Scarlet sharpness workflow question

[Miles Heckendorn]

Isn't this a problem with debayering in RCX? (software only) I've read that many a time now. If it were red rocket debayered it would be sharper?

I haven't heard that before, thanks. We do have a red rocket, it's just not installed yet.

But I wonder if it would help with this. These shots just seem a little off. Like I'm shooting through a pro-mist (I'm just exaggerating for effect).

 

[Miles Heckendorn]

You can also set up a custom look in Redcine-X pro with a more contrasty feel and import that into your scarlet for viewing.

Nice! Kind of like bringing in a LUT? I'll have to check the manual and try it out.

 

[Matt Ryan]

I haven't heard that before, thanks. We do have a red rocket, it's just not installed yet.

But I wonder if it would help with this. These shots just seem a little off. Like I'm shooting through a pro-mist (I'm just exaggerating for effect).

The corrections I made and the image above was processed with a Rocket. The test that was done with the Rocket and then with software only showed the Rocket caused edges to be a bit sharper and software a little bit softer on the edges. Not much of a difference until you zoom into the image a couple hundred percent.

 

[Matt Ryan]

Nice! Kind of like bringing in a LUT? I'll have to check the manual and try it out.

Basically like a LUT.

In RedcineX Pro: Press the + sign for a new correction, do a correction and name it in the looks tab, then File, save current RMD (Which is the selected look in the look manager tab) to Epic/Scarlet and save to your SSD.

Exactly. Its on page 77 of the manual (Importing a look from RedcineX Pro to the camera).

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Miles, once you get your PL mount, I suggest taking your camera to a rental house and throwing on some sharp glass. Think Masters, Ultras, Leica, RPP, and S4. Capture some footage with that glass and assess the image. This will give you a baseline to work from when it comes to other glass, such as the Canon still lenses. It's important to know what the upper limits of the camera are. I've been stunned by certain lenses on the R1 and very underwhelmed by others. Same camera, different results. Very noticeable differences. One day you can be bummed out, the next jaw on the floor.

For point of reference, I would say my Nikons are sharp but more of a smooth sharpness, not a hard edge to them. For those coming from a video background, perhaps the images would be borderline sharp to them. It's just a different look.

 

[Les Dittert]

I haven't heard that before, thanks. We do have a red rocket, it's just not installed yet.

But I wonder if it would help with this. These shots just seem a little off. Like I'm shooting through a pro-mist (I'm just exaggerating for effect).

You will find the Red Rocket renders sharper images. When I first compared my Scarlet to an old 10 megapixel DSLR , I actually thought the Scarlet was a big disappointment. Then I rendered the same frames in Red Rocket, and was relieved that it looked similar to the $250 Canon XTi images rendered raw with Adobe Camera Raw.

See this thread I posted sample images on:
http://reduser.net/forum/showthread...h-Red-Rocket-RCX-software-debayer-new-methods

Over sharpening the RCX output is a hack, and not going to get you the *real* detail back. Just like an over 'cored' High Def telecine transfer only looks sharper than a good film scan at first. Then you look closer, and you will see the real detail emerge.

Sharpening is good for very slight issues, but as soon as you start getting those tell tale 'ringing' edges you know it's BS.
If you are only concerned with making 1920x1080 then this isn't an issue. If you want real 4k, now you have to be careful.
The difference noted in my thread seem to be exasperated by higher ISO settings as well.
I am hoping RED with it's new RCX release will add options to the debayer that come close to or exceed the Red Rocket output.

 

[Matt Ryan]

You will find the Red Rocket renders sharper images. When I first compared my Scarlet to an old 10 megapixel DSLR , I actually thought the Scarlet was a big disappointment. Then I rendered the same frames in Red Rocket, and was relieved that it looked similar to the $250 Canon XTi images rendered raw with Adobe Camera Raw.

See this thread I posted sample images on:
http://reduser.net/forum/showthread...h-Red-Rocket-RCX-software-debayer-new-methods

Over sharpening the RCX output is a hack, and not going to get you the *real* detail back. Just like an over 'cored' High Def telecine transfer only looks sharper than a good film scan at first. Then you look closer, and you will see the real detail emerge.

Sharpening is good for very slight issues, but as soon as you start getting those tell tale 'ringing' edges you know it's BS.
If you are only concerned with making 1920x1080 then this isn't an issue. If you want real 4k, now you have to be careful.
The difference noted in my thread seem to be exasperated by higher ISO settings as well.
I am hoping RED with it's new RCX release will add options to the debayer that come close to or exceed the Red Rocket output.

Hey Les,
I know this is off topic but are you the VFX Les? If so you are the man!

 

[Miles Heckendorn]

Exactly. Its on page 77 of the manual......

Great, thank you! This should help.

Miles, once you get your PL mount, I suggest taking your camera to a rental house and throwing on some sharp glass. It's important to know what the upper limits of the camera are. I've been stunned by certain lenses on the R1 and very underwhelmed by others. Same camera, different results. Very noticeable differences. One day you can be bummed out, the next jaw on the floor.

Sound advice, I think I'll do just that. Thanks!

I'll be doing more tests over the next couple days. I'll try to see how it looks with some L lenses as well (I wish I had the PL mount now).

So, is it most peoples opinion (so far) that this is more to do with the glass than the camera/mount? I understand that it's hard to tell if you aren't actually present for the shoot.

 

[Les Dittert]

Hey Les,
I know this is off topic but are you the VFX Les? If so you are the man!

I'm not sure . I did spend 4 years at ILM, 4 years at PDI, 4 years at Dreamworks doing stuff including vfx. So maybe !

 

[Miles Heckendorn]

You will find the Red Rocket renders sharper images. When I first compared my Scarlet to an old 10 megapixel DSLR , I actually thought the Scarlet was a big disappointment. Then I rendered the same frames in Red Rocket, and was relieved that it looked similar to the $250 Canon XTi images rendered raw with Adobe Camera Raw.

Thanks Les! I'll install the Red Rocket right away and give it a try.

 

[Les Dittert]

Don't be so fast to blame the glass.
I dare you to do this: Mount the same lens on a DSLR, shoot RAW, develop in Adobe Camera RAW, and tell me what you see .....

Great, thank you! This should help.



Sound advice, I think I'll do just that. Thanks!

I'll be doing more tests over the next couple days. I'll try to see how it looks with some L lenses as well (I wish I had the PL mount now).

So, is it most peoples opinion (so far) that this is more to do with the glass than the camera/mount? I understand that it's hard to tell if you aren't actually present for the shoot.

 

[Matt Ryan]

I say the lens is a bit soft.....but do the test Les describes and see what you get.

 

[Matt Ryan]

I'm not sure . I did spend 4 years at ILM, 4 years at PDI, 4 years at Dreamworks doing stuff including vfx. So maybe !

hahaha it is you! You've done some great work on some really cool films.

 

[Jonas Klittmark]

Don't be so fast to blame the glass.
I dare you to do this: Mount the same lens on a DSLR, shoot RAW, develop in Adobe Camera RAW, and tell me what you see .....

Agree. Although cheap, that lens is supposed to be sharp in the center at f/2.8, see:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/155-canon-ef-28mm-f18-usm-test-report--review?start=1

But I guess quality control of those lenses is not what it should be so you could have gotten a lemon. I'm curious to see what you find if you shoot some stills in RAW to compare with.

 

[Les Dittert]

Do the DSLR les swap test, but also do it at f8 , to see how the cameras compare. We are trying to isolate the source of the softness.

 

[Miles Heckendorn]

I'm curious to see what you find if you shoot some stills in RAW to compare with.

I'm curious as well. So as soon as I get a chance I'll try it out.

Today, I was able to install our Red Rocket....WOW! What a difference in speed!

Hopefully tomorrow I can bring some files into Redcine-x and convert one with the rocket and one without. I'd really like to see the differences with my own footage.

 

[Brant Hadfield]

I have to honest, I don't share most of the users on this forum obsession for "sharpness", at all. That's not to say I like images that appear out of focus. What I'm saying is that the one thing about digital acquisition I dislike, and I see a lot in samples, is a coldness, a thinness. If I could afford or justify shooting Kodak stock on an Arri 535, or an Alexa for that matter, I would. There's an aesthetic that goes beyond the obsession over detail and sharpness that has a huge impact on (at least my) impression of image quality. I'm a fan of Nikon glass (short of Cooke) because it has an aesthetic that's smoother in my view than Canon. Less "video". So the images I saw posted here after tweaking looked quite acceptable to me. Edges did not have that laser edge definition I detest so much in digital. So I see nothing wrong at all with your final images.
Once I have my Scarlet up and running with my Nikon glass I will be posting samples, after grading, that I hope reflect this aesthetic (with attention paid to lighting as well).

 

[Miles Heckendorn]

Do the DSLR les swap test, but also do it at f8 , to see how the cameras compare. We are trying to isolate the source of the softness.

No problem, f8 it is. Hopefully I'll get to it in the morning. And thanks for the advice.

I have to honest, I don't share most of the users on this forum obsession for "sharpness", at all. That's not to say I like images that appear out of focus. What I'm saying is that the one thing about digital acquisition I dislike, and I see a lot in samples, is a coldness, a thinness.

Thanks Brant, I do appreciate and understand your opinion. And hopefully the over-sharp video look isn't what I end up with. But for some reason, I just can't shake the feeling that my tests don't have the "pop" that I'm after.

For example, (not too long ago) when we would use the P+S Technik adaptor on various 2/3" cameras, I would always get the "wow" moment. I know this is a bad example (1080p vs 4K/cine lenses vs Canon glass) but this "wow" was what I was hoping for.

Since I'm very new to the RED workflow I'm trying to understand how the process works. Slowly I'm picking things up.​

So the images I saw posted here after tweaking looked quite acceptable to me. Edges did not have that laser edge definition I detest so much in digital. So I see nothing wrong at all with your final images.
Once I have my Scarlet up and running with my Nikon glass I will be posting samples, after grading, that I hope reflect this aesthetic (with attention paid to lighting as well).

I'd love to see some examples with the Nikon glass! When you get a chance please post some.

Also could you describe how you would tweak the shots? I'm curious to see how others would work through this.

 

[Brant Hadfield]

Thanks Brant, I do appreciate and understand your opinion. And hopefully the over-sharp video look isn't what I end up with. But for some reason, I just can't shake the feeling that my tests don't have the "pop" that I'm after.

For example, (not too long ago) when we would use the P+S Technik adaptor on various 2/3" cameras, I would always get the "wow" moment. I know this is a bad example (1080p vs 4K/cine lenses vs Canon glass) but this "wow" was what I was hoping for.

​

I'd love to see some examples with the Nikon glass! When you get a chance please post some.

Also could you describe how you would tweak the shots? I'm curious to see how others would work through this.

I'm also just starting this RED journey. I've only played with Cine-X a few times. My instinct when I see some of the footage, based only on my tastes of course, is the desire to add some "body" to the image. It might be grain I want. A lot of the test clips I've seen in this forum look a little desaturated, and cold, in terms of color temp, rendering of color in facial complexion. I've played with actually really subtle, slight softening of some test clips, in an effort to reduce the edgy nature of some of the images (not all). I'm pretty interested in Film Convert's software, as in side by side comparison, they've found an alchemy that almost exactly replicates the film stock they used in their tests.

One thing about your test image, and the way they might well differ from your adapter and 2/3" cameras is that you have a lot of DOF field in that test shot. Adapters tend to make us want to open up the aperture, or we have to, because of the light they eat. And people tend to be more fond of images with softness in depth of course. Also, the image coming out of your 2/3" camera is getting a good deal of processing that can only happen in Red's post workflow. So all of the magic really has to happen there. I guess that's part of the fun!

 

[Ted Parkes]

A completely agree with Brant .. Also albeit 25 years ago I did a brief stint at Nikon. When a shipment of lenses came in we would often test them in their lab and you would be surprised at the difference from one lens to the next.