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 :)

RAW is RIDICULOUS!!

Justin Kirchhoff

Justin Kirchhoff

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
1,730
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Austin, TX
Website
www.digitalshakedown.com
Since I haven't purchased a mattebox yet, I haven't been able to shoot through any ND's. So today, I shot footage on both the 18-50 zoom and the 300mm at T16 ISO 100. Just on the edge of being underexposed. Brought the clips into REDAlert!, made very few adjustments that were EASY and got some great shots for my second day out.

RED knows what they are doing, for those of you that may doubt that (if there are any doubters left), just know that the workflow is simple, learning curve is simple (if you already know how to post process footage), and the camera is a beast. Man, this shit is awesome!
 
You're all talk, dude. Let's see some footage. :)
 
Justin_Kirch said:
Since I haven't purchased a mattebox yet, I haven't been able to shoot through any ND's. So today, I shot footage on both the 18-50 zoom and the 300mm at T16 ISO 100. Just on the edge of being underexposed. Brought the clips into REDAlert!, made very few adjustments that were EASY and got some great shots for my second day out.
Click to expand...

Not knowing if T/16 at 100 ASA was under, over, or normal for your scene... but my question is why would the footage be on the edge of underexposure if you didn't have any ND's (meaning you were outside shooting in daylight), especially at a 100 ASA rating for a (practically) 320 ASA camera? Wouldn't it more likely be on the edge of overexposure? Because if you were on the edge of underexposure at T/16, you'd just open up to T/11 wouldn't you? Or switch from 100 ASA to 200 ASA...
 
cckid said:
if someone really wants to see some footage...i think the trailer for wanted speaks loud enough
Click to expand...

That's all 35 mm. No RED in there, sorry. :wink:
 
David, sorry to be vague, I had people walking in and out of the shade, on a partly cloudy day and a little haze. It was very close to be under or over. I was changing the exposure based on what direction I was shooting.

Either way, underexposing isn't a problem with this camera. I can shoot underexposed atleast 2 stops and still have decent looking footage.

Tom, I'm rendering out a small teaser right now...:)
 
Justin_Kirch said:
RED knows what they are doing, for those of you that may doubt that (if there are any doubters left), just know that the workflow is simple, learning curve is simple (if you already know how to post process footage)
Click to expand...

My brother and I are buying the camera together, but now he's thinking about delaying the delivery due to workflow issues with a RED we rented recently. Could you please explain your simple workflow method so I can convince him not to delay the camera? AVID, Final Cut, Mac, PC, doesn't matter, we have it all and we managed to edit 2,5 minutes with a lot of hard work. Just looking for an easier solution. Any help or advice appreciated...
 
Hey Elvar, work flow works like butter. To just get a rough cut, be sure to make some proxy quicktimes in REDAlert! and bring them into Final Cut. You now can create an offline edit. From those clips, you can figure out what exactly you need to export.

For myself, I'm not an editor, so I couldn't tell you the difference between what's good for them and what isn't, but it seems to me that setting in and out points in REDCINE or REDAlert! for certain clips and then exporting them to whatever codec you want to (ProRES HQ highly suggested), you can make a movie!

I still want to do the ultimate test and try making a short film in 48 hours with the camera and workflow, just to see how fast I can get this stuff done.
 
This doesn't make any sense. You're rating a 320ISO camera at 100 ISO, then saying you can underexpose by as many as two stops, meaning you can shoot effectively at 400ISO.

Especially given that the sensor performs better at 5600K and you're shooting day exteriors...why am I not surprised that a 320ISO camera produces acceptable images at 400ISO?

Makes no sense. You're rating two stops faster, underexposing two stops, then pushing two stops. Same as shooting at the native ISO, thus unremarkable.
 
Justin_Kirch said:
Since I haven't purchased a mattebox yet, I haven't been able to shoot through any ND's. So today, I shot footage on both the 18-50 zoom and the 300mm at T16 ISO 100.
Click to expand...

While you're waiting to buy a matte box, or for times you don't want to or can't use one, you can simply use inexpensive 72mm screw on filters for the 18-50 and 43mm screw on filters for the 300 filter tray. I also use 40.5mm screw on filters on the mount end of my Century mount converted Canon FD 150-600 zoom. The filters should be multi-coated. I've had good results with Hoya multi-coated screw on ND filters on the 18-50 and 300, and Tiffen on the 150-600. They're about $55 USD on B&H, or you can usually find them at any decent sized photography store.

Using these screw ons, I've shot most of my footage at ASA 320, with excellent results. There's more than one way to solve a need...
 
Alright, I feel like I'm being misunderstood. I was shooting in extremely variable conditions...in the shade and also in direct daylight, with the RED 300mm pulling focus with one hand and using the other for tripod movements.

I'm trying to express that shooting RAW, even if though I shot at ISO 100 (which I had to most of the shoot), I could bring it back to ISO 320, etc. and have no problem with retaining the detail. I can bring it into REDAlert! make my changes and still have a decent shot, under or overexposed.

Thanks you for the suggestion Gibby, I will most likely pick one of those up because I need it.
 
That's well and good, but shooting 100ISO and underexposing two stops is the same as shooting at 400ISO, only your viewfinder looks different. So when you set your ISO back to 320 from 100 post, you're doing nothing but using the camera's true sensitivity, since your shot was exposed for 320ISO anyway. (Give or take 1/3 of a stop.)

What would be more impressive is to see shots rated (and processed) at 100ISO that retain highlight detail, alongside shots rated (and processed) at 1200ISO that retain shadow detail. I don't doubt that the camera is great and your anecdotal evidence confirms this, but your example is unfortunately a bad one.
 
No it's fine; I think I'm just jealous because I can't afford one. But, yeah, the whole digital ISO thing is pretty wacky, and I think RAW makes it even wackier.
 
Justin_Kirch said:
It's only my second day with the camera so I'm continuing to learn, hopefully in the future I'll be able to have better examples. Thank you for reading! :)
Click to expand...

Policar's right. You're getting a little confused about how ISO impacts a RED recording. It's just metadata, which literally means it doesn't f'n matter what ISO you set because the camera doesn't RECORD anything differently than if you set it at 1600.

The sensor has been most closely rated to ISO 320.

Just set the camera there and leave it so your previews and exposure aids are pretty accurate. Going to 100 will just make things more complicated IMHO and potentially HOSE you into overexposing on accident.
 
I know about the ISO setting while recording and metadata...That's what I've been trying to explain but didn't know how to say it. Thanks for covering my tracks :)

Still trying to get a proper exposure is important and I'm trying my best to figure it out.
 
Justin_Kirch said:
Still trying to get a proper exposure is important and I'm trying my best to figure it out.
Click to expand...

Luckily RED has a lot of exposure aids. To me false color is ingenious. That's worth figuring out.

In the end, in every scene you'll have to decide where to set skin tones or the object of interest and let everything else fall where it may (or adjust the lighting). Sometimes you'll want to let highlights blow and other times you'll want to save all the highlights.

I think it will be a matter of testing and then pushing things around in REDCINE to figure out what gives you the look you're after.
 
If you have some filters and no matte box, its actually quite easy to tape them onto the front of the lens. I've had to do this on several times, mostly involving teleprompters + GII's. Just use some photo black paper tape, make a tube of it sticky side out and wrap it around the lens. Then apply the filter then tape the back of the filter to the lens so no light gets through. This works in a pinch, but its not a replacement for a matte box. Clean the filter when your done.
 
Justin_Kirch said:
just know that the workflow is simple,
Click to expand...
Sort of. It's getting easier, but in any environment where you need to preview high quality and not have to compromise your editing techniques just to use the proxies, it gets more difficult. The footage is absolutely amazing. But the post leaves something to be desired. A lot of people I've talked to have used Red, but can't get the bad taste of post workflow out of their mouth. Of course, I realize it will get better and I'm perfectly willing to deal with the hassles that exist right now to get more than excellent results. I just have hard times trying to convince others of the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top