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 :)

M-X Reel

Jack Cooper said:
anyone else getting a

"Error 2048 - Couldn't open the file because its not a file Quicktime understands".

when trying to download from the link...

i'm on a pc windows xp laptop...i can view many of the other reels...just having problems opening this one.
Click to expand...

I think I read when people were having similar problems that the solution is to upgrade your QuickTime to the newest version - it includes the new codecs needed to play the video.

Hope that helps.

D
 
David Dennis said:
I think I read when people were having similar problems that the solution is to upgrade your QuickTime to the newest version - it includes the new codecs needed to play the video.

Hope that helps.

D
Click to expand...

Success! Yes, the newest version certainly did the trick. Didn't appear my "quicktime" player was aggressive enough to flag the available updates ready for download...Thanks David...

Amazing footage...
 
Mysterium & mysterium x

Mysterium & mysterium x

Working with Aaron and Bryon from Alternative Rentals, Paul Geffre and I did some preliminary tests today between the Mysterium and Mysterium X sensors. These bracket tests are meant to help us identify the MX "sweet spot" of exposure using a control we are all familiar with: the Red One Mysterium. We are also examining what happens in the highlight areas (when things are over) as well as the low-light areas (when things are under).

From a post production and production perspective, it is important for everyone to know where camera sensors are most "comfortable." When dailies are being sent back to the lab for processing and editorial, understanding what a camera sensor is actually seeing may be slightly different than what is being viewed on set. Making this connection between gamma corrected viewing exposure and actual exposure is a good place for open and accurate communication between production and post. It is this critical "handshake" that I believe is one of the most overlooked and important steps in taking file-based RAW image capture like Red R3Ds from good to great.

For people who are familiar with Mysterium sensitivity, these stills will help you get your bearings and begin to make adjustments to routine photography setups and packages. Though a lot more testing clearly has yet to be done industry wide, we recommend people have a look at a portion of our test results so the industry can start getting acclimated to MX photography. After evaluating our results on a waveform monitor (not published in the below link) we have found the MX sensor to have a full 2 stops of additional latitude in the toe. We also took into consideration additional "potential" latitude with respect to a near-perfect noise floor, enabling even a 2000ASA+ shot to be comfortably used without the time and expense of noise reduction.

Needless to say, it is our opinion that the Mysterium X improvements should not be characterized amongst the industry as a mere "upgrade." As more and more people take ownership of the MX sensor, I believe it will become clear that this is nothing short of another digital cinema game changer.

Here is a link to some of the 4K stills for evaluation. Please be patient and respectful. 4K TIFFs are big and tests are private.

http://www.lightirondigital.com/LightIRON_Digital/LiDigital__MX_4K_STLLS.html
 
Thanks Michael for the tests ... quite impressive if not simply amazing ...

The ISO 320 T22 shot that was underexposed by 4 f-stops was still easily "normalized" to a proper exposure on the M-X sensor with minimal noise penalty, vs. a pretty much unusable shot on the original Mysterium.

Now at ISO320 I'm not sure how much head-room before clipping there is for a shot that normalizes a scene-referred 18% grey-card to a on-screen gamma-corrected 41% "middle-grey", but let's say it's around 3 f-stops from a scene-referred grey-card to a white-card that is clipping ... what this means is that theoretically you could under-expose another 4 f-stops from ISO320 and still get a usable shot after middle-grey normalization, keeping highlights that are +6.5 to +7 f-stops over middle-grey from clipping. So not only do you now have usable high ISO sensitivity, but you also, depending on where you "normalize" gamma-corrected middle-grey (the penality is greater visible mid-tone noise the "lower" you push middle-grey), have an extreme amount of headroom that was typically in the realm negative film-stocks.

Jason
 
Michael Cioni said:
Working with Aaron and Bryon from Alternative Rentals, Paul Geffre and I did some preliminary tests today between the Mysterium and Mysterium X sensors. These bracket tests are meant to help us identify the MX "sweet spot" of exposure using a control we are all familiar with: the Red One Mysterium. We are also examining what happens in the highlight areas (when things are over) as well as the low-light areas (when things are under).

From a post production and production perspective, it is important for everyone to know where camera sensors are most "comfortable." When dailies are being sent back to the lab for processing and editorial, understanding what a camera sensor is actually seeing may be slightly different than what is being viewed on set. Making this connection between gamma corrected viewing exposure and actual exposure is a good place for open and accurate communication between production and post. It is this critical "handshake" that I believe is one of the most overlooked and important steps in taking file-based RAW image capture like Red R3Ds from good to great.

For people who are familiar with Mysterium sensitivity, these stills will help you get your bearings and begin to make adjustments to routine photography setups and packages. Though a lot more testing clearly has yet to be done industry wide, we recommend people have a look at a portion of our test results so the industry can start getting acclimated to MX photography. After evaluating our results on a waveform monitor (not published in the below link) we have found the MX sensor to have a full 2 stops of additional latitude in the toe. We also took into consideration additional "potential" latitude with respect to a near-perfect noise floor, enabling even a 2000ASA+ shot to be comfortably used without the time and expense of noise reduction.

Needless to say, it is our opinion that the Mysterium X improvements should not be characterized amongst the industry as a mere "upgrade." As more and more people take ownership of the MX sensor, I believe it will become clear that this is nothing short of another digital cinema game changer.

Here is a link to some of the 4K stills for evaluation. Please be patient and respectful. 4K TIFFs are big and tests are private.

http://www.lightirondigital.com/LightIRON_Digital/LiDigital__MX_4K_STLLS.html
Click to expand...

A must read/see for anyone shooting Red. Thank you for your generosity.
 
i apologize before hand and i realize this post will be quickly bombed and forgotten but i'm sort of un-impressed with this footage. IMO Laforet's Nocturne footage looked MUCH better. I'm not in anyway a "canon fan-boy" i'm just giving an honest opinion of what i see. There was also grain added to the footage in post which pretty obvious and didn't help with compression artifacts.
 
Justin Thomas said:
i apologize before hand and i realize this post will be quickly bombed and forgotten but i'm sort of un-impressed with this footage. IMO Laforet's Nocturne footage looked MUCH better. I'm not in anyway a "canon fan-boy" i'm just giving an honest opinion of what i see. There was also grain added to the footage in post which pretty obvious and didn't help with compression artifacts.
Click to expand...

No grain or denoise was added to the MX footage.
AFAIK, denoise was done to some of the nocturne footage (not sure about grain).

FWIW, this footage was projected on a 35ft screen with people as close as 20ft. I would be curious to see how 5D/7D/1D holds up comparatively.
 
Deanan said:
No grain or denoise was added to the MX footage.
AFAIK, denoise was done to some of the nocturne footage (not sure about grain).

FWIW, this footage was projected on a 35ft screen with people as close as 20ft. I would be curious to see how 5D/7D/1D holds up comparatively.
Click to expand...



Apparently philip bloom tested just that, on a 40' screen at GL's skywalker ranch. and apparently it turned out pretty well.

http://philipbloom.co.uk/2009/12/12...er-ranch-red-tails-star-wars-and-canon-dslrs/
 
Yes, it's very important to see this footage at it's full 4k projected capabilities for yourself.

I'd remember that anything can look good on a large screen if you sit far enough back. I'd invite you to get very close indeed to the screen showing the RED M-X 4k footage.

Graeme
 
Justin Thomas said:
i apologize before hand and i realize this post will be quickly bombed and forgotten but i'm sort of un-impressed with this footage. IMO Laforet's Nocturne footage looked MUCH better. I'm not in anyway a "canon fan-boy" i'm just giving an honest opinion of what i see. There was also grain added to the footage in post which pretty obvious and didn't help with compression artifacts.
Click to expand...

In what ways de you find the Lafloret footage better? When I look at it, I see moire, blacks with no detail, and pretty awful color (which I attribute to the light sources). The only thing which makes the Lafloret footage remarkable is the assertion that it was shot at iso 6400. The look just does nothing for me. So please tell me what you see that you like so much better than the MX footage?
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Yes, it's very important to see this footage at it's full 4k projected capabilities for yourself.


Graeme
Click to expand...
If anyone offers to fly me across the country to do this, i'd be more than happy.


D Fuller said:
So please tell me what you see that you like so much better than the MX footage?
Click to expand...

i guess i'm missing what people are drooling over with this particular video. i've seen just as good 1080p footage from 5/7/1Ds. not to mention there was aliasing and moire in this video too. (Steering wheel + lines on the audi telephone wires & mercedes) I'm still pretty convinced grain was added to this. For instance take a look at any black frame or even the widescreen bars and u can see fine grain that isnt a characteristic of the h.264 codec unless its been added.

i guess i'll just have to wait till the camera is available, and scrounge up some spare cash that isn't going towards school.
 
Justin... you are missing something. Quite a bit actually.

Jim
 
Justin Thomas said:
Apparently philip bloom tested just that, on a 40' screen at GL's skywalker ranch. and apparently it turned out pretty well.

http://philipbloom.co.uk/2009/12/12...er-ranch-red-tails-star-wars-and-canon-dslrs/
Click to expand...

I saw the film Phillip made online, I downloaded it in 1080p. To me, on on my "27 compu screen it looks rather soft and has moire problems. He did some lovely shots, and has great talent in my opinion, but I don't see how his Skywalker footage shows us anything new about DSLRs.

It also doesn't answer what it would look like recompressed for broadcast, what latitude he would have if he needed to re grade, or how many shots he had to throw out and didn't show us because of even worse moire. That's what I love most about RED vs. other digital means - no nasty surprises and fewer potential mistakes to make on set vs. a cam that has to have its look baked in via a paint and/or will moire or skew without notice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top