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 :)

Macgregor and crew, Salt Flats Utah

eclaire said:
The last clip was simply gorgeous. With all the banding artifacts in the sky from the web compression, I can only imagine how beautiful the REDCODE version is. Terrific work.
Click to expand...

I would not call it web compression, it's the limitation of 8 bit display. You can demonstrate this yourself by grabbing a still from the video (VLC can export stills in PNG format) and moving the eyedropper tool in Photoshop across the sky to check each pixel value. The R,G,B values are all there to all 8 bits, there are no missing values.

To avoid the banding without adding noise, you need more bits. Are there any 12-bit displays? Most cameras would show less banding on the sky, because they would have more noise or grain which tends to hide the band edges. "Dithering" is another term for adding noise.
 
jbeale said:
I would not call it web compression, it's the limitation of 8 bit display. You can demonstrate this yourself by grabbing a still from the video (VLC can export stills in PNG format) and moving the eyedropper tool in Photoshop across the sky to check each pixel value. The R,G,B values are all there to all 8 bits, there are no missing values.

To avoid the banding without adding noise, you need more bits. Are there any 12-bit displays? Most cameras would show less banding on the sky, because they would have more noise or grain which tends to hide the band edges. "Dithering" is another term for adding noise.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Thanks for that explanation, jbeale.

So does this mean that when shooting that kind of material (a natural "gradient" subject, like a clear sky, with very little detail apart from the gradual color/brightness shifts) that you will need to add noise to the image in post (or boost your ISO to add noise that way) to cover the banding that will result when displayed on conventional monitors and TVs?
 
Jim,

You should offer to Miguel his own RED ONE unit. This footage shall help you to sell a lot of cameras to those whom will watch this output. I'm sorry but I should say: further than «Crossing the Line». Beyond milkgirls. (Yes, Graeme)

He's not PJ nor SS or Charters or Jon Farhat. Only macgregor, a dvxuser.com poster.

Think about it ;-)
E.

macgregor said:
Here comes another clip:


www.macgregor.autoecstasy.com/engagement/engagement.clips.h264.mov


clips.jpg
Click to expand...
 
No, you shouldn't add noise per se.
But the algorithm that downsamples from 16>8 bit should add dither in the operation otherwise you end up with banding artefacts.

And image dither is not really noise as it should only be applied in areas where its actually needed, not uniformly in the whole picture.
Simply adding noise would also add random information to solid details.

But even if you get a banding free image, Quicktime has a tendency to make gamma corrections while converting, so if you go from one 8 bit format to another sometimes the banding can get much worse as you end up with a lot less than 256 levels per channel.
 
Really Great Images! And compositions.

When the "stars align" in your favor..........

Wow, as a film maker..... Imagine getting ready to set up your shot outdoors, and to see all those beautiful clouds! That's about as good as it gets "Luck wise".

Looking forward to the next clip.
 
OMG! OMG! Mac.... uh... You're hired... this is insane stuff man.
 
Yes Brandon -- BTW, I'm glad to see you posting here so often, dvxuser.com brother :-) Be welcome too!

[Just for the case if Jim hadn't read my input; here's again:]

Emanuel said:
Jim,

You should offer to Miguel his own RED ONE unit. This footage shall help you to sell a lot of cameras to those whom will watch this output. I'm sorry but I should say: further than «Crossing the Line». Beyond milkgirls. (Yes, Graeme)

He's not PJ nor SS or Charters or Jon Farhat. Only macgregor, a dvxuser.com poster.

Think about it ;-)
E.

macgregor said:
Here comes another clip:


www.macgregor.autoecstasy.com/engagement/engagement.clips.h264.mov


clips.jpg
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Wow. Gorgeous footage.

One question. Did you do a secondary correction on the lens flare shot? The back of his hat looks a bit soft I can't tell if it's a matte or just a bit of diffusion on the backlighting.
 
Anders Holck said:
No, you shouldn't add noise per se. But the algorithm that downsamples from 16>8 bit should add dither in the operation otherwise you end up with banding artefacts. And image dither is not really noise as it should only be applied in areas where its actually needed, not uniformly in the whole picture.
Click to expand...

Is there any recommended app that does dithering on smooth gradients but does not affect the image elsewhere? I can see this being much more of an issue now than with film, since Red is so low-noise. The sad thing is that any compression done after dithering will suffer, so ideally, the dithering should be done only as the final step, during playback as it is displayed. Evidently my display software (quicktime and VLC) doesn't do this, and I'm not sure what software does.

Update: I was wrong to say this is just an 8-bit problem. On closer inspection, the histogram of a PNG exported from the video is not smooth. There are some missing (or at least very under-represented) values. Anything in the imaging chain could have done this, but maybe it is from the h.264 web compression or the VLC player.

RED-sky-histogram.png
 
Emanuel said:
Jim,

You should offer to Miguel his own RED ONE unit. This footage shall help you to sell a lot of cameras to those whom will watch this output. I'm sorry but I should say: further than «Crossing the Line». Beyond milkgirls. (Yes, Graeme)

He's not PJ nor SS or Charters or Jon Farhat. Only macgregor, a dvxuser.com poster.

Think about it ;-)
E.
Click to expand...


You should not suggest such things, I find it offensive. If Macgregor wanted a Red, he could have reserved one when we did.

I am extremely glad that Jim offered cameras to Soderberg and Jackson, but now that reserve cameras are on the market, for goodness sakes let those camera operators be the ones to rent their Red's out. There should be no more free Red's for anyone. If even Spielberg jumps up and down and wants to shoot on Red, there are over 40 on the market that can accomodate him, with more on the way soon.
 
I can't get over how gorgeous that clip is. I'm watching it again as I wait on some rendering. Obviously tremendous performance by the RED and a great location, but kudos to Macgregor and company for the composition and dolly moves. Best looking footage I've seen so far.
 
Shawn Nelson said:
You should not suggest such things, I find it offensive. If Macgregor wanted a Red, he could have reserved one when we did.
.
Click to expand...

Hi Shawn,

Fairly sure that Macgregor has had a reservation for more than a year.

Stephen
 
Stephen Williams said:
Hi Shawn,

Fairly sure that Macgregor has had a reservation for more than a year.

Stephen
Click to expand...

You are correct, I was just countering Emanual's point that he should receive one *now*. I'm glad Macgregor is getting a Red. That guy know's his shit and produces fantastic images.
 
Shawn Nelson said:
You are correct, I was just countering Emanual's point that he should receive one *now*.
Click to expand...

I think Stephen Williams and Finner should recieve a camera *Now* also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top