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 :)

In camera lattitude limiting

Differential clipping of channels is interesting. It will happen to different channels under different lighting conditions. It's not always going to be the case that one clips before the other.

Then you have two choices:

1) balance them with a filter in front of the lens
This gives best non-colour-distorted highlights dynamic range

2) balance them in software
Gives greater dynamic range than 1) above if you can a) accept mis-coloured highlights that have more detail in them and b) deal with said miscoloured highlights in post.

The choice is yours.

Graeme
 
Graeme, I don't understand... by using an optical filter to even out the clip point on all channels aren't you actually maximizing dynamic range instead of limiting it?
 
Shooters who are used to an in-field workflow where they balance for color at the image acquisition stage can approach it the same way with RED One if they choose. (the first option Graeme outlined)

Alternately, anyone using RED One can opt to shoot RAW and balance using software in post. (the second option Graeme outlined).

Most of us have been used to setting the parameters of color at the acquisition stage for motion images. Those who have transitioned from still film photography to using a DSLR and shooting RAW will already be used to option #2 that Graeme has posted. He has also mentioned that the RED One/RAW workflow will be remarkably similar to the DSLR/RAW workflow. Those who feel more comfortable balancing for color at the footage acquisition stage have that option especially when shooting RGB with RED One - but if you do, then you don't have the post-production flexibility (including color) you would have if you had shot in RAW.

RED One is about flexibility and options...
 
Graeme Nattress said:
) deal with said miscoloured highlights in post.

The choice is yours.

Graeme
Click to expand...

Hi Graeme,

I find that once the highlights have clipped, the results look ugly whatever is done to them. Better not to clip them IMHO.

Stephen
 
Sure, best not to clip them, but it's going to happen.

In, say, Adobe RAW converter for instance, I can rescue clipped highlights to an extent as the non-clipped channels give detail at the expense of colour quality.

Either way, you get the full dynamic range of the sensor, but if you don't mind the colour shift (which can sometimes be mild and non-distracting) you can scrape an extra stop.

Graeme
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Sure, best not to clip them, but it's going to happen.

In, say, Adobe RAW converter for instance, I can rescue clipped highlights to an extent as the non-clipped channels give detail at the expense of colour quality.

Either way, you get the full dynamic range of the sensor, but if you don't mind the colour shift (which can sometimes be mild and non-distracting) you can scrape an extra stop.

Graeme
Click to expand...


Hi Graeme,

I think that is the one reason film will be here for a few years.

Stephen
 
Stephen, given that DSLRs have rapidly overtaken 35mm stills in both quality and sales......
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Stephen, given that DSLRs have rapidly overtaken 35mm stills in both quality and sales......
Click to expand...


Hi Graeme,

DSLR's have a workflow advantage. Many wedding photographers still use 35mm film for its extended dynamic range.

I accept that DSLR's have overtaken 35mm film in Sales but not Quality.

FWIW Kodak sales of motion picture film has been rising, in both 2004 & 2005 they sold more than ever before. Results for 2006 are not available!

Stephen
 
Speaking from my limited digital experience (compared to film (which is ironic since I spend most of my time in the post world, I guess I'm a hypocrit)) I've had a lot of problems with color balancing extremes. An example would be shooting a shot that I want relatively neutral at night under a sodium vapor street lamp. In any instance where color is greater than 2,000 kelvin off, the digital color balance usually results in a great deal of ugly, desaturated colors and a significant increase in noise, almost like I underexposed by 1 or 2 stops. Which actually is what's happening, but in order to expose for the blues and greens in said example the reds would clip. It's a no win situation with a digital color temp.
 
Colour balancing issues are moot when you deal with RAW though.

Graeme
 
I did it in front of the lens for 17 years and at the chip for 9 years and 99% of the time it is better at the chip.
Aloha
-A
 
I have had over 10 years shooting film and the last 5 shooting DSLRs and the DSLRs offer by far more options for creative control and flexibility. You can hold your highlights if you know how to porperly expose. Fill ratio is also a very useful technique in this vain. However, even given uncontrolable lighting conditions I would gladly take a RAW digital file over the finest grain negative. An example...
318377489_78fe8268ac.jpg

This is from a single exposure D2x RAW capture. Of course there is photoshop work here but the point is the fidelity of the information.
 
Fine tread over here. And a finest example of the photography art, Evin.
 
Superb Evin!

Graeme
 
Thank you Evin, I agree. Once I got my 1ds Canon I was and am happy, it was the crop factor that killed me for years. I never look at camera mags anymore. why upgrade? does it really get much better then full frame DSLR RAW?
 
I personally don't mind the typical DSLR crop factor too much, as I generally shoot macro or telephoto, where the crop factor helps a bit, not hinders. But the real thing, as mentioned by Obin above, is RAW, and how utterly awesome it is.

Graeme
 
Evin, that is beautiful. When I grow up...
 
Thanks guys, I've been working on a very contrasty style using RAW digital capture for about three years now. Obin, full frame is great for teles but very demanding on wide glass. I tested the Canons but found the Nikon D2x to have the best tonal range (Albiet noisest above 800 ISO too) for my style of shooting. Also the DX Nikkors 12-24mm and 18-200mm are phenominal, and very portable for such a range and quality. Honestly I didn't believe all the hype about the 18-200 until I shot one, it's scary how sharp that lens is even wide open in the corners. The VR makes it possible to shoot handheld ISO 200 even at deep dusk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top