Issues

[Joel Kaye]

that calls into question the whole 4K revolution.

Not entirely. 4K scaled to 2K is a pretty good plan. If Graeme says 4K looks good projected I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I've seen Crossing the Line projected smaller at NAB and it looked good. But that wasn't a theatrical size.

My big concern is the render time to scale 4K to 1080P.

 

[IAN SUN]

Steve, not even DLSR single frame exposures hold up at their full resolution. If you are looking at them pixel for pixel, they are terribly noisy and ugly to look at. Anyone who has viewed large DLSR jpgs knows this to be true. Once you downsample a typical DLSR image from roughly 4K to 2K, the image looks much cleaner and nicer and much of the noise is lost. If you downsample it even further, the image will continue to improve.

I think with a 4K sensor like RED's, people should shoot 4K and finish at 2K, and the results will be impressive.

mmm, I don't know Tom, I've seen CTL at 4K and it looked pretty good to me. It was not a giant screen but then I was only 6' away. RED cut the mustard, even back then.

 

[Warren Kommers]

I have said all along, since the very beginning, that there is no way in hell that RED footage is going to hold up at 4K. It must be downsampled to 2K or 1080 to hide the noise you are going to get. Same thing with DLSRs with CMOS chips similar to RED.

I think everyone here needs to step away from the computer for a second and watch a movie in the theatre thats 2:35 on 5218 3 perf. I bet you RED at 1000 ASA has less or the same noise/grain. Let's remember that noise happens. Our expectations have to be realistic.

RED at 4k on a 50ft screen is very usable and how often is your footage going to be seen there anyways. Except for you Steven Soderbergh and the breakthrough director that shoots his first feature on this camera.

 

[Poi Boy]

I am really surprised by this thread; I look at what I have shot so far and am amazed at how clean and beautiful it is. Of course if your exposure is bad so are your results, no revalation there. I think people spend too much time looking at the blue chanel on a still at 200 %, that is an unnatural act. I have not had the luxory of doing a film out but the 4K I have seen looks great.
I was shooting some stills today on a production being shot on a Sony 900 and looking at their monitor It was all I could do to keep from laughing. Red is indeed the real deal.
Aloha
-A

 

[Eric MacIver]

Two notes:
1) I've seen some issues w/ the blue channel in some of our many tests, and not in others. It seemed like we reloaded firmware enough times and "poof" the same problem wouldn't repeat like it had. Still a lot of testing to do, but try going up and down in firmware versions 2-3 times and see if it helps.

2) If you're looking at a 4k JPEG image, you'll see JPEG compression. Red is not JPEG, its RAW... It should look better to you. Download those sample R3D files and see if you agree or not. I'm curious if you do after looking at those.

 

[Stuart English]

shutter speeds

shutter speeds

why can´t we choose lower shutter speeds than 1/24th even when shooting at slower speeds than 24fps?

Already answered in an earlier thread, slower shutter speeds will be added soon, the timelapse implementation is still preliminary..

 

[Tom Lowe]

Tom, I get where you are going with this but you know that what you are saying is a bit controversial because that calls into question the whole 4K revolution. Sure, most of us won't be finishing much in 4K, most likely 2K or 1080P but for the feature film world I would think clean 4K would be essential for finishing.

What are you basing your fndings on, other than DSLR sensors? Do you have first hand info? I'm not trying to call you out, just want to make sure I am understanding your position well. It flys in the face of everything I have come to expect from this camera and without one in my hands and ready to test, I can't confidently say you are right or wrong. Please elaborate if you can.

Thanks,
Steve

I don't think it throws the 4K revolution into question at all!

I'm just making a general statement about these types of CMOS sensors. Obviously if I have been saying this for over a year now, it's speculation, since there was no camera back then!

Shooting 4K is awesome, and that's what I plan to do, but viewing RED 4K on a 4K LCD, for example, pixel for pixel, is not going to be perfect, except under the most perfect exposure conditions. Low light conditions are going to show a lot of noise pixel for pixel. 4K downsampled to 2K and displayed at 2K is going to look much nicer, pixel for pixel. And 1080 is going to look even nicer still. No one can deny that.

None of this is to say that 4K projected isn't better than 35mm projected at a cinema. Projection is a lot more forgiving than looking at a still, and in theory the 4K projection is much higher resolution than 35mm print on random multiplex projectors.

Like everyone else, I will be interested to see the results of LART.

I'd like to see some sunset shots comparing 4K REDCODE RAW to 35mm cinema film scanned at 4K vs a high-end Canon DLSR.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Tom, okay I see what you're saying. I'm keeping an eye on any issues revolving around noise with this camera because I'll be using it on a feature that will rely heavily on clean shadows. If the camera doesn't perform well in tests, another format will probably be chosen. I'm holding onto the good feedback I've heard from people who have been shooting with the camera. They seem very pleased with their results.

Steve

 

[Poi Boy]

noise is just not going to be an issue on footage well exposed at 320 asa on a film out. What you are going to see is film grain, everyone seems to love that.
Aloha
-A

 

[Eric MacIver]

noise is just not going to be an issue on footage well exposed at 320 asa on a film out. What you are going to see is film grain, everyone seems to love that.
Aloha
-A

Agreed... One of my good customers is a DP that just shot a feature with the camera at 320, night exterior, lit by one 1.2k HMI off a roof and he was in love with Red's blacks.... No noise issues. He compared it to Fuji film stock of the same ASA if I am quoting him correctly.

 

[jacobak]

I was on a shoot with the Red camera and we also experienced a lot of the noise I am seeing here. This caused issues with the night exterior shots; we had to use ALOT of light and really fast lenses to get an acceptable exposure. Our DP / Gaffer found the camera to be more like ASA160.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Sounds to me like there are a lot of variables involved. I'll list them here.

1. Firmware. I'm guessing that not everyone is comparing apples to apples.
2. Processing. Were these exported from Redcine, Red Alert? What settings, etc.
3. Monitoring environment. How were the images being viewed? Caibrated environment?
4. Lighting. Lights used on set and talent using them.

Steve

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

I was on a shoot with the Red camera and we also experienced a lot of the noise I am seeing here. This caused issues with the night exterior shots; we had to use ALOT of light and really fast lenses to get an acceptable exposure. Our DP / Gaffer found the camera to be more like ASA160.

hmmmmm .... our cameras are 320 (if not 400) for sure. We have shot LOTS of low light footage without ANY noise. I am wondering if there could be a few sensors out there that are not "dialed in" out there ..?

 

[Seth Larney]

hmmmmm .... our cameras are 320 (if not 400) for sure. We have shot LOTS of low light footage without ANY noise. I am wondering if there could be a few sensors out there that are not "dialed in" out there ..?

Hmm .. this is an interesting question ? By all accounts it seems to be difficult to pin it down to particular firmwares, I wonder if it is related to hardware as well ? It's interesting that #006 and #007 don't exhibit this problem ? I'm sure they've been through the various filmware updates that the others have..

 

[I Bloom]

I was on a shoot with the Red camera and we also experienced a lot of the noise I am seeing here. This caused issues with the night exterior shots; we had to use ALOT of light and really fast lenses to get an acceptable exposure. Our DP / Gaffer found the camera to be more like ASA160.

That's too many variables. How much light is ALOT. Post a Tiff image with the grading settings from RedAlert and tell us how you lit the frame. If there is really a problem, general ideas don't help to identify it. We need something concrete.

IBloom

 

[REDBLUE&GREEN]

Im glad to see that i'm not the only one seeing this "Noise" in low light shots. At the ProMax HD expo booth in Los Angeles , nite footage was muddy and had some noise issues, not sure why???

Sony, a couple of years ago, tested a 32meg chip; UltraHD. They had some noise issues also.

RED and 4k is new stuff....(of course..) so it might be the next build!! All these issues take time....patience.

New DSLR ( high end...ie D3/ D300 Nikon, Canon mkII) cameras with Cmos Chips have very low noise... 800 or 1000 asa Also, many newer Hd camaras (1080p) with Cmos chips have very little noise at 1250 asa.

Red will get there soon!!!

 

[Deanan]

Color balance is intimately tied to noise. The more you balance away from native sensitivity (daylight), the more you gain up blue and the more bring up the noise. Desaturation a bit if you're balancing towards tungsten can help. Other post processing decisions can also affect what level of noise you're seeing and if it's excessively gained up.

That said, things will improve in a few areas where we are currently making progress.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I think people spend too much time looking at the blue chanel on a still at 200 %, that is an unnatural act.

Let's not forget though that lots and lots of people said the same thing about 4:2:2 compression. In fact... I've just heard a resurgence of this nonsense now that apple has endorsed it. And what apple endorses must...

If you start to accept mediocre because it's the best available then you're right back where you were before the "REDVolution". When you really know what's going on behind the scenes, you can anticipate the future, you can forsee problems, you can maximize your results. Unless you want to use trial and error to produce a great image understanding what the result is going to look like before you do something is critical.

The audience doesn't care if the blue channel looks great or not but the audience doesn't have to create the picture in the first place. If you want to be ignorant to what the image loooks like and skip right to the deliverable be my guest but it's a valid concern to have and important point to evaluate in depth because of the ramifications in numerous circumstances.

Someone is going to figure out how to maximize the RED camera and a few months later that knowledge will be considered common sense. And it will probably be because someone took the time to really look at the image and figure out what to do.

 

[Gregor Hagey]

grain/noise not problem but aspect of low light shooting

grain/noise not problem but aspect of low light shooting

I haven't had too many problems with noise when shooting at 4K, but when shooting in 2K overexpose the camera rated ISO by 1 to 1.5 stops to reduce noise. That being said I wouldn't underexpose from the rated ISO in 4K either. I find the exposure index of the camera is best at 320 ISO to get the most dynamic range, but this means you'll have to lift your mid tones in post. If you want your mid tones to be bang on then set the camera/process at 320 but set your meter to 80 or 100. This will give a very clean image, but you will have for less highlight range. I have a series of 2k tiffs under overexposure/underexposure that demonstrate this at:

http://www.dghagey.com/Director_of_Photography/Red.html

Ultimately grain has always been a problem of low light shooting. Maybe 'problem' isn't the right word to describe it, instead it should be called an aspect or quality of low light shooting.

 

[Stephen Williams]

Color balance is intimately tied to noise. The more you balance away from native sensitivity (daylight), the more you gain up blue and the more bring up the noise.

Hi Deanan,

So clearly using a filter in front of the lens to color correct is a good idea, although this has been denied many times.

Stephen

Edit, The 2 stops of light lost wont be popular, partial correction may be the answer, it's a shame the the sensor is not native 3200k it's only 2/3 stop loss to convert to daylight.