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 :)

It ain't the camera: It's YOU !

So technically you could get great clean results and terrible compression artifacts in the same shot? Just start on a spot with little fine detail, like a close up on a car, then the car drives off and the background is a waterfall with trees flowing in the wind?

Or simply zoom in.
 
This has turned into a pretty great thread.

On noise.
One thing I do is check the little noise meter beside the histogram to see where it is riding on any given shot. In higher detail scene like this one you posted with the lake I move to 5:1 compression.
You have to get used to which scenes/images are data hogs.

on getting looks into rcx.

open Matt's file use option 1 to copy the grade to your preset.
use command 1 to paste the same grade onto your shots.

on ETTR

exposing to the right is a great general rule but with some shots do some bracketing to compare what gives you better results in certain situations, keep a notebook handy to record exposures and clip numbers. Some scenes just grade better and are less noisy at different exposure.

on high speed 2k

blackshade for highspeed
capture at 3:1 compression it's a much smaller frame size so it won't carve up as much data as you think.
2k is a center cut of 5k so obviously a center cut at 3:1 will always look better.

also,

i take the approach that black and white are absolutes ( hence zero information when crushed or blown out) but very image has its "balance point" and very, very few scenes (unless for stylistic choices) call for either of these absolutes.

unfortunately things like "magic bullet" which supposedly make your footage look "good" or "cool" often degrades the image to a point of low DR and over saturated color have confused the landscape in this regard.

Rule number one for me is to create a perfect negative (or max out the raw capability) , from there you can do almost anything you like.

Toia is right about one thing, if it looks right in the monitor, it usually is for that scene.

david
 
Yup.

Great seeing you again David!
And a good thread.

I try to tell people that if it looks like crap, it probably is.
Don't shoot things you think look like crap... :)
 
Thanks Gunleik,

It's true,

so many times I don't even hit record now. If the light ain't right it ain't worth the drive space.

David
 
David Battistella said:
I don't know how many times I see a post on REDUSER blaming the camera for lack of performance, poor low light ability, BLAH BLAH BLAH. ...The camera is not going to do it all for you (it's actually designed that way in that they do not sharpen images for example).
Click to expand...
I agree with much of this. But the opposite is also true: a great DP with a lesser camera may be able to get better pictures than a lesser DP with a great camera. To me, the DP is the greatest factor determining picture quality. The camera alone doesn't make you great.
 
Marc Wielage said:
I agree with much of this. But the opposite is also true: a great DP with a lesser camera may be able to get better pictures than a lesser DP with a great camera. To me, the DP is the greatest factor determining picture quality. The camera alone doesn't make you great.
Click to expand...

True.

I say this sometimes half joking but i believe it. "i don't care what camera i use these days they are all capable of great looking images....give me a chisel and a block of wood and I'll make you a good looking block print". The idea that the camera or the lens will make your images great is naive. The amount of time young people spend on this forum looking for the perfect lens or camera setting is sad. The place they should be spending time is out shooting, experimenting with focal lengths and camera angles. Examining films and commercials and trying lighting techniques. Go look for and find your voice in this medium. What brand of lens or camera you use is almost the last thing (a younger camera person) should worry about. Standing down off my box now, thank you.
 
Erich Roland said:
True.

I say this sometimes half joking but i believe it. "i don't care what camera i use these days they are all capable of great looking images....give me a chisel and a block of wood and I'll make you a good looking block print". The idea that the camera or the lens will make your images great is naive. The amount of time young people spend on this forum looking for the perfect lens or camera setting is sad. The place they should be spending time is out shooting, experimenting with focal lengths and camera angles. Examining films and commercials and trying lighting techniques. Go look for and find your voice in this medium. What brand of lens or camera you use is almost the last thing (a younger camera person) should worry about. Standing down off my box now, thank you.
Click to expand...

Very good points!

Don't get me started on in-camera "looks" and what they can lead to...
 
Marc Wielage said:
To me, the DP is the greatest factor determining picture quality. The camera alone doesn't make you great.
Click to expand...


Of course, a DP creates the image the camera sees, with light, by choosing the lens and the camera angle, composition. Painting with light, controlling shadow, bring attention to the part of the frame that helps reveal a visual story, That is what the craft is.

An important thing is also learning (through study and practical work) what kind of images the camera, film stock, sensor, produce under certain conditions.

The idea of the thread is to help people understand that this particular tool (more like film) requires a complete approach to image making by helping people understand that much can be done to create stunning images, after you capture a raw image.

so know the post software tools as well because they can help recover "lost shots" and sweeten already good ones.

But first and foremost for young dp's understand and experiment with light.

david
 
Gunleik Groven said:
Don't get me started on in-camera "looks" and what they can lead to...
Click to expand...

At first I think people look at this as a good idea, but it can lead to exposure disasters and I have seen it time and time again because people make the mistake of lighting to the monitor instead of lighting to the sensor and the raw image.

For the record my camera is basically set this way,

iso 320
5000 kelvin (finding that lately the sun in my part of the world is 5200 but that changes seasonally and daily)
saturation 1.15
contrast .20
RC3
RG3

this produces a nice out of the box image for rallies and for basic happy client monitor but its not to far of raw view in terms of histogram and look.

I may bump iOS to 500iso outdoor in big sun if I am in a rush, but I've been using these settings so long now, I know which shots need to be stopped down.

david
 
David Battistella said:
At first I think people look at this as a good idea, but it can lead to exposure disasters and I have seen it time and time again because people make the mistake of lighting to the monitor instead of lighting to the sensor and the raw image.

For the record my camera is basically set this way,

iso 320
5000 kelvin (finding that lately the sun in my part of the world is 5200 but that changes seasonally and daily)
saturation 1.15
contrast .20
RC3
RG3

this produces a nice out of the box image for rallies and for basic happy client monitor but its not to far of raw view in terms of histogram and look.

I may bump iOS to 500iso outdoor in big sun if I am in a rush, but I've been using these settings so long now, I know which shots need to be stopped down.

david
Click to expand...


I think that is a good philosophy:

Learn how the camera responds at a given "flat" setting, go from there.
(What those flat settings could be, will vary a bit depending on preference, but is of much less consequence.)
 
I don't understand why you'd switch to Linear to see when/where it is underexposed? Linear is just RAW sensor with colour, right?

I don't understand why REDlog/RLF would boost the "underexposed" dark parts of the image so much if it's only going to mask/hide the noise (on the histogram.) Also, the histogram is changed by applying different curves/iso/cam-settings (and is influenced as metadata), whereas the goalposts are telling you if the sensor is underexposed/clipped. So why then, if the the goalposts are empty, would an image be underexposed anywhere?
 
Gunleik Groven said:
You cannot switch to linear in camera.

If you learn to read the redlogfilm image, it can be informative, though.
Click to expand...

Right, you can only view linear in RCX (as it's basically "raw view but with colour"), but what I'm saying/asking is, if the goalposts (which display how much the sensor is clipped or crushed) are at zero, than how can the image be considered underexposed? Like with Will's examples, I'm guessing that the goalposts wouldn't have been highlighted at all (if they were, then I don't know how he could have thought his exposure was ideal.)

The reason I'm interested is because I've run into scenarios where, when I ETTR at 800ISO, nothing was clipped/crushed (goalposts were empty) but my mid tones were too high. When I brought them down in post (by lowering ISO to about 160), I couldn't bring the other portions of the image (highs and lows) back into ideal exposure without the image looking weird (like HDR and just really "video/digital looking".) I saved the image but it required so much extra work in post... And in retrospect, I would have been better off ETTCentre so I could go up or down a couple of stops (via ISO/FLUT adjustments) whilst still retaining an even image.
 
A see people advocating an ETTR approach a loot. However, I have taken to heart the advice given in the RED 101 article on Exposure and am very carefull NOT to expose too far to the right. According to RED:

Some advocate a strategy called “expose to the right” (ETTR), whose central principle is to record as much light as possible without clipping—causing the histogram to appear shifted to the far right. While this approach works well with stills photography, it greatly increases the likelihood of clipped highlights with video footage, since lighting conditions are often more dynamic.

Furthermore, ETTR can be misleading since the live histogram doesn’t represent raw image data. An ETTR strategy that doesn’t also pay attention to the goal posts therefore runs a high risk of overexposure—and increasingly so at lower ISO settings. Instead of recording as much light as possible, we instead encourage only recording as much light as necessary to meet one’s goals for image noise, but not necessarily any more than that—all while paying attention to the goal posts and traffic lights in addition to the histogram.


​(I added the emphasis)

This approach seems to work well IMO.
 
Mike P. said:
The reason I'm interested is because I've run into scenarios where, when I ETTR at 800ISO, nothing was clipped/crushed (goalposts were empty) but my mid tones were too high. When I brought them down in post (by lowering ISO to about 160), I couldn't bring the other portions of the image (highs and lows) back into ideal exposure without the image looking weird (like HDR and just really "video/digital looking".) I saved the image but it required so much extra work in post... And in retrospect, I would have been better off ETTCentre so I could go up or down a couple of stops (via ISO/FLUT adjustments) whilst still retaining an even image.
Click to expand...

i am curious lighting the scenario here (I'm assuming outdoors and daylight, yes?) something like Wills shot. It really depends on the DR of the scenes and if you are exposing for the shadows or not.

If you are exposing for the shadows (primary action is in the shadows) the sure ETTR is a good choice, but if you are going for a balanced image then a center histogram gives you more options, this is why the 1.5 stops of highlight protection at 800 iOS is there.

its best to split the difference, if the shadow are at f4 and the highlights are f16, then f8 is a safe split, f11 is conservative and 5.6 leans toward bringing out the shadows. Here NDs and ND grads are you best friend for light control.

david
 
Heres the thing though, if goalposts always represent the RAW sensor data, than if neither goalposts are lighting up, why is there noise in the frame? If the RAW sensor has not been clipped or crushed, you should have a clean signal to begin with. So why is Will's shot for example noisy in the blacks? Of course after processing you can cause one or the other by lifting the low end (etc.), but theoretically it should be crisp and clean on both ends.

I think this is where the confusion lies. Because obviously the goalposts are incorrectly calibrated if you can have noise in the low end, but absolutely no signal in the goalposts stating the RAW data has noise or underexposure... Regardless of if you ETTR or not, the signals should reflect accurate data. I have ran into this issue before shooting at 320 ISO and neither goal post is lit up, yet when I bring it into RCX, theres dancing noise (although not bad) in the dark areas. This shouldn't be happening at all. If the RAW sensor isn't crushed or lacking info, there should be no noise... (And yes I light and expose properly...)

Obviously there are things you can do like use grad ND's in Will's situation, but honestly there shouldn't be noise there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top