I know, I was talking about HDRx™

Sorry, I'm lost. He said that you can't monitor HDRx...

 

[Elsie N]

I don’t get the confusion. EasyHDR™™™ will show results in the monitor path as stated a page or so ago. HDRx™™™ will not. So if you want to know what a scene might look like with HDRx™™™ on set in monitor, you turn EasyHDR™™™ on and look at it. Then you turn it off and switch to HDRx™™™ to shoot.

Or is it the ease of doing this that concerns people? At worst it’s going to be drilling through some menus right? At best you should be able to assign each option to one of the many user definable buttons and switch back and forth.

Easy HDR and HDRx may not be a one-to-one look. What I mean is, if Easy HDR looked like finished HDRx, why not always go Easy HDR? But if like you originally suggested that one could get an idea how HDRx would look by viewing Easy HDR on a monitor, that would be good. I'm just wanting that confirmed by someone who has actually used the two.

 

[David Quinn Carder]

Or is it the ease of doing this that concerns people? At worst it’s going to be drilling through some menus right? At best you should be able to assign each option to one of the many user definable buttons and switch back and forth.

It's the ease and speed of switching, yes, because I will be doing a lot of run-and-gun and would like to be able to adjust to match what I perceive with my naked eye as quickly as possible. I imagine it will be quick and easy to switch—if that's not the plan, then consider this a feature request!

 

[Stefan Auer]

Sorry, I'm lost. He said that you can't monitor HDRx™™...

he was talking about that you can only see the resulting HDR (tonemapped) image in EasyHDR.
so you get no preview in the monitor what a combined HDR version will look like when you are in HDRx mode, but you will able to monitor something (so at least the normal image which probably looks overexposed) otherwise it wouldn´t be that easy to shoot anything :wink5:.

 

[Leo Sardello]

Gotcha. I thought they were pretty clear that the main difference between the two modes was that EasyHDR™ was just “baked” into the image, whereas HDRx™ was not. While that leaves more options for you in post with HDRx™ (especially when it comes to motion blur options) I didn’t take it to mean that there would be a significant difference in the outcome. The look of the extended range provided by both will be the same for a given setting. Thus if you want to see the "outcome" of HDRx on set, just look at EasyHDR.

But I see where you guys are coming from now. :cheers2:

So one of the questions being asked then was if the “Outcome” of HDRx™ isn’t monitorable are the two independent streams that make it up monitorable? That’s fair, though I still imagine unlikely.

 

[Tommi Hares]

are the two independent streams that make it up monitorable?

Am I missing something here, or why not just make it a 50/50 split on the monitor?
EDIT: Or a checkered one?

 

[Leo Sardello]

Am I missing something here, or why not just make it a 50/50 split on the monitor?
EDIT: Or a checkered one?

It took me a bit to get the original question, but since the outcome of HDRx isn’t viewable in the monitor path, some people were wondering if just the “x” stream would be. I think.

 

[Nathan VanderByl]

wait till you see what happens when you put 2 RED ROCKETS into one tower

How about 1x Red Rocket 2?

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

On that note, I'd love to see a "quad Rocket" that fits onto a single PCIe 2.0 X16 card.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Sanjin:

How are these ultimately different than using the raw file and just increasing exposure and tweaking other parameters in redcine or Photoshop?

That's the whole point of raw, you have ALL of the sensor information POSSIBLE at that exposure - how you use it is up to the processing. In my mind the only way to improve - since once you reach a saturation point on a photosite additional photons are ignored - would be to let it go to a level and then reset and start over. And it seems to me that HDRx™™™™™™™™™™ is some method of doing that, so they actually do have more info than the single raw file which can't be true with just the single raw info from r1 or anything else. In other words IT IS A LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY TO HAVE MORE THAN ALL.

Michael,

I do not know how RED is doing Easy HDR in camera and HDRx™™™™™ with Magic Morion later in post but right now I'm playing and have a wish that should be great if it is close to my HDR test results.

Here below there are the latest HDR "simple-play/exposure-fusion" result from yesterday shots:

Original Kiowa image shot on 7D with Leica Vario Elmarit 28-90mm zoom lens.

Over exposured image done in any capable app.

HDR image using exposure fusion in any capable HDR app.

Original Euro Typhoon image shot on 7D with Nikon 28-300mm FX G zoom lens.

Over exposured image done in any capable app.

HDR image using exposure fusion in any capable HDR app.

 

[Michael Olsen]

I think HDRx™™ will perform very well, and probably without many of the downsides of tone-mapping as you have done by simulating multiple exposures. The halos around the clouds, for example, seem to be absent from what HDRx™™ footage we've seen.

Off topic, terribly, but isn't that a Kiowa, not an Apache? The AH-64 has much boxier lines and four rotor blades.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

I think HDRx™™™™ will perform very well, and probably without many of the downsides of tone-mapping as you have done by simulating multiple exposures. The halos around the clouds, for example, seem to be absent from what HDRx™™™™ footage we've seen.

Off topic, terribly, but isn't that a Kiowa, not an Apache? The AH-64 has much boxier lines and four rotor blades.

Michael,

you are right it's Kiowa (I'll correct now).

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Sanjin. I've said it once. I've said it a thousand times. You know you can tonemap a SINGLE image and get the exact same results if you only have one picture anyway. You don't have to export two and then recombine them. You can get the very exact same result by just feeding it a single image. It's like cutting a car in half. Then welding it back together to get more wheels.

It's just a stylistic filter that can be applied to any footage and you don't need an HDRx track.

Even if you did apply tonemapping like that it would almost certainly be applied to the MagicMotion or MNMB footage *after* it's turned into an HDR. We should just get local tone mapping free images out of the two tracks which we can then grade just like any other footage. There won't be halos or unnatural contrast since it should produce a linear image as if the sensor natively had that much dynamic range.

Then if you want to apply local tonemapping you can go for it. But you don't need multiple exposures. Tonemapping is often applied to a single image and it works pretty much exactly the same on a LDR image as an HDR image.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

I don’t think that RED sensor has any better sensitivity as some top of the line DLSRs

So all depends how much light in shadows you want to capture in your HDR picture.
You can’t get out of crashed shadows if there is no light or no exposure time/aperture that will allow you to do it.

You have to use fast lenses and exposure as long as needed for given scene light.

Actually it does have better sensitivity and better highlight roll-off and more complex color definition. A Red MX will shoot better stills in many regards than any DSLR - I am talking stills, the superiority of its video component goes without saying.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

I don't think there is a Red store in the city I live in. LA is too far. Online is an option. But, may be sometime down the road I will think about getting a Red camera. Not right now.



Of course. I don't know about Red's customer service as I don't own any products. But the availability of senior Red leadership on this forum and elsewhere never ceases to amaze me. And, here Red gets full marks.



I think you are underestimating the potential market of Red among still photographers. My impression is that many still photographers, such as wedding photographers, etc., have warmly welcomed the limited video capabilities on some of the new DSLRs, as now they can supply some nice "shots of the moment" to their customer in video also - it wasn't perhaps required of many of them, but the availability of small videos has certainly increased the appeal among such photographers. Perhaps some ad makers also. So many would resist going to Red now for small length videos. Especially, that their DSLrs cameras are perhaps smaller, require shorter setups, etc., for a small segment of video.

Joofa

I have never seen Red camera at a wedding. This is a prosumer market that Red never really targeted.

DSLR horror stories are starting to mount - many music-video prodcos here are adopting a strict no-DSLR rule.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Joofa, I'm perhaps an odd one on here. Unlike you, I "have" a Red one MX and I fully appreciate how amazing the camera is, at the price point and way above.

But it's not mine. I work on staff and although I'm in charge of the camera, it's not mine to do with as I please. This is very frustrating - it's like having a crush on the girl at the next desk and knowing she is unaware of your existence. So, just like you Joofa and many others, I'm waiting for Red to deliver Epic and Scarlet and hoping I'll be able to find the cash to purchase when that happens. And like many others, I've taken the DSLR path in the interim. And Matt's right. Even though I fully appreciate the HUGE difference in quality between a DSLR and Red, I simply don't have the gigs to justify the expenditure. But that's no-one's fault but mine - and it certainly ain't Jim's.

Matt's point is that Red have already provided a tool beyond what any other company has, at a price point beyond comparison. And now they're building a new range of cameras that raise the bar exponentially higher again. This doesn't happen overnight but they do offer the next best thing right now. Sure, there are cheaper alternatives and, depending on your needs, some of these might do the job - but they'll never really compare.

I've gone the DSLR path for two reasons. One, I can see that much of the support kit I'm building now will fit nicely on my Scarlet when it arrives and two, I simply can't afford/justify the cost of the new video cameras. Because, despite all the posts suggesting the opposite, the other manufacturers just refuse to get it. Sonysonic et al still want Scarlet-like prices for really average video cameras and they'll only ever take the hint when their sales are effected.

So I'm forced, on my budget, to buy what's available now. But "my" Red One has shown me just how big a compromise they represent. :emote_hippie:

That's what I see often - those who use DSLRs are simply those who could not afford a Red anyway. That's fair enough - but it's not really a lost sale for Red. Before DSLRs they probably would have picked-up an HVX or something.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Sanjin. I've said it once. I've said it a thousand times. You know you can tonemap a SINGLE image and get the exact same results if you only have one picture anyway. You don't have to export two and then recombine them. You can get the very exact same result by just feeding it a single image. It's like cutting a car in half. Then welding it back together to get more wheels.

It's just a stylistic filter that can be applied to any footage and you don't need an HDRx™™ track.

Even if you did apply tonemapping like that it would almost certainly be applied to the MagicMotion or MNMB footage *after* it's turned into an HDR. We should just get local tone mapping free images out of the two tracks which we can then grade just like any other footage. There won't be halos or unnatural contrast since it should produce a linear image as if the sensor natively had that much dynamic range.

Then if you want to apply local tonemapping you can go for it. But you don't need multiple exposures. Tonemapping is often applied to a single image and it works pretty much exactly the same on a LDR image as an HDR image.

Gavin,

you are right with it but also there is another way that could be called like an EasyHDR and I see it as a sort of exposure fusion way of doing thing with two different image exposures...

 

[David Quinn Carder]

Sanjin. I've said it once. I've said it a thousand times. You know you can tonemap a SINGLE image and get the exact same results if you only have one picture anyway. You don't have to export two and then recombine them. You can get the very exact same result by just feeding it a single image. It's like cutting a car in half. Then welding it back together to get more wheels.

I wouldn't say the exact same result; rather, a superior result. Combining two images makes absolute no sense when they're RAW files! That's the whole point! I still can't for the life of me figure out what he's trying to demonstrate except how not to do it.