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 :)

How did Jim do this?

Julio Quintana

Julio Quintana

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
1,770
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Austin, TX
Website
www.juliomquintana.com
Thanks for the reply. I'll give it a try. But in Jim's post, he says he "opened in RA! REDspace and made absolutely no corrections whatsoever."

And Kaya said he made his adjustments in 20 seconds. Can someone explain?
 
there's a pretty good denoiser in After Effects

p
 
Julio Quintana said:
All of my ISO 2000 stuff looks terrible and I can't figure out how to get it cleaner.
Click to expand...

Are you sure it's ISO 2000? If one or more of your channels is underexposed (e.g. blue in Tungsten light), then the ISO is effectively higher: it could be ISO 6400!

The most important factor in noise is the total amount of light in all three channels. If your raw histogram is bunched on the left in even just one channel, noise will result. That's why the same ISO 2000 in some conditions (e.g. daylight) will look fine, whereas ISO 2000 in other conditions (tungsten) do not.

ISO 2000 with good histograms (all three channels bunched up on the far right) can be better than ISO 320 with bad histograms.
 
Daniel Browning said:
Are you sure it's ISO 2000? If one or more of your channels is underexposed (e.g. blue in Tungsten light), then the ISO is effectively higher: it could be ISO 6400!

The most important factor in noise is the total amount of light in all three channels. If your raw histogram is bunched on the left in even just one channel, noise will result. That's why the same ISO 2000 in some conditions (e.g. daylight) will look fine, whereas ISO 2000 in other conditions (tungsten) do not.

ISO 2000 with good histograms (all three channels bunched up on the far right) can be better than ISO 320 with bad histograms.
Click to expand...

Very accurate post. Underexposure will generate more noise than anything. High ISO, underexposure under tungsten and... you are in a big hole.

Jim
 
Daniel Browning said:
The most important factor in noise is the total amount of light in all three channels. If your raw histogram is bunched on the left in even just one channel, noise will result. That's why the same ISO 2000 in some conditions (e.g. daylight) will look fine, whereas ISO 2000 in other conditions (tungsten) do not.

ISO 2000 with good histograms (all three channels bunched up on the far right) can be better than ISO 320 with bad histograms.
Click to expand...


Great Advice, Tried it, and it works. But seriously...Why in the world couldn't someone from The Red Team explain it this simply? C'mon, I have to wait months for someone at Red User to explain it like this?? Ridiculous.
 
Donald G said:
Great Advice, Tried it, and it works. But seriously...Why in the world couldn't someone from The Red Team explain it this simply? C'mon, I have to wait months for someone at Red User to explain it like this?? Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Do you expect the chef from the Chinese take-out to tell you how to use chopsticks?
 
Donald G said:
Great Advice, Tried it, and it works. But seriously...Why in the world couldn't someone from The Red Team explain it this simply? C'mon, I have to wait months for someone at Red User to explain it like this?? Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

That's what this forum is all about. What is ridiculous is thinking that we read and respond to every post every day. Sorry, but most of us are working every day and night trying to build the new system, support our customers... all with a handful of people.

BTW... we use real (and full) names here.

Jim
 
Julio, I think you need to ask yourself why you are shooting at 2000 ISO!

Someone trying to shoot something in a professional manner would never resort to such extreme ISOs without a very very good reason. Maybe it's a hidden camera for a sensitive part of a doc, or maybe you're the only one who could see the second gunman. Other than that, you gotta light what you shoot!

If you find yourself needing more than 500 ISO for most things, you're doing it wrong.
 
Jannard said:
That's what this forum is all about. What is ridiculous is thinking that we read and respond to every post every day. Sorry, but most of us are working every day and night trying to build the new system, support our customers... all with a handful of people.

BTW... we use real (and full) names here.

Jim
Click to expand...

First of all, JANNARD, Donald IS my real name and you may address me by it. Besides, I don't see you using your last name. But before you ask, yes I know EXACTLY who you are, And YES I use the RED all of the time.

Second, while no one expects you to respond to every post, how about your people adequately respond to a Phone call (on hold listening to that STUPID BRAIN loop....geez), return an phone call (HA! Good luck!) email, (NEVER HAPPEN, NEVER WILL), You know JANNARD, that kind of thing. Maybe you might want to stop some of your people from "working day and night" on these "new systems" and proplerly explain just how the OLD SYSTEMS work. Which contrary popular belief JANNARD, does not always happen. Maybe an instruction manual might help....

In any case, You only seem to respond well to praise and not CRITICISM. Sorry king, but somebody had to have the stones to tell tell you....and I got 'em.

Donald G
 
Okay, guys. I really appreciate the responses. And Jim, I know you're really busy, so it's always a privilege to get your input.

Just for the record, I never shoot at anything but 320 iso, but I've had several people swear to me that my camera is awesome in low light situations, so I'm trying to figure out how they're doing it.

I shot two tests at 2000 iso, one tungsten, and the next daylight. I exported the jpegs straight out of Redcine then resized them for uploading. I don't see the daylight photo being substantially better. Any ideas how to deal with footage like this?
 
Donald G said:
First of all, JANNARD, Donald IS my real name and you may address me by it. Besides, I don't see you using your last name. But before you ask, yes I know EXACTLY who you are, And YES I use the RED all of the time.

Second, while no one expects you to respond to every post, how about your people adequately respond to a Phone call (on hold listening to that STUPID BRAIN loop....geez), return an phone call (HA! Good luck!) email, (NEVER HAPPEN, NEVER WILL), You know JANNARD, that kind of thing. Maybe you might want to stop some of your people from "working day and night" on these "new systems" and proplerly explain just how the OLD SYSTEMS work. Which contrary popular belief JANNARD, does not always happen. Maybe an instruction manual might help....

In any case, You only seem to respond well to praise and not CRITICISM. Sorry king, but somebody had to have the stones to tell tell you....and I got 'em.

Donald G
Click to expand...

Mr. Donald... both of my names are on every post, if you bothered to look. And you just earned a pass into outer darkness. Have a nice trip.

Jim
 
Julio Quintana said:
Okay, guys. I really appreciate the responses. And Jim, I know you're really busy, so it's always a privilege to get your input.

Just for the record, I never shoot at anything but 320 iso, but I've had several people swear to me that my camera is awesome in low light situations, so I'm trying to figure out how they're doing it.

I shot two tests at 2000 iso, one tungsten, and the next daylight. I exported the jpegs straight out of Redcine then resized them for uploading. I don't see the daylight photo being substantially better. Any ideas how to deal with footage like this?
Click to expand...

Did you measure the light output of both daylight and tungsten sources to make sure they are outputting the same amount of light? Can you post the histogram of each without any correction? Details of light sources?

Thanks,

Jim
 
Donald G said:
First of all, JANNARD, Donald IS my real name and you may address me by it. Besides, I don't see you using your last name. But before you ask, yes I know EXACTLY who you are, And YES I use the RED all of the time.

Second, while no one expects you to respond to every post, how about your people adequately respond to a Phone call (on hold listening to that STUPID BRAIN loop....geez), return an phone call (HA! Good luck!) email, (NEVER HAPPEN, NEVER WILL), You know JANNARD, that kind of thing. Maybe you might want to stop some of your people from "working day and night" on these "new systems" and proplerly explain just how the OLD SYSTEMS work. Which contrary popular belief JANNARD, does not always happen. Maybe an instruction manual might help....

In any case, You only seem to respond well to praise and not CRITICISM. Sorry king, but somebody had to have the stones to tell tell you....and I got 'em.

Donald G
Click to expand...


...whoa
 
Donald G said:
First of all, JANNARD, Donald IS my real name and you may address me by it. Besides, I don't see you using your last name. But before you ask, yes I know EXACTLY who you are, And YES I use the RED all of the time.

Second, while no one expects you to respond to every post, how about your people adequately respond to a Phone call (on hold listening to that STUPID BRAIN loop....geez), return an phone call (HA! Good luck!) email, (NEVER HAPPEN, NEVER WILL), You know JANNARD, that kind of thing. Maybe you might want to stop some of your people from "working day and night" on these "new systems" and proplerly explain just how the OLD SYSTEMS work. Which contrary popular belief JANNARD, does not always happen. Maybe an instruction manual might help....

In any case, You only seem to respond well to praise and not CRITICISM. Sorry king, but somebody had to have the stones to tell tell you....and I got 'em.

Donald G
Click to expand...


RUDE..
unfortunately rudeness doesnt bode well in this industry..
PS. open your eyes and do some research rather than whining and acting helpless. you want an instruction manual? go download it from red.com.
 
This was done with a curve and very light NR. The shot is under-exposed.

Looks light in Safari... pull to Photoshop.

Jim

1237838574.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top