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 :)

More HDRx...

Jannard said:
17-50mm RPZ.

ISO 500 (against my nature but we forgot ND's).

HDRx™ +4

Jim
Click to expand...

I am surprised that nobody else caught the fact that this is +4 not the top end
of HDRx of +6!!!! or am i wrong?

Words do not do this breakthrough justice, congrats to all the redheads!, and thanks.
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
I still feel like you're being too black and white. I think HDRx™ will stand the tests of time. But I also am relatively certain there are going to be times when MNMB will flat out kick the can and be unusable.

It's not an either/or situation.

Part of selling professional tools is to know your tool's limits and work around them. It can stand the test of time and have limitations to be conscious of.
Click to expand...

Gavin... there is so much flexibility in processing the two streams that it is not funny. You can do virtually anything you want.

Jim
 
Steven-Marc C. said:
Gavin, which 18 stop sensor are you talking about?

Jim is showing us what can be achieved today. Even if it breaks down in 1% of situations (or more) it's still an fantastic new tool to have.

Well done, guys!
Click to expand...

I agree. But that wasn't the question. Someone asked "Why would you want more." I answered to the best of my knowledge why someone would still want to see more native dynamic range in a camera.

Just because you have the best solution, doesn't mean you have a perfect solution. Nor does it mean an imperfect solution isn't good enough.
 
Also this is just the beginning of Magic Motion blur. What has been achieved in a short amount of time has been groundbreaking.
I'm sure their will be many iterations and variations of magic motion blur as more breakthroughs are made.
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
The first law of image processing is that you can never manufacture data.
Click to expand...

In this case you are matching so you have a reference image to match to.

You have lots of options on how to blend and choose if you want to keep the regular motion for the base frame, blended magic motion, or use foundry's solution. It already looks great with magic motion so getting nitpicky about something 99% of people won't use is a bit futile.
 
Paul Hazlett said:
I am surprised that nobody else caught the fact that this is +4 not the top end
of HDRx™ of +6!!!! or am i wrong?

Words do not do this breakthrough justice, congrats to all the redheads!, and thanks.
Click to expand...

Our testing has shown that +3 is just about all you would need given the native DR of the MX sensor. It is nice to know that you have "money in the bank" when you need it. We just haven't found that many situations when +6 was necessary.

Jim
 
Please excuse us if we sound excited. This is really unbelievable to us. We test this stuff and go nuts because we can't believe what we are seeing.

Jim
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
I agree. But that wasn't the question. Someone asked "Why would you want more." I answered to the best of my knowledge why someone would still want to see more native dynamic range in a camera.

Just because you have the best solution, doesn't mean you have a perfect solution. Nor does it mean an imperfect solution isn't good enough.
Click to expand...

Every DOP that i spoke with says the limitation of digital camera lays in its dynamic range and that's why film wins ! And this is it, EPIC ! and it's really funny when someone asked you that "why would you want more", i say "Why do you shoot on film ?"

The tool is there for you to use, it's a little puzzling that you find it hard to utilize this flexibility...
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
I agree. But that wasn't the question. Someone asked "Why would you want more." I answered to the best of my knowledge why someone would still want to see more native dynamic range in a camera.

Just because you have the best solution, doesn't mean you have a perfect solution. Nor does it mean an imperfect solution isn't good enough.
Click to expand...

Got it. But I think that question was just an expression of appreciation at what is being shown, not a real question. There's always room for more, but until that 18 stop sensor becomes a reality, I'll gladly use HDRx™ knowing it may (or may not) have a few limitations.
 
With this achievement we will finally be able to light sets on a purely artistic basis rather than technical, don't you think?
 
Roberto Lequeux said:
I'd like to know if the forest was compressed footage, and if there was a lot of motion blur on the trees.
Click to expand...

No motion blur in the trees. It was an aerial shot. The compression wasn't hte problem. The problem was that branches all look very much alike. It was deriving strange vectors because it was thinking multiple trees were the same tree just moving around the frame very quickly.

When you have an algorithm matching patterns and a very uniform pattern on screen it gets confused between identical 'instances' of the same image.

If you set your error % too high it'll lose image chunks which change too much from frame to frame. If you set your error % too low you'll get false positives where it jumps from similar to similar pattern. This can result in very strange warpy wibbly artifacts in the motion blur.

Also it needs sufficient detail to find a pattern. If you take something like a phone spinning quickly the highlights moving across the surface will be read as the vectors and it becomes impossible to predict the morph form of the reflected light card. The only way to really capture a quickly rotating reflective object is going to be in native motion blur.


Steven-Marc C. said:
Got it. But I think that question was just an expression of appreciation at what is being shown, not a real question. There's always room for more, but until that 18 stop sensor becomes a reality, I'll gladly use HDRx™™™ knowing it may (or may not) have a few limitations.
Click to expand...

As will I. Except in situations where I know it's going to fail. ;) And if you like the look of Magic Motion, you'll always probably be happy. And even if you dont' like Magic Motion and even if it the MNMB does fail, there are still useful applications for the HDRx layer beyond dynamic range.
 
Jannard said:
Please excuse us if we sound excited. This is really unbelievable to us. We test this stuff and go nuts because we can't believe what we are seeing.

Jim
Click to expand...

BTW Jim, sorry if u have mentioned it before. But what does it mean by +1, +2, +3, +4, etc ?

What does it represent ?

Cheers
Rivai
 
I personally will shoot HDRx every time and in every situation.

Jim
 
Ryan Valle said:
For the next HDRx™ preview, can we get a snap shot from another camera to get an idea of how a typical camera would react or a non HDRx™ version shot with the same RED? just a thought.
.
Click to expand...

I have wondered for a long time when will cameras start to represent the world more like the way we see it with our eyes.

Congratulations to RED for taking breaking new ground and taking imaging to a whole new level. Other manufacturers will undoubtedly respond to this and raise there own game. This is good for the consumer and good for film making. Thank you.

As Ryan suggests it would be great if you could post some comparison shots. Non HDRx vs HDRx for example.
 
Jannard said:
Please excuse us if we sound excited. This is really unbelievable to us. We test this stuff and go nuts because we can't believe what we are seeing.

Jim
Click to expand...
Whenever I lose my focus and become depressed, I spend some time watching this board...

Thank you for all your hard work.
 
RivaiC said:
BTW Jim, sorry if u have mentioned it before. But what does it mean by +1, +2, +3, +4, etc ?

What does it represent ?

Cheers
Rivai
Click to expand...

This is the amount of highlight protection/dynamic range you choose. +3 to +6.

Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top