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 :)

Issues

We shot a test in Germany last october. We have had the same problems with high noiselevel. I was very disappointet about the testimages, but decided not to post in forum. I thought it has been a broken sensor.
But I saw a lot of footage from red, and there have been many shots with that noise and pattern problems.

Last one is from yesterday.
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6448

The incredible noise on the wall does not depends on codec used for publishing. It´s typical digital noise. The same I saw in my testpictures. And this is only 1k. What if you will see it in 4k?
I think red will be great (right now) when shot 4k with 160 ASA and downconverted to 2k. And of course it will be great - even with more noise - when shot, developed, and colour corrected, if neccesary denoised, in 4k, downconverted to 2k and printed on film.
I saw that with noisy material, but the projection from that print has been brilliant like shot on film.
 
Brook Willard said:
Hey Mac, could you send me the file as well? I'm interested to see what's going on here.
Click to expand...
Brook -
I opened the file in Scratch with meta-data off - (see hist) - it is clearly underexposed. What does not make sense to me - is that I have shot almost exactly the same shot - same lens - slightly FASTER shutter - and I do not have the noise he does. I was hoping he was just processing incorrectly - that is not the case -
 
At this point... I don't doubt that. The files are downloading on my Intel machine - I'll check it out after work.

Mac, which camera and firmware was it?
 
One thing I have been noticing is that scenes with lots of detail have more noise. I have some shots in daylight that are exposed properly and there is a ton of noise (or compression) This shot has a lot of detail. Same day close-up shot w/ far less detail has minimal noise.
 
Concrete said:
What incredible noise on the wall? Are you using Quicktime player to view it? Do not. Use VLC.
Click to expand...
did it with vlc. Doesn´t depend on player. I mean noise in the second of part with the boy looking on picture. Notice the corner left behind the boy.
Of course the noise isn´t such bad BUT it´s only 1k. Try to imagine when watched in 4k
 
ibloom said:
Emphasis on the word experiment. It's likely that the $10 filter will sit in the case. I took it so I'd have a chance to tell you guys about it. Otherwise I wouldn't even consider it, I think the small amount of noise balancing back to tungsten on Red is fine. But I have on occasion dropped an ND on an interior believe it or not, especially with a 10 ton package. And thats when I think dropping a blue and gray carding through it might be better option. I'm not going to open my shutter or shoot at a 1.4 just so that I can balance to daylight. That's crazytalk.
Click to expand...

Not as crazy as using an 80a indoors IMHO. Provided getting light to the sensor and reduce noise is the goal. I'm telling you the shutter is one of the best alternatives and it won't look very different. There is a huge difference between 270 and 360 in motion but not nearly as much between 180 and 270 Plus were talking about tungsten/low light shooting here aren't we? Not daylight.

There are a number of guys here including myself who have done that with the Viper to reduce noise and we actually find the motion more appealing. Claudio being one of them. The only time I would advise against it if you are shooting Apocalypto. That didn't look to good but I think there shutter was even wider than 270 with tons o action.
 
Concrete said:
Tafkar, that's mosquito noise coming from the compression. It takes a wee of noise that exists in the source and make big blocks out of it. That's why most compressors have a noise reduction option before rendering.

It isn't a problem.
Click to expand...

How are you so sure? i see the same in my r3d footage.
 
Well, it most certainly looks like it. Maybe Häakon can shed some light.

In any case, he has explained that he has rendered whese mov's directly from the 1K quicktime wrappers which certainly doesn't look like the right way to do it.

Anyway, if you're getting this kind of gigantic mosquito noise with properly exposed footage, you should report it.
 
macgregor said:
Underexposed for what ISO setting? For 320, of course.
Click to expand...

I have been following this thread with more than a bit of interest. I just wanted to be certain that it is clearly understood that the ISO setting of the camera has no effect whatsoever on the image that the camera captures. If it's underexposed, its underexposed no matter where you set the ISO (it could have been set to ISO 6400 and the image would still be underexposed).

I still contend that calling this setting 'ISO' can be a bit misleading. I would prefer a term like 'compensation' (or pushing) and the units should be stops or similar.

You may already have a good understanding of this, but this single comment gave me a bit of doubt, hence this post.
 
Khmuse, 1st post on this thread:

- digital noise. Am i the only one to discover that anything above 320 iso has horrible levels of noise? I am not talking about grain, but about digital ugly noise, specially in the blue channel, that makes the footage unusable.

You can call it ISO setting or gain compensation. RED call it ISO in camear and exposure in redcine.
 
Thats just my point. Calling it "gain compensation" is also a somewhat misleading term, as it does nothing to compensate for the gain. The gain of this camera is fixed, nothing changes that, its in the nature of the hardware. All that changing the ISO does is effect the meta data and the amount of "pushing" that occurs in the post processing of the image.

Keep in mind that ISO 320 is also a bit 'underexposed' as the camera has a built in .4 stops of headroom. If you deduct this headroom, the value is nearer ISO 242, so, exposing for ISO 1000 is over two full stops underexposed. If the resulting image is then pushed by two stops, the noise level will also rise by this same factor.

Again, you may already understand this, but the semantics may be the issue. I just wanted to be certain.
 
Conrad Hall once told his son who was nervous about shooting some underexposed footage that as long as something in the frame was at key. (18% grey) you will be ok.

I say this because underexposure happens. Often as a
creative choice. Although MacGregors footage is dark there are definately things above key in the frame. We need to make sure not to imply that the word "underexposed" is not read as a mistake. Exposure is a creative choice and not a entirely technical one. The question then becomes how well the equipment/ processing can accomadate that choice.

Now would not be a bad time to speak in footcandles to communicate low light performance as opposed to ASA and f stops. How many footcandles reflected, before the noise hits this point. Then the crazy ASA talk goes out the door.
 
khmuse said:
I just wanted to be certain that it is clearly understood that the ISO setting of the camera has no effect whatsoever on the image that the camera captures.
Click to expand...

It does if you light the scene based on that particular ISO
 
Rocketeer said:
Has the new camera revision eliminated the sensor flare that is caused by a strong light source at the top of the sensor?
Click to expand...

That looks like a reglular old lens flare to me. I dont think any camera would resolve that much differently. Its right on the edge.
 
Rudi Herbert said:
It does if you light the scene based on that particular ISO
Click to expand...

What needs to be understood is that you are not lighting the scene based upon the camera's ISO setting, rather you are choosing how much pushing you will be doing in post. The camera has a natural gain (relationship between the quantized value and the amount of light reaching the imager) the ISO setting has no effect on this relationship. Again, this is why I think the use of the term ISO isn't the best descriptor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top