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 :)

Leo and REDlogFilm...

Thomas Mark Schaefer said:
It may be the .jpg format, but it looks noisy to my eye. Has anyone tried using the neatvideo spatial and temporal noise filters on this to see if the flat areas could be cleaned up a bit? I know some of you think noise mimics grain and like it.
Click to expand...

Not exactly sure what you are looking at... looks incredible on a 40' screen. This was shot ISO 2000 in a scene we couldn't see with our eyes... and no noise reduction. When you say it looks noisy, what else are you referencing? Of course shooting in the dark will be noisier than shooting in a bright scene, but everyone who has seen this is blown away how clean it is.

Jim
 
Tim Whitcomb said:
You hated the 70's really? What about Star Wars, Taxi Driver, Close Encounters, Apocalypse Now, Scarface and Jaws, did you not like? Story trumps look 1000 percent of the time
Click to expand...
Actually Tim, Scarface is from 83 but I get the point and couldn't agree more !
Danm, where is my Red One !!!
 
I see basically NO noise in the Leo low light shot.

If this was 500 ASA film it would have a lot more grain.
 
Amazing detail for just two matches in the foreground and almost nothing for a practical in the back!

Film's got nothing on this IMO... especially when you see that the Leo shots in Shutter Island had a couple of flame-throwers just out of camera view...

-sc
 
Jannard said:
Not exactly sure what you are looking at... looks incredible on a 40' screen. This was shot ISO 2000 in a scene we couldn't see with our eyes... and no noise reduction. When you say it looks noisy, what else are you referencing? Of course shooting in the dark will be noisier than shooting in a bright scene, but everyone who has seen this is blown away how clean it is.

Jim
Click to expand...

It is amazingly clean.
 
Justin Paloma said:
I know what you're talking about. There is a definite look to films in the 70s that instantly dates it for me, too. But I think you should take the image in, as a viewer, more holistically. I would take the look of A Clockwork Orange, The Exorcist, or The Godfather to any color corrected film these days...IE Transformers (unfair comparison, I know), because of the cinematographic genius behind the lens.

Basically color correction, to me, shouldn't be more important than the composition. It should improve the image, yes, getting closer to the director or cinematographer's vision. But it shouldn't be employed as a last ditch effort to save unoriginal composition. If you watch the shot by shot progression of Rosemary's Baby, or Taxi Driver you marvel at its brilliance. The look of the film is secondary, the same way a person's personality should overshadow their appearance. Obviously that's not the way it works in the world on a surface level. At least not until you put the time in to get to know someone. Anyway, interesting discussion. And just my two cents.
Click to expand...

I think many classic horror films such as Rosemary's Baby and even lesser known ones like The Sentinel are helped by the 1970s style. There is a cold detachment that makes them even more eerie. But then you see that thrillers, even romantic comedies of the era have that same style and there it just seems ugly, lacking a personal touch, lacking any sense of that Champagne sparkle that is why I fell in love with Hollywood and filmmaking in the first place. Then again, I do Euro dance-music videos and fashion videos, so...
 
sorry but for me is unnaceptable this level of grain

sorry but for me is unnaceptable this level of grain

I'm sorry, but...

What the hell with that noise !

You shoot with ISO 2000, yes yes,
BUT THIS PICTURE IS TOTALLY UNNACEPTABLE WITH THIS GRAIN

And the shoots was not taken in the dark, as my eyes can see lights reflect on the backyard, light from the stairs and from the door.

Even the noise and grain reduction applied on the thrird picture is insuficient.
See the left column !

I feel boys, I am that one that says what sees and not what they make believe him.

For me resolution is not the first,
Noise & Grain for me will be the first
 
is it you Peter from Arri?
GOODYES said:
I'm sorry, but...

What the hell with that noise !

You shoot with ISO 2000, yes yes,
BUT THIS PICTURE IS TOTALLY UNNACEPTABLE WITH THIS GRAIN

And the shoots was not taken in the dark, as my eyes can see lights reflect on the backyard, light from the stairs and from the door.

Even the noise and grain reduction applied on the thrird picture is insuficient.
See the left column !

I feel boys, I am that one that says what sees and not what they make believe him.

For me resolution is not the first,
Noise & Grain for me will be the first
Click to expand...
 
No, i'm not peter ..

I'm THE WOLF .. from the tale !! :reddevil:

Sorry guys, i'm a newbie, but thats what i think
 
GOODYES said:
I'm sorry, but...

What the hell with that noise !

You shoot with ISO 2000, yes yes,
BUT THIS PICTURE IS TOTALLY UNNACEPTABLE WITH THIS GRAIN

And the shoots was not taken in the dark, as my eyes can see lights reflect on the backyard, light from the stairs and from the door.

Even the noise and grain reduction applied on the thrird picture is insuficient.
See the left column !

I feel boys, I am that one that says what sees and not what they make believe him.

For me resolution is not the first,
Noise & Grain for me will be the first
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that it was shot ISO 2000...
Of course, you would have less noise shooting ISO 800 in a well lighted room.

But this is awesome footage at ISO 2000. It was dark out there. :-)
 
It's like buying a car that can go 200MPH the best part is knowing it's there IF you want/need the fact the footage is real and raw from the get go makes this sensor and rig a quantum leap. The best part is it's only gonna get better and you don't have to guy a whole new set-up, you just plug in the new tech and concentrate on the capture. Gold.
 
noise?

noise?

Okay, call me crazy but I do not see why someone would be serious about criticizing the "noise" in this jpeg. This was lit with a freaking match and most likely a small light set up somewhere on the stairs. It is hard for me to tell on my 13" MBP I admit, but at ISO 2000, this looks incredible. Jim was not trying to send out his resume as a colorist with this photo, but merely showing us how easy it is to achieve the look you want with a simple click of a mouse. Even if there was noise when viewed on the big screen im sure there is noise reduction software to touch up the very minor problem here. :coolgleamA:

Cheers,

Tim
 
GOODYES said:
I'm sorry, but...

What the hell with that noise !

You shoot with ISO 2000, yes yes,
BUT THIS PICTURE IS TOTALLY UNNACEPTABLE WITH THIS GRAIN

And the shoots was not taken in the dark, as my eyes can see lights reflect on the backyard, light from the stairs and from the door.

Even the noise and grain reduction applied on the thrird picture is insuficient.
See the left column !

I feel boys, I am that one that says what sees and not what they make believe him.

For me resolution is not the first,
Noise & Grain for me will be the first
Click to expand...

Show me a better ISO 2000 camera then...

Images aren't supposed to be clean all the time, noise, grain, they are your friends.

As a matter of fact, even our eyes have noise in dimly lit situations.

And you're not considering it's RED Log Film, in a grade the most noisy blacks would get crushed and a good de-noiser would make this image perfect (considering it's 5K and you have plenty of resolution) if you wanted clean anyway.
 
Honestly, I don't see any noise on that clip. It's the Apple ProRes 422(LT) compression.
Download the old clip which is in 2K and better compression and then judge it...
 
Noise? I see grain. Noise on the MX looks much more like filmgrain than "noise". Gah! Semantics!
Point is the image is pleasing and this was shot with a freaking match. Now show me something that gets this shot better than I am all ears but seriously...how much more can you ask for? This is sub-optimal shooting conditions, run 'n' gun, and it looks AWESOME. Everything is awesome and nobody is happy (or rather, those who aren't happy seem to have an urge to make up for their lack of numbers by being that extra bit of vocal. You know. Like that guy who writes in all-caps, rambles on the street and points big fat fingers at anything that displeases him... :zombie_smiley:)
 
Philip Orlandic said:
Honestly, I don't see any noise on that clip. It's the Apple ProRes 422(LT) compression.
Download the old clip which is in 2K and better compression and then judge it...
Click to expand...
You're completely correct. The 1080p ProRes LT clip looks much better.

It would be great to play with the R3D file. You could get an even cleaner down res without starting off with ProRes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top