Noisy Epic footage?

[jimhare]

Rating 320 will compromise highlight range quite a bit. As it is, if you rate 800 the highlight/shadow distribution is not even- you still have more stops of shadow information than highlight. If you rate 320, this becomes even more unbalanced and there are very few stops of highlight range. This is not practical for scenes with a wide tonal range. I rate 320 or 400 when I have dark scenes where the tonal values of the scene fall under one and a half stops over key. Ive achieved clean results doing this shooting dark scenes, but it is simply not practical for a scene with a wide range of highlight and shadow values.

Still, may be worth doing a test to see if it improves the noise issue.

 

[Eric Haase]

I have shot more tests yesterday. I did a new black shading with the 2.0.5 beta firmware installed and shot 7:1, 5:1, and 3:1. The noise seems less exaggerated in the new clips than in the one I posted in the original post. The compression has little effect on the noise level- it is a very subtle difference between 7:1 and 3:1. I also rolled back to 1.7 release build firmware and did the exact same test after a new black shading. The noise appears to be the same. The noise in the new clips appears more in line with what I would expect.

Hearing others' anecdotal experience and seeing that side by side on the same shot the red MX had less noise than the Epic, I am a bit nervous about unpredictable noise levels on Epic.

 

[Mark Toia]

The only time I see noise is when I'm shooting at night... 3 stops under exposed with very minimal lighting.

I rate everything at 320 ASA... I own bright glass to combat being ever caught out in the dark.

All daylight & Studio photography I get no noise at all.

If you get noise in daylight or controlled lighting conditions, you can guarantee your doing something wrong.

PS.. I never look at the histogram...
If the image looks dark in the view finder, your can be sure it is... if the image looks over exposed in the view finder... you can be sure it is... ))
Just rock that aperture into the middle...

I know, it sounds silly... but this is all you need to do.

 

[David Battistella]

That is the very best strategy mark. When it gets dark you really need glass that lets more light on the sensor.

David

 

[Zeb B]

Silly question: "Rate at 320" means to set the camera at ISO320 and expose for that? Then is Epic really a ISO320 camera - not 800?
@Mark: do you really not use the histo or clipping alerts in the touchscreen as a guide? I mean, do you really just look at the screen to determine exposure? If so, I'm working way too hard since your work looks awesome!

 

[jimhare]

Jim has said that the Epic is 320 like the R1. You can tell this by going into RAW and seeing it matches 320 pretty well. The difference is the image is so much cleaner that you can rate at 800 to protect your highlights. Ever since then there has been a constant debate over which is better.

Can't argue with Mark's results!

 

[David Battistella]

It is true that rating at 320 means you have to be much more careful when protecting highlights as eric states in an earlier post in this thread. When a digital sensor clips in the then the highlights are lost because there is no recover when a pixel goes to pure white.

By rating at 800 you move the middle grey and protect the "white" or maybe you better protect then sensor from clipping unrecoveralbe "all white" pixels. It effectively "brightens your shadows too.

There has been a lot of back and forth on this. No need to revist. In my tests, there is A LOT less noise when you rate and light at 320 (especially for things like green screen).

The M, the MX and the MX on EPIC have a few things in common.

1. Sharper images in daylight or daylight sources
2. Loves to be lit (but you have to know the threshold)
3. noisey when underexposed (but grain is a good thing a lot of the time too)

I personally treat the camera like a 320 ASA film stock and I have been pleased with the results.

All film stocks and digital cameras perform better with MORE light, you light starve them and you have to live with noise.

David

 

[Sergio Perez]

This is one area I would REALLY like seeing improved. I ordered an Epic, am happy with doing so, but I would really like Dragon to be noiseless to 1250 ISO. I don't need much more. Have been playing with fellow reduser Jason Beckwich low light 1600 ISO shot and am having a hard time with the noise. This was only a test shot with smoke in a very extreme situation, Jason said he would never expose like this in a job- this was only a test- but I have tried noise reduction in redcine X as well as neat video in a prores file and am not liking what I'm getting. In these difficult smoke situations I'm getting banding with neat video. Bellow, a link to Jason's shot. Like I said, Jason was nice enough to provide this shot for us future owners to play around so please don't jump on him. This was, like I said, again an extreme low light test.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...pic-X-Warning-Lots-of-Images-Heavy-page/page2

Any solution for the noise seen here? I'm getting very strong blue channel noise. I tried reducing the blue channel chroma which helped, but was certainly not ideal. Any post production suggestion? Not production, like better lighting and lowering ISO suggestions, please. Just trying to know if this can be fixed in post. I'm not looking for a pristine, no noise footage, just a not distracting noise one. Just trying to understand how to work around this.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

PS.. I never look at the histogram...
If the image looks dark in the view finder, your can be sure it is... if the image looks over exposed in the view finder... you can be sure it is... ))
Just rock that aperture into the middle...

I know, it sounds silly... but this is all you need to do.

Hate to sound like a broken record :
If you don't use camera generated exposure tools( false color, histogram, goal posts) you are robbing yourself of a big portion of the raw acquisition advantage.
Especially if used in combination where one tool (scope, meter) verifies the accuracy of another they make a very accurate exposure control a breeze.
I'm sure you also realize that the monitoring signals on a digital display are post processed results. By judging based on them you let the camera decide the exposure effectively turning Epic into a video camera- at least for the exposure aspect of aquisition.
Accurate exposure is the most important aspect of the digital aquisition IMO.

 

[Will Keir]

PS.. I never look at the histogram...
If the image looks dark in the view finder, your can be sure it is... if the image looks over exposed in the view finder... you can be sure it is... ))
Just rock that aperture into the middle...

I know, it sounds silly... but this is all you need to do.

Shooting with the red for a couple years now, this is exactly how NOT to get the shot. What I see on the monitor MUST be check with a histogram to avoid shooting over/under exposed.

Is your claim that with an epic this is all fixed? That the view finder shows what you will see in post? That, I would like to believe.

 

[Uli Plank]

No viewfinder can display what's in RAW! Use the histogram, ETTR and check your "traffic lights".

 

[Gunnar Nimpuno]

I do have similar problem. Really looking forward to know the cause. PS: didn't experience this on MX. Thanks.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

I have shot more tests yesterday. I did a new black shading with the 2.0.5 beta firmware installed and shot 7:1, 5:1, and 3:1. The noise seems less exaggerated in the new clips than in the one I posted in the original post.

Do you say "less exagerated" due to the black shading? As compression from 8 to 3 has only little effect over noise?
Black shanding, exposure and control over color temp could be the key?
What do you think?

I remember the early days of ONE-M, with blue screen issues due to misbelief that color temp is only a metadata thing that can be handled in post. Poeple got a lot of noise in the blue channel when lit in T.

RAW is not only Metadata! ;-)

Pat

 

[David Battistella]

We are not suggesting that the metadata setting during black shading affects the black shading, are we?

It is my understanding that the NATIVE SENSOR WB IS 5000Kelvin and that no WB setting during blackshading affects this.


Please. Someone from red enter this thread and clear up some of this stuff or we all run the risk of pouring out MYTH instead of FACTS.

David

 

[martinnoweck]

Please. Someone from red enter this thread and clear up some of this stuff or we all run the risk of pouring out MYTH instead of FACTS.

David

true!

 

[David Battistella]

Let's break things down a bit. Here is how I understand it.

BLACK SHADING Calibration
Scans the sensor and calibrates how the sensor sees black at a specific project framerate, frames per second and shutter angle.

From that point the RAW view is basically
320 ISO
5000 KEVIN

Whatever light you throw (or don't throw) at the sensor will affect things like noise.

less light = expect more noise
tungsten light = expect more blue channel noise

expose to the right = less noise (you are hitting the sensor hard here but can sacrifice highlights
expose to the left = dig your image out of teh dirt and expect noise

To my understanding:

EPIC M and EPIC X are exactly the same camera (except for the warranty period and machined body) and share the same firmware
WB and ISO in the metadata DO NOT AFFECT BLACK SHADING CALIBRATION
SHUTTER ANGLE, FRAME RATE and Frames per second DO AFFECT BLACK SHADING CALIBRATION

David

 

[Mark Toia]

If you flick from RAW to RED COLOR @ 320 iso.. you see know shift in aluminise, brightness, nothing.. other than a flatter look with less colour... such is RAW.

Flick between RAW to RED COLOR @ 800 iso, you see the image is brighter.. why because you have just underexposed the sensor.

800 ISO is a great setting for the MX, EPIC chip because it gives the not to talented and 1 stop buffer, helping people not to over expose. Simple safe guard that RED has set to prevent people clipping hi lights. Only problem is, if you under expose a shot, you tend to have to push another stop to get your info back and hence induce more grain...

And Josh, No I don't ever use the histogram or clipping alerts... I just look at the monitors, touch screen or EVF and honestly... if the high lights are to hot or the sky looks blown out, i quite literally pull back until I get info (that I require) back on the screen.
If the image looks dark... I open up my aperture until I get all my black detail, or I put a brighter lens on... yes as simple as that.

I never get blown out hight lights, unless I want them blown out... and I shoot at 320 asa for everything. I never change my ISO in camera.

Regarding Kelvin settings, I keep that simple too... Daylight I leave at 5600K, Tungsten I leave at 3200k... Thats it.
Kelvins dont really concern me becuase discard all meta data I shot on set and create a REDLOGFILM film file at a desire white balance during my transcoding process... So i will always have beautifully neutral LOG files to grade.

This method gives me the cleanest images possible...

Jump on my website and you can see the results.

 

[David Battistella]

If you flick from RAW to RED COLOR @ 320 iso.. you see know shift in aluminise, brightness, nothing.. other than a flatter look with less colour... such is RAW.

Flick between RAW to RED COLOR @ 800 iso, you see the image is brighter.. why because you have just underexposed the sensor.

I was just explaining this exact thing to a friend on a phonecall just now. That is basically the proof.
If you go to 320 ISO 5000K (which is where I leave things all the time) then you basically see what the sensor is seeing the RAW view.
I leave tungsten at 3800K becuase things go a bit blue in "normal" 3200K mode.

Thanks for posting this Mark, you've helped articulate what I was trying to get across.

David

 

[Mark Toia]

Hate to sound like a broken record :
If you don't use camera generated exposure tools( false color, histogram, goal posts) you are robbing yourself of a big portion of the raw acquisition advantage.
Especially if used in combination where one tool (scope, meter) verifies the accuracy of another they make a very accurate exposure control a breeze.
I'm sure you also realize that the monitoring signals on a digital display are post processed results. By judging based on them you let the camera decide the exposure effectively turning Epic into a video camera- at least for the exposure aspect of aquisition.
Accurate exposure is the most important aspect of the digital aquisition IMO.

Never had a hot shot yet... never have unexposed either.... very really do I ever get noisy shots ...

Im happy with my non correct way of doing things.

hey, but thanks for sharing.

 

[Mark Toia]

I was just explaining this exact thing to a friend on a phonecall just now. That is basically the proof.
If you go to 320 ISO 5000K (which is where I leave things all the time) then you basically see what the sensor is seeing the RAW view.
I leave tungsten at 3800K becuase things go a bit blue in "normal" 3200K mode.

Thanks for posting this Mark, you've helped articulate what I was trying to get across.

David

No Problemo..