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 :)

Red 23 Landscape

Jeez, certaiinly is a tough crowd. Andrew's no slouch as a Focus Puller! IMDB him and see before you hassle his work.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0835136/

Weird to see people grade their idea of that path shot. You made it look like somewhere totally different than Kare Kare actually looks. ha.
 
dalemccready said:
Jeez, certaiinly is a tough crowd. Andrew's no slouch as a Focus Puller! IMDB him and see before you hassle his work.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0835136/

Weird to see people grade their idea of that path shot. You made it look like somewhere totally different than Kare Kare actually looks. ha.
Click to expand...


I say it's operator error because of all the variables involved with shooting those shots. Bright sun, not so bright LCD, lens hood could only cover some of the LCD, etc. All of these are factors in the camera operators ability to shoot and focus. He may have had the bright sun blasting on the LCD interface, but still, if you are running the camera and pulling focus, it's your job to get it right.
 
Can you send me the R3D to look at?

Graeme
 
Well.. I believe he said it was just a test... not a shoot.
Equivalent of pointing it at your backyard and snapping a few seconds...
Only their backyard was a location shot for LOTR.

yeah.. probably not the best image to grace this forum.. but keep them coming!
 
I did some basic tweaking in PSD, levels, curves, color balance, and a lot of the blue channel just went black as others are noting.

I was under the assumption this was happening before because of compression but these posts are 4k uncorrected. Just curious if some cameras are handling the blue channel differently than other cameras. Was this corrected with a firmware?
 
Yes. Blue and red channels were clipped black. Other RED images out there do not have this. Looks like something a firmware upgrade could fix.

Here is my cheesy CC version.
Bright sunny daylight just isn't giving much to toy with. These lighting conditions would destroy the image on my FX-1 though.
If the subject was someone riding through on horseback or something.. this could work.
 
Pretty much all digital cameras I've ever seen will clip black with some colours - all depends on how you raw develop and what colours and what light source are used. If you want me to diagnose what's going on, I need the R3D file, and at that point I can see what was recorded and how it was processed and give real feedback.

As a word of interest, go to SI, Dalsa, Weisscam, Phantom, NOX etc. and take a look at their published still images. Download them, open in Photoshop and look at R, G, B separately. Zoom in 400% (make sure zoom is an even number) and look at the demosaicing, and for artifacts from that. Now pump up the levels and look at the shadows for FPN or other greeblies. I've done this for all the above, and I've seen a lot of things. I'd also do the same for your DSLR if you have one. It's a very enlightening experience.

Graeme
 
And a CC pass at the wide shot. Before/After

Some decent latitude in there.. but same Blue/red channel thing.. and softness.
This did not have the snap/sharpness as some of the other 4k images out there.
 
I'm gonna try that tomorrow. Sounds like I'll learn something interesting...:devil:
 
After this, my need for grads got "slightly" REDuced.


Thanks for quenching the thirst, Rocketeer.
 
Justin_Kirch said:
I say it's operator error because of all the variables involved with shooting those shots. Bright sun, not so bright LCD, lens hood could only cover some of the LCD, etc. All of these are factors in the camera operators ability to shoot and focus. He may have had the bright sun blasting on the LCD interface, but still, if you are running the camera and pulling focus, it's your job to get it right.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, these are test shots that were done with a crew of 2 and no preview laptop. They offloaded to a Nexto on location. It was only our 2nd shoot with the camera.

Andrew was considered good enough by Peter Jackson to be part of the Crossing the Line crew and has a fine reel of work.

Simply if you can not take the above into consideration when judging these frames I will not put someones professional reputation at risk by putting anymore test frames up for public comment.
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Pretty much all digital cameras I've ever seen will clip black with some colours - all depends on how you raw develop and what colours and what light source are used.
Click to expand...
Interesting, I will definitely try that. Would it be correct to guess that the blue channel going to zero in areas of intense greens has to do with "color matrixing" (post-sensor processing) rather than some electronic or physics effect within the sensor itself? Hence, it is a software issue? Is there the possibility to choose our own matrixing function?

Or is this intentional? If the channel goes below the nominal black level of around 50 (in that particular frame) I guess it is, in essence a negative value for that primary. That enables display of what would otherwise be an out-of-gamut color (?)
 
>way too noisy, videoy, bad..

Since these are raw images, to evaluate them "by eye" you must do the color correction and grading yourself. What processing did you do?

I see a bit of highlight clipping and the blue channel oddness I mentioned, but as hard as I look, at any magnification from 25% to 400%, at any contrast setting, even with extreme sharpening applied, I do not seen noise in them. I have been taking pictures on film and digital for 30 years, and this is as noise-free an image as I have seen.

Ok... I'm guessing maybe this was a joke?
 
Rocketeer,

Keep the images coming... no one's reputation is on the line!
It's not like you stated, "Here is the finest example of you will lay eyes on"...

The images are totally cool. I feel like dropping in some dinos!

Great locations!
 
I think once the EVF gets out there, shots will be in better focus.
It is almost impossible to focus outside in sunlight looking
at an LCD screen. What would be interesting to see is a photo
taken of a RED LCD showing some of the functionality.
 
jbeale said:
I see a bit of highlight clipping and the blue channel oddness I mentioned, but as hard as I look, at any magnification from 25% to 400%, at any contrast setting, even with extreme sharpening applied, I do not seen noise in them. I have been taking pictures on film and digital for 30 years, and this is as noise-free an image as I have seen.

Ok... I'm guessing maybe this was a joke?
Click to expand...
jbeale, i think he was talking about the unsubtle rolloff.

For weeks I've been asking for specific shots that are the most challenging for digital. I won't mention them because no one has shown QT's (probably have to get independent testing done) and probably aren't going to. It's absurd to talk about operator error when you're talking about the focus puller for Jackson's films, but some here don't want to acknowledge that digital has specific looks and has characteristics that need to be worked around.

Independent tests woule be able to tell what are the limits in certain conditions and what needs to be done to get the best image.

If all anyone wants to see are glamour images to reinforce their purchase decisions then cool that's fair. I prefer to see where the camera is best and where to get certtain results (and how).

edit : deleted to find images to show what i mean. Will post when them when i find, but meanwhile ^^^

:-)

:beer:
 
Um, correct me if I'm wrong but focus is a matter of setting the lens to the correct distance as marked on it if the flange focal depth is setup correctly. It doesn't have to be set by eye and I'm sure an experienced guy like Andrew wasn't having to guess at where to put the sharps. Also these shots are outside with a decent amount of light. So at a guess he could have placed the focus anywhere above 15' and been sharp.

The clipping is weird though. it's obvious even in the RGB that the greens are way too flouro and saturated on those leaves.
 
I should respond to the usual wild speculation.

These tests were prompted by the post guys who were looking for nice big wide shots with lots of detail and saturated colour. The sun was quite high in the sky and it was very unflattering light.

The camera was set at 320 ASA and exposure evalution was made taking meter readings off my pentax spotmeter set at 500 ASA.

Zeiss standards were the lenses.

It was my intention to base my exposures entirely off my meter readings and I treated it like a reversal or BW stock. I gave it a bit more for the highlights.

The wide/long shots were shot on 20mm and 180mm at around T-22 with a Pola. The base stop was around T-45 to T-90. I didn't have any more ND handy. In my experience these lenses don't resolve quite as well at deep stops. You might get more depth of field but the trade off is in lost resolving power.

The ability of any lens to resolve detail is dependent on many variables, its also a subjective and relative thing

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