Off the chart...

[Mark L. Pederson]

I still think that film aesthetically beats RED on "Feel" and hope that RED leverages its Dynamic Range and Resolution in order to beat film in that area as well. Being able to apply the Vision 2 response curve in REDCineX would be fantastic. RED workflow. RED resolution. Vision2 Color.

Gavin - I assume you are talking about grading with a film emulation LUT - this is something we do all the time on feature films when we grade in SCRATCH from R3Ds. I'll be shocked if REDCineX doesn't add LUT support - I know you will have it Foundry's forthcoming STORM application - but you can do this now in a number of applications that grade from R3Ds.

 

[Dan Kanes]

3D Renderers like Brazil, Vray, PRMan and Arnold have effectively infinite dynamic range and people still light and compose terrible, god awful shots.

If you have two lights on a subject and one of them is 1 stop too hot relative to the other, no amount of dynamic range will allow you to fix that problem (...yet).

I'm not sure how this works in 3D rendering programs but I don't imagine it being that different than the real world. Isn't this called lighting for contrast? I think it would be atrocious if every light on a person was the same stop all around (if you aren't looking to make everything flat and even). I think what you mean is really bad placement of lights, and improper use of lighting ratios as well as light modeling (defining a shape by light placement). Ugly specular highlights are my biggest Raytracing pet peeve.
:beer:

 

[jbeale]

internal ND filters with interchangeable lens cameras?

internal ND filters with interchangeable lens cameras?

Or built-in behind the lens ND filters, like many other cameras.

Just out of curiosity, which cameras with interchangeable lenses have behind-the-lens ND filters? It's common in video cameras with fixed lenses, where the filter is figured into the lens optical design. I'm no expert, but the still cameras with behind-lens filters I've seen, use filters that match to and fit on the lens itself, not the camera.

 

[Oliver Skibbe]

Switchable sensors with different ISO's makes sense. I'd like to see a 50 ISO sensor for exterior day without ND filters. ISO 12800 might be as far as that needs to go. And you'd only want that when you wanted deeper DOF when you're in very low light.

On cinematography.com [1] [2] Jim Jannard announced that there will be an easy way to change sensitivity ranges of EPIC cameras from ISO 200-2000 to ISO 25-250.

 

[Michael Totten]

Gavin - I assume you are talking about grading with a film emulation LUT - this is something we do all the time on feature films when we grade in SCRATCH from R3Ds. I'll be shocked if REDCineX doesn't add LUT support - I know you will have it Foundry's forthcoming STORM application - but you can do this now in a number of applications that grade from R3Ds.

Do you care to share a before and after screen grab ? Before film LUT and after.

 

[Tim Hole]

Obviously the biggest benefit of HDR is that it has the abillity to bring us closer to how the human eye sees and also allowing control over lighting extremes. As with anything this ability can be utilitarian or artistic (or both).

It is a dream come true, as was the day RED went into business.

 

[David Rasberry]

Just out of curiosity, which cameras with interchangeable lenses have behind-the-lens ND filters? It's common in video cameras with fixed lenses, where the filter is figured into the lens optical design. I'm no expert, but the still cameras with behind-lens filters I've seen, use filters that match to and fit on the lens itself, not the camera.

Most ENG/EFP B4 mount broadcast cameras have behind the lens ND filters on a rotating wheel, usually clear plus two or 3 ND stages..

 

[Steven Hammer]

This is absolutely amazing. I can't wait to see how it was done!

My questions are:

In normal mode, Epic is going to record in 16 bit RAW? Will HDR also be 16 bit? Or something higher? What will this do to storage?

Will 16 bit RAW be available on Scarlet, too?

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Isn't this called lighting for contrast? I think it would be atrocious if every light on a person was the same stop all around (if you aren't looking to make everything flat and even). I think what you mean is really bad placement of lights, and improper use of lighting ratios as well as light modeling (defining a shape by light placement). Ugly specular highlights are my biggest Raytracing pet peeve.
:beer:

Yep I mean the general sculpting and balancing of your various lights. Keyword being "...1 stop too bright".

There's clipping and there's just having a light be too bright relative to complementary sources. Resolution doesn't improve your composition, just the rendition of it. Dynamic range doesn't improve your lighting for the most part, just reveals more of it.

So I don't really agree necessarily with the theory that HDR shrinks the size of a crew. If you're trying to counter balance a light source like the sun HDR isn't going to make your little 200W dedo any better suited for the task, you're still going to need that big 2k to compete or ND your windows etc.

If you want sun streaming into a 2nd story window you're still going to need a condor. :cheers2:

 

[Nook Kim]

Man.. this thread really makes me want to come back every hour for something big..

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Gavin - I assume you are talking about grading with a film emulation LUT - this is something we do all the time on feature films when we grade in SCRATCH from R3Ds. I'll be shocked if REDCineX doesn't add LUT support - I know you will have it Foundry's forthcoming STORM application - but you can do this now in a number of applications that grade from R3Ds.

3DLUTs are great but without feeding them a common reference point I always feel a little underwhelmed (something IIF should help fix). It's already been run through color-science so only RED really knows to an accurate degree what the physical 'wavelengths' captured were. Garbage In Garbage Out and all that.

I would love for a pretty automatic color space/gamma option which would be indistinguishable at a given ISO from a real film stock's response.

 

[Zach Gray]

I would love for a pretty automatic color space/gamma option which would be indistinguishable at a given ISO from a real film stock's response.

I couldn't agree more.

We all know that in the hands of an expert with some care, Red can look amazing. But frankly, for something quick, an HVX or 5d has a faster path to looking decent. Don't misunderstand - Red is definitely superior and can generate better images, but Red footage is also kind of ugly out of the box.

It's important because Red is about to enter the HVX/5d market in a big way with with Scarlet, and they need to make it very pretty by default, then obviously keep the RAW access.

A rich and familiar Vision2 LUT for dailies processing would be ... amazing.

 

[Andrew Wilding]

I couldn't agree more.

We all know that in the hands of an expert with some care, Red can look amazing. But frankly, for something quick, an HVX or 5d has a faster path to looking decent. Don't misunderstand - Red is definitely superior and can generate better images, but Red footage is also kind of ugly out of the box.

It's important because Red is about to enter the HVX/5d market in a big way with with Scarlet, and they need to make it very pretty by default, then obviously keep the RAW access.

A rich and familiar Vision2 LUT for dailies processing would be ... amazing.

red gamma and redcolor with no further tweaking already looks so much better than an hvx or 5d in my eyes. Once you tweak a little, the difference becomes even greater.

 

[Jeffrey T. Morgan]

red gamma and redcolor with no further tweaking already looks so much better than an hvx or 5d in my eyes. Once you tweak a little, the difference becomes even greater.

Andrew

As a "waiting in the wings" red customer, could you explain the steps in this... just the bullet points? is it:

- Capture footage

- import to hard drives raw

- use program X to output dailies with a built in red raw look?

or

- use program X to play back previews with a switched on look?

Thanks!
jeff

 

[David Rasberry]

Andrew

As a "waiting in the wings" red customer, could you explain the steps in this... just the bullet points? is it:

- Capture footage

- import to hard drives raw

- use program X to output dailies with a built in red raw look?

or

- use program X to play back previews with a switched on look?

Thanks!
jeff

Depends on the software you are using.

You can open Redcode raw files right on the editing timeline in Premiere Pro CS5 and Vegas 9 now and edit just like any other video format. There is access to the basic grading tools used in Redcine-X built in. Instant dailies and instant post.

Or you can use the free Redcine-X to process dailies and render to other common video file formats for dailies or post.

It is by no means as difficult and cumbersome as some people make it out to be.

The new cameras will also record to an encoded RGB video format, as yet unspecified, for normal 1080p HD video.

 

[Rick Burnett]

Such good points. While at lunch today I was contemplating how I describe to people the use of dynamic range. I separate this into two categories.

1) capture: Here is where it is best to have the largest range as it gives you the opportunity of more to work with. HOWEVER, it doesn't mean you still don't need to light properly. If someone has their face in the shadows and you want it to be lit, trying to adjust just the face in post and not affect all shadows would be painful. The point is, higher dynamic range just means you have some more freedom of the range you can work with and artistically what you can do in post. Getting all the objects to have the right light with respect to each other is still one part of the artistic equation. In addition, it means you can get some more details out of your shadows if you want that previously you just had to accept as lost in the noise

2) display: Screens do not show anywhere near enough dynamic range that we capture, however, that's a good thing. Would you really want to watch a movie where the sun was as painful as being outside on the beach without sunglasses at the peak brightness? Likewise, do you want to watch a scene where the scene detail is so dark you can barely see it? Also high dynamic range in projection of an image is going to cause the human eye having to dynamically adjust over and over and that can be pretty fatiguing if it's different enough.

While I think we can improve on current display technology, there will come a point where the extra dynamic range isn't as useful for display, but ultimately useful for capture.

Until I can use a higher dynamic range system, like the HDR on these cameras, I don't know how to feel about it. In fact, I bet a lot of people don't since they haven't had that opportunity. I think that is what makes this so great. All you people with your EPIC's are going to be on the forefront of a lot more dynamic range than you are used to. I imagine some colorists are going to be drooling at the mouth with all the different kinds of 'feels' they can make in post with detail they've never had to play with before. Sure, anyone can overdo it, but I think we are going to get some movie looks we've never seen and that is exciting.

 

[Jason Ramsey]

have you guys done any testing with HDRx mode with some good movement in the frame by chance? Or, has all testing been shooting charts or static subjects so far?

Later,
Jason

 

[Filip Orlandic]

They must be very busy with HDRx last two days...
Jason, I wanted to ask that too

 

[Stu Mannion]

Holy shit

Holy shit

I don't really agree necessarily with the theory that HDR shrinks the size of a crew. If you're trying to counter balance a light source like the sun HDR isn't going to make your little 200W dedo any better suited for the task, you're still going to need that big 2k to compete or ND your windows etc.

It certainly is going to reduce the size of your crews if you want it to. If you're going for a naturalistic look (now very popular, including with me) then you have that many more situations where you don't need to bring in a light, where your doco or doco-style footage is going to look great.

The implications of this for independent cinema cannot be over-stated. I mean if this does what it says on the tin... then I'm floored.

 

[David Rasberry]

Such good points. While at lunch today I was contemplating how I describe to people the use of dynamic range. I separate this into two categories.

1) capture: Here is where it is best to have the largest range as it gives you the opportunity of more to work with. HOWEVER, it doesn't mean you still don't need to light properly. If someone has their face in the shadows and you want it to be lit, trying to adjust just the face in post and not affect all shadows would be painful. The point is, higher dynamic range just means you have some more freedom of the range you can work with and artistically what you can do in post. Getting all the objects to have the right light with respect to each other is still one part of the artistic equation. In addition, it means you can get some more details out of your shadows if you want that previously you just had to accept as lost in the noise

2) display: Screens do not show anywhere near enough dynamic range that we capture, however, that's a good thing. Would you really want to watch a movie where the sun was as painful as being outside on the beach without sunglasses at the peak brightness? Likewise, do you want to watch a scene where the scene detail is so dark you can barely see it? Also high dynamic range in projection of an image is going to cause the human eye having to dynamically adjust over and over and that can be pretty fatiguing if it's different enough.

While I think we can improve on current display technology, there will come a point where the extra dynamic range isn't as useful for display, but ultimately useful for capture.

Until I can use a higher dynamic range system, like the HDR on these cameras, I don't know how to feel about it. In fact, I bet a lot of people don't since they haven't had that opportunity. I think that is what makes this so great. All you people with your EPIC's are going to be on the forefront of a lot more dynamic range than you are used to. I imagine some colorists are going to be drooling at the mouth with all the different kinds of 'feels' they can make in post with detail they've never had to play with before. Sure, anyone can overdo it, but I think we are going to get some movie looks we've never seen and that is exciting.

To me the value of HDR comes from compressing a linear image capture with wide dynamic range into a logarithmic gamma curve in a narrow dynamic range display medium so that it more closely approximates how the eye would actually see the scene in real life. The end result should be more natural looking shadow detail and tonality with less noise and better highlight detail and tonality without clipping.