Issues

[John Cordell]

John, you are quite right about the tint level changing the noise color.
But i wanted to leave the footage as original as possible when posting it.

That shot has a defautl tint of -6. If you take it to +6, for example, you reduce a bit the noise color saturation, but the patterns remain there.

Once again, my post was not about noise or grain, which still i think is great for 800-100 iso, but more about pattern noise and blue channel noise and ways to improve this.

Makes sense. My camera is away on a rental right now, but when I get it back in a week or two I'm happy to perform some tests to get a better understanding of what's going on.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Yep, very concerning for those of us on low budgets expecting to process in RED software and finish in FCP/DVD SP.

You will for sure. Not just yet. But the elves are hard at work.

 

[Warren Kommers]

160 asa tungsten shooting is not going to fly. Infact a 1000asa needs to.

Its so weird because I would say the one thing Ive seen on 1.6 crop DSLR CMOS sensors is better low light performance than film. Ive seen some very clean images at 1600asa jpeg and if they were animated it would look incredible.

Something is not right (user, camera, or workflow) with a sensor of this size producing unusable footage. The 2k stuff is another story. We've already seen what cameras similar to that sensor size produce.

 

[Dalibor Fencl]

I suspect one of the main culprits in the variance of noise levels in the camera is the color temp of the light source. I found that when shooting under tungsten light the camera needs quite a bit of light to keep the blue channel from going really noisy. In daylight it's hard to get a noisy image. But under tungsten it's quite possible, and my sense is that the camera likes a little more light under those conditions. It's much better with ISO 160 or 250 than 320. But under daylight, ISO 500 or even higher delivers very usable images.

Of course tolerance for noise is a personal taste issue, so take that into account when interpreting my comments.

So if I realize that (and all above) well, the idea with bluish(80C) filter is useless, better is to use HMIs instead of tungsten lights for the night setups.
Somehow like with Reala 500 Daylight.
Right?

 

[I Bloom]

You needed to get the Vlad-subtraction-fatherboard for this shot. I hope I don't run into this problem, he's flying out here tonight. Seriously.:shifty:

 

[Tom Lowe]

Keep in mind that the stuff mac is posting here is already downsampled from 4K to 1080. Some of these shots do not hold up at all at 1080p, so you can be damn sure they look worse at 4K.

 

[Álex Montoya]

Keep in mind that the stuff mac is posting here is already downsampled from 4K to 1080. Some of these shots do not hold up at all at 1080p, so you can be damn sure they look worse at 4K.

The worse of them is the 2K one, which isn't downsampled.

Anyway, I get similar results with my Sony DSC-R1 at 800 ASA, so the footage didn't let me down exactly.

 

[Brook Willard]

Hey Mac,

Some of those shots are really terrific. Glad to see it coming out.

But on the higher ASA shots, I'm seeing a trend: pushing the already pushed exposure. If one exposes a shot at 500 ASA and then has to push the exposure even farther with the exposure slider... the shot shouldn't have been shot at 500 ASA to begin with. That last picture [1,000 ASA +1.64 exposure] was probably closer to 2,000 ASA when all was said and done. The picture before it [800 ASA +1.32 exposure] was probably closer to ~1,500 ASA. The high contrast scene [250 ASA] looks as though you dug exposure out of the shadows [the street light and actor] that were probably close to black on the original negative.

I was looking through the test footage I shot yesterday for an upcoming commercial and saw the same trend. If I let the exposure ride in the range where it was intended... it looks great. But if I try to make an 800 ASA late dusk shot look like it was shot in broad daylight, the world ends. There comes a time in any camera where shadows must be lit up if one intends to capture detail out of them.

There is definitely a point at which this camera falls apart. When there's just too much contrast or not enough light to expose properly, the image can get pushed too far. That's all I'm seeing here.

I suspect that you'd get better results if you pushed those two [800 and 1,000] images to a higher ASA and then curved out the noise. But you have to be realistic... if your subject is already dangerously close to, at or below the noise floor to begin with... the shot is doomed.

 

[Brook Willard]

Brook... I've always liked you. This is as close a description to what I'm seeing as I have heard anyone post. Now, admittedly, I have the luxury of seeing the future. And it is even better than you have described.

Looking forward to it. Can't wait for the next update.

 

[John Cordell]

So if I realize that (and all above) well, the idea with bluish(80C) filter is useless, better is to use HMIs instead of tungsten lights for the night setups.
Somehow like with Reala 500 Daylight.
Right?

I couldn't say. Please don't take my comments as definitive. I am reading this thread with interest, and hoping to learn myself how to maximize results with the camera.

 

[Brook Willard]

As for blue filters... a blue filter might result in less noise, but it'll also lower your effective ASA to something around 100. If you have the lighting budget to light to 100 ASA... you have enough amperage to light a scene properly to the point where you don't see noise to begin with.

A really warm scene will [almost by definition] result in a much noisier blue channel. If you try and turn a warm scene into a cool scene in post, the noise will come out. There's less blue light in a warm scene, so the blue channel must be enhanced or otherwise pushed to compensate. Just light it to approximately what you want to see. Pull that CTO off of the tungsten heads if you're going for moonlight.

 

[Miguel "Macgregor" De Olaso]

Hey Mac,

Some of those shots are really terrific. Glad to see it coming out.

But on the higher ASA shots, I'm seeing a trend: pushing the already pushed exposure. If one exposes a shot at 500 ASA and then has to push the exposure even farther with the exposure slider... the shot shouldn't have been shot at 500 ASA to begin with. That last picture [1,000 ASA +1.64 exposure] was probably closer to 2,000 ASA when all was said and done. The picture before it [800 ASA +1.32 exposure] was probably closer to ~1,500 ASA. The high contrast scene [250 ASA] looks as though you dug exposure out of the shadows [the street light and actor] that were probably close to black on the original negative.

I was looking through the test footage I shot yesterday for an upcoming commercial and saw the same trend. If I let the exposure ride in the range where it was intended... it looks great. But if I try to make an 800 ASA late dusk shot look like it was shot in broad daylight, the world ends. There comes a time in any camera where shadows must be lit up if one intends to capture detail out of them.

There is definitely a point at which this camera falls apart. When there's just too much contrast or not enough light to expose properly, the image can get pushed too far. That's all I'm seeing here.

I suspect that you'd get better results if you pushed those two [800 and 1,000] images to a higher ASA and then curved out the noise. But you have to be realistic... if your subject is already dangerously close to, at or below the noise floor to begin with... the shot is doomed.

Wait wait wait Brook!

We are not pushing an allready high ISO image, i was giving precise details of the settings.
With REDalert we had ISO values.
With REDcine we have an exposure bar, no more ISO presets. So as you know, when you import a 1000 ISO footage, the metadata increases automatically the exposure bar at 1.64.

So:

320 ISO - 0.0
500 ISO - 0.64
640 ISO -1.00
800 ISO - 1.32
1000 ISO - 1.64
1280 ISO - 2.00
1600 ISO - 2.32
2000 ISO - 2.64

Thanks to Vlad for this chart.

 

[Tom Lowe]

I think low-light stuff in general, especially outdoor low-light stuff, is where you really need to watch out. You really cannot push that type of footage much.

For someone like me who plans to shoot all natural light outdoors during magic hours, 4K>2K downsampling will be a must for now. Hopefully by the time I shoot next fall you guys will be able to tell me all the tricks of the trade to keep the image as noise-free as possible.

 

[Rob Lohman]

With REDcine we have an exposure bar, no more ISO presets. So as you know, when you import a 1000 ISO footage, the metadata increases automatically the exposure bar at 1.64.

There might be an issue with double exposure there that I'm looking into. How does the footage compare to RED ALERT when first loading it?

 

[roryhinds]

I don't think 2k has been optimised as its has a lot more noise and overall less quality than 4k footage.

I'm hoping RED are working on this as it would be great to be able to use 2k especially 2k scaled using 35mm lenses.

 

[Miguel "Macgregor" De Olaso]

There might be an issue with double exposure there that I'm looking into. How does the footage compare to RED ALERT when first loading it?

It looks the same.

ALso, for example i have the same night shot:
- shot at 320iso
- shot at 1000iso

The 1000 ISO automatically loads with the exposure at +1.64
The 320 loads at 0.
If i raise the values of the 320ISO clip at +1.64 then it looks exaclty the same as the 1000 ISO.

Note: playing with curves instead of expsure seems to bring less noise when trying to push up a shot.

 

[Adrian T.]

Thanks Mac for the images. I'm confident that the problems will be sorted out.

I think the lesson learned is that we should never need to push underexposed material. Use enough light to lift the shadows into the exposable area while shooting - or else keep them near black in post.

 

[Adrian T.]

Note: playing with curves instead of expsure seems to bring less noise when trying to push up a shot.

That makes sense. Lifting exposure simply shifts up the whole exposure range. Watch the histogram. You won't have blacks any more unless you use curves. Curves are the way to go. Crush those shadows.

 

[Remy Carter]

curves are definitely the way to go. When you platy with the exposure or levels just about anything other than curves and you start to toss information out if I remember correctly

 

[Vladimir Eugene]

no prob mac. This thread is clarifying a lot for us.

During post, check the tint levels. A negative value may indicate excessive noise.

ASA metadata can be changed as mac said take a shot at 320 add 1.64 exposure- it becomes identical to a shoot that was done at 1000 ASA.

As mentioned a while back- light to the right just before clipping occurs and take it down in post to get clearer less noisy images.

If you can light daylight temp.

and don't forget the curves-

The goals are common and this discussion will lead to others getting and displaying better RED images.

Vlad