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 :)

More HDRx...

Jannard said:
HDRx™ and EasyHDR™ are in development. There is no way we are going to post early files other than the 3MB "Export for web" files we have just shared. It isn't fair to Graeme or the rest of us to get picked apart when we still have so much to do. These are early prototype executions you are seeing. Just like our color science... it will get better as we have time to work on it.

Don't ask for high res streams, R3Ds or anything else. You are not likely to see them until we are ready. In the meantime, we will post snippets along the way.

Jim
Click to expand...

Perhaps I didn't make my request clear. I was only looking to see what this clip would have looked like had it been shot without being in HDRx mode. A small, low-res, compressed clip such as the HDR version would be just fine. That's what I meant by "single stream". Sorry if I wasn't clear.
 
Question for Jim,

Earlier in the Epic development you guys talked about a selectable hardware sensitivity, 250 or 800 ISO if memory serves.
I was wondering if this as been implemented/tested yet? If so, does it have some cost to the total dynamic range (thinking along the lines of Adam Wilts PVC Alexa test)?
But if HDRx is active I would guess much of what is lost (non HDRx) could be regained with HDRx and then some.
I'm wondering about improved blacks in scenes that don't require an 800 ISO sensitivity or max DR, but would still benefit from the extra headroom and Magic Motion.
While headroom is now awesome (tilt-steering), beautiful blacks are the other side of the equation.

Thanks in advance.

J.
 
Jannard said:
Up to 1/96th shutter base exposure.

Jim
Click to expand...

So are you saying that at over 48fps, doing HDRx™ is simply too much data throughput? Or is that 96fps, and shutter angle will be limited to the amount of exposure needed for the HDRx™ stream? Is it safe to assume we'll be able to get more fps by windowing the sensor, like we do with the Red One?

More importantly, in stills mode, the top shutter speed will be way higher, right? (Guessing, 1/8000?)

I'm sure you guys will figure it out and make it the best it can be; I'm just curious.

But while I have you on the line, I have a feature request. I want the shutter to fire when I press the shutter release button, no matter what. In stills mode with auto focus on, if most digital cameras can't find something to focus on (if it's a blurry subject, or too dark), they won't take a picture. It KILLS me.

Andrew Rieger said:
Does anyone else notice the grey discoloration in the corners?
Click to expand...

Am I blind? I don't see this at all.

Michael Stanmore said:
I watched the clip and refuse to believe I'm the only one interested in the flickering through the slats.
Click to expand...

I'd bet my entire bank account that there's no flickering in the full-res file. The flickering is due to resizing each frame and the compressor has to decide to anti-alias the thin white lines on either side, and sometimes goes to one and sometimes to the other. I guarantee you, you'd get the same exact effect if it was shot on film. And as I believe Shane pointed out, you probably wouldn't see it (or at least it'd be a lot less) if it was interlaced.

If I'm wrong about this, and someone knows how to resize a movie like this to make it not flicker, please let me know!
 
As for the vignetting and foot motion "issues". Deal Breaker? Really?

If you are uncomfortable with this vignetting try this with classic Arri High-speed or classic Anji/Cooke zooms. Remember this is a 5k sensor... At 4K (cropped) this would be gone, but with but most other lens options will vignette (or porthole) like mad at this imager size.

The motion blur does appear to show the ground behind the foot (as expected) But it does appear that some of this has been mapped there b/c of the extreme contrast ratio between the foot and the ground. I personally feel that in motion it looks great/normal. But when pixel peeping still images the trick is revealed. However if you hated it, there are always options. I'm thinking a higher shutter speed and higher frame rate... but then you lose some of the film "feel". I don't think is an acceptable trade off. Unless you want a 60P playback deliverable with a "Saving Private Ryan" feel. No doubt there is a middle ground if you think its required.

EDIT: theforce.net fanfilm Star wars fan critics? I'd expect that from Trekkies maybe...
 
I'm still letting the fact sink in that this is possible with a videocamera, and some of you are allready picking the image apart.
The left shows a bit of highlight through for 4 frames. Could be a fault, could be the compression playing up, could be magic. It's early day for HDRx™ so we don't know.
Give the guys some time to do some finetuning. Jim said Graeme just started working on the program that combines the streams. Let's see how that plays out, shall we?
Some people out here are going to ruin this entire and unique look we get in the development program by keeping this attitude up.
 
Last edited:
joshua csehak said:
Am I blind? I don't see this at all.
Click to expand...

Jim said it is vignetting so there is no issue. If you look in all 4 corners of the image you will see a small area of grey-ish discoloration. You cannot really see it that well in the picture but the movie shows it.
 
Jannard said:
It is vignetting. Don't be concerned other than the fact we weren't paying attention. We were too excited. :-)

Jim
Click to expand...

Ya, I figured that vignetting was the only thing it could be. Thats just one of the things we have to deal with when using wide angle lenses. Looks wonderful anyways. Thanks Jim :)
 
Other than less desirable effects like artifacts, banding and other image degrading issues, new technology will come with new signatures that through time will become a part of the format's aesthetic, and so on. I'm not about to guess what these will be, but we are already constantly being challenged to throw out our old (film) standard expectations in order to discover new excellence.
 
Bill Anderson said:
Other than less desirable effects like artifacts, banding and other image degrading issues, new technology will come with new signatures that through time will become a part of the format's aesthetic, and so on. I'm not about to guess what these will be, but we are already constantly being challenged to throw out our old (film) standard expectations in order to discover new excellence.
Click to expand...

While I agree with you that it's yet to be seen whether Magic Motion will not only be an acceptable but desired aesthetic, historically not all artifacts have caught on.

4:2:2 heavy DCT compression for instance never really became a desired artifact sought out by film makers. :D
 
Gavin, That's exactly what I'm saying: new technologies of this sort should be put under "the microscope", but we have to be prepared to accept that every anomaly is not a "deal-breaking" flaw, or even a flaw. Some are no brainers, others tend to be questioned on very shaky grounds, i.e prejudice. That is why I called some of these "effects" "less desirable" and "image degrading". I see nothing but good with HDR or Magic motion.
 
Bill Anderson said:
Gavin, That's exactly what I'm saying: new technologies of this sort should be put under "the microscope", but we have to be prepared to accept that every anomaly is not a "deal-breaking" flaw, or even a flaw. Some are no brainers, others tend to be questioned on very shaky grounds, i.e prejudice. That is why I called some of these "effects" "less desirable" and "image degrading". I see nothing but good with HDR or Magic motion.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Boldly into the Undiscovered Country! :D
 
Bill Anderson said:
new technologies of this sort should be put under "the microscope", but we have to be prepared to accept that every anomaly is not a "deal-breaking" flaw, or even a flaw.
Click to expand...

It would be cool though to turn on the microscope after hearing

"There you go, we're DONE."
 
This is not an example. This is a tryout of an example.
 
Besides, this isn't about denying scrutiny, it's about making sure that we understand what it is we're scrutinizing; and my post was directed at those who seem to have difficulty in this regard; where every anomaly is seen as a flaw, or something to fear. Can't make it any clearer without beating it into the ground.
 
Both. :)

So...what is the point of scrutinizing an example of a tryout then ?
 
The point would be, assuming we know what we are looking at in this regard, so that we might ask questions regarding Jim's intentions. So we understand full well what is and what isn't on the radar. Hasn't this been an important part of the RED community's development"? Hrvoje, I think we might be talking at cross purposes here. Or expressing the same thing in different ways. Surely you are not telling me that one cannot, even though one understands the nature of what is being shown, scrutinize and comment on it? My original post has been bent so far out of whack as to be all but meaningless at this point. Not an uncommon thing in itself.
 
Everyone seems to want "that film look", but I just want "that real look". I'm anxious to hear what high frame rates Scarlet will support in HDRx mode, if any. The new teaser video in this thread blew me away!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top