Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

Issues with images posted so far

Yes I always like the look of downsampled material, even from my old DSR-300p. It makes the image much cleaner and the video-sharpness is as good as gone. For that reason I think I'll use the 4k downsampled to 2K a lot.
And the fact that I cannot play 4K anywhere does play a little role too. :)
 
The way I've got it coded now the 2k has the very same pixel feel as the 4k. If you turn off the output sharpness option in REDAlert, you don't have to downsample to avoid the added sharpness of video :-)

Graeme
 
One problem I'm seeing in many shots is the bokeh is not very color neutral. For instane in the 2k shot the bokeh has a distinct cyan/green fringe. Almost every shot seems to have some sort of oddly colored bokeh. I know some is always to be expected but to my eyes it looks like more than what I'm used to seeing.
 
Boothba said:
(Ruairi I don't think the clipping we saw was an issue with "exposing to protect the highlights".) (Rather I sadly do believe that this comes with the territory with digital sensors.)

In post I have been experimenting with some techniques to help here.
Click to expand...

Hi Boothba. Can you share some helpfull info on that?
 
I think, but I'm not completely sure, that Boothba means that the shots weren't exposed to protect the highlights. Some parts are actually clipping like hell, also this desktop screenshot of tonaci. An exposure level of 0.59 doesn't mean much to me, maybe that's what causes a part of the left guy's head to clip. But I fear it was just shot like that and the sensor got overexposed. I am curious about how much info would be in the RAW image. In other words: where in the workflow did this clipping occur?
 
So there are 25 cameras out there now, and only one of them is sending reports back to us at RedUser?
 
Floris Liesker said:
I think, but I'm not completely sure, that Boothba means that the shots weren't exposed to protect the highlights.
Click to expand...

Nope - I don't think they were over-exposed. On film highlights blow and on digital highlights clip. It is the job of camera manufacturers, shooters, colorists and compositors (and often makeup artists) to make that blowout/clipping look as natural to the eye as possible.
 
Alvise Tedesco said:
Hi Boothba. Can you share some helpfull info on that?
Click to expand...

Sure - just add grain! haha.

Well, my particular goal is a achieve a more filmic image (not everyone's goal). Digital / video can suffer from a certain harshness with clipped highlights, overly crisp color separation and chromatic aberrations. I'm currently working on a job shot on the Phantom which a suffers from harsh chromatic aberrations - when certain areas achieve focus, the picture becomes infected with obnoxious red, green and blue pixel clusters - like fuzzy pokadots. A fast solution was to use a 'chroma only' blur using the Safire blur spark. This does not blur the image, just the chroma information and looks a bit like a coat of base makeup applied to an actor. I can't post the Phantom footage, but the solution was dramatically better.

On this latest Red footage I see nothing as egregious as the Phantom stuff - however I do note some clipping and mild chromatic aberrations. The skin tones in a few shots seem to have a larger range of color variance than film. Red noses and lips, green hues etc. I think it is the sharpness of the variance than reads a bit digital to me. This may just be the lighting or color grade but I tried the chroma blur trick - results below.

This is a subtle application - you'd have to pull it into photoshop and play with levels to see the difference. Mostly it is a smoothing out of skin tones - a digital application of make up I suppose. It also reduces the CA in highlights. BTW this is very fast and easy to do.

Regarding clipping - I've darkened and blurred the highlights a bit but this is NOT the real solution. On film jobs we often do ALT transfers or scans to recover blowout areas like skies. It then becomes the compositors job to mix the alt pass with the beauty pass (for skies I often mult, through a generously blurred highlight key). This may or may not help with Red footage. Depending on the sophistication of the highlight recovery tools in Redcine, one can always grade and export an ALT highlight pass (very dark) in Redcine, for further manipulation in comp. Standard stuff on film jobs.
 
Here's a couple of silly examples. Sorry I made the pics too small. First adresses the CA in button and chest highlights. Second smooths skin tone variance in face.

Subtle fix for a subtle problem.
 
Boothba said:
The skin tones in a few shots seem to have a larger range of color variance than film. Red noses and lips, green hues etc. I think it is the sharpness of the variance than reads a bit digital to me.
Click to expand...

BTW: I wouldn't have it any other way. For green and blue screen work this 'enhanced color separation' (compared to film) actually produces superior keys. This is far more important to me. This follows the theory: "start with a clean, deap image (a "fat" digital negative), and make your colour and aesthetic decisions in post"

I think the big thing with Red (like film) is that people will have to embrace the importance of the color grade / composite. That is where much of the look is set (Think "300" or "O brother"for example). This is not a video camera - although Red has made it pretty darn easy for us to shoot and upload real fast.
 
Yes a good grade is key. Lens artifacts have always been with us. Digital sensors, with their precision and cleanliness task lenses as never before!

Graeme
 
Ruairi Robinson said:
2) weird smudgy artifacts. These were visible in some of the stills from Crossing the line too. The redcode compression is variable right? is it possible in the future to work at higher data rates? 100Megs/sec instead of 27, for example. Is it necessary? Will it make a difference? Is this even what is causing this? I'm having a hard time at the moment believing the "visually lossless" thing, since... I have eyes.
Click to expand...

I've wondered the same thing. I don't think you can compress something without losing some detail, wavelet codec or not.

I am no expert in compression technology, but I have a feeling it wont be as visually lossless as we would have hoped.

Not to bag on the codec, it seems excellent, but I tend to agree with you on that one.

btw - wicked trailer for your movie. I pissed myself with that opening shot. Many kinds of awesome.
 
Boothba said:
On film jobs we often do ALT transfers or scans to recover blowout areas like skies. It then becomes the compositors job to mix the alt pass with the beauty pass (for skies I often mult, through a generously blurred highlight key). This may or may not help with Red footage. Depending on the sophistication of the highlight recovery tools in Redcine, one can always grade and export an ALT highlight pass (very dark) in Redcine, for further manipulation in comp. Standard stuff on film jobs.
Click to expand...

Completely agree, it really comes down to people not understanding that footage is always a starting point if it's digital not a result. I actually did 4 alt-passes off of the uncompressed tiff for this 6000 iso grade.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=76096&postcount=6

The largest problem I'm noticing in all RED footage and I don't know if it's the lighting but the saturation and hue shifts in the skin tones seem to be off the charts even in what otherwise appears to be a single light source shot.
 
The FrankenBrook grab had metal halide overhead, sodium vapor about 25 feet away and a light panel pointed in my general direction [I think]. It was also freakin' *dark* :)
 
Brook Willard said:
The FrankenBrook grab had metal halide overhead, sodium vapor about 25 feet away and a light panel pointed in my general direction [I think]. It was also freakin' *dark* :)
Click to expand...

Hey Brook I was having fun with you. :tongue: We all very much appreciate your hard work and good will-- though that was one hell of a moody pic -- You will also notice that you were also accused of being a graduate of ... "the Handsome Boy Modeling School" LOL... here is a reference...http://www.handsomeboymodelingschool.com/

The World Has Gone Mad could be your theme song... Ninjas need theme music...:ph34r: :shiftyph34r:
Thanks again...
 
the ladies here are saying that brook is awesome.. even on dark
 
Ruairi Robinson said:
sure sure

all the other stuff I'm sure will be fine

I'm mostly concerned with clipping. Perpetually. It's a deal breaker for me.
Click to expand...

The clipping in many of those shots is worrisome. Even off reflections. Very videoy...

I took some frames in AFX and the degree of malleability is astonishing, however.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top