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 :)

Scarlet-W has Begun...

Clayton Arnall said:
I'd jump on the chance to get a small sequence of the 240 fps footage to see if the noise can be tamed in Resolve. I'm curious how the 3K crop would look as well since you can get up to 200 fps at 2.4:1 at 3K I think.
Click to expand...

3K was usable and upscaled pretty well on Scarlet MX, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was useable here.
 
Clayton Arnall said:
I'd jump on the chance to get a small sequence of the 240 fps footage to see if the noise can be tamed in Resolve. I'm curious how the 3K crop would look as well since you can get up to 200 fps at 2.4:1 at 3K I think.
Click to expand...

Ask and you shall receive.

This is the 2k, 240 fps, 8:1, 800 ISO, 5600k, 180° shutter, shot at wide open at f/2.0 on a Leica R 35mm with a Schneider Platinum IRND 1.5, R3D of Oliver's run towards the camera at 1:05 of my video

https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=XZHLn8Zq5BPNWXlEQhkiV6gPYh7iSmpprAk

I think it's worth keeping in mind that when you're shooting 2k, you're effectively shooting smaller than Super 16.


iDOupZG.jpg
 
Thanks Brian! That was amazing to have a very generously sized sample. I'm used to the ~5second ones :) Great stuff!
 
Brian,

Thanks for uploading the footage. I may not be informed about this won't open in FCPX. I just opened my previous R3D files from DSMC cameras and they import fine. Any ideas? Perhaps its just the footage I downloaded? Not sure if its a known issue or not.... since most of you guys are Adobe anyway!
 
Marco Hanna said:
Brian,

Thanks for uploading the footage. I may not be informed about this won't open in FCPX. I just opened my previous R3D files from DSMC cameras and they import fine. Any ideas? Perhaps its just the footage I downloaded? Not sure if its a known issue or not.... since most of you guys are Adobe anyway!
Click to expand...

It's a known issue right now.
 
Guys how can I check on my Imac which version the plug in is?? Normally the plug in update through apple store? Thanks
 
I'm not sure how it works with FCP, but I know Premiere Pro doesn't support it right now either. I used Resolve for everything, including the transcoding, editing, and coloring.
 
Clayton Arnall said:
Awesome thanks! I'll check em out.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the footage, I appreciate that. Seems pretty noisy and I'm not having a lot of luck cleaning it up. Question though - if you crop at 2K when shooting 24 fps, is it just as noisy as 2K 240 fps? Or is the high frame rate introducing extra noise that wouldn't be there at 24p?
 
I think that since it's cropping the sensor so far in, that at even 800ISO, the noise is very noticeable. I would think if shooting ISO 320, this may clean up the noise in 2K mode, and it may make the 240fps a bit better. (in this case, cleaner noise floor > highlight DR, so lower ISO would be desirable) Looks like there was plenty of light on that beach :P
 
Thanks for the video Brian, its a good real world test for most of us who have not received our set.

It's pretty strange to hear that even at 8:1 compression ratio we get so much noise and artifacts. Nonetheless, its these kinda real world test that speaks more than specs.

Would you also reckon that the lens might play a big part when shooting cropped images? It seemed a little on the softer side with the cropped in shots.

Have you tried HDRx with it? Wonder if it's able to do some insane stuff like the epic dragon. :)
 
Clayton Arnall said:
Thanks for the footage, I appreciate that. Seems pretty noisy and I'm not having a lot of luck cleaning it up. Question though - if you crop at 2K when shooting 24 fps, is it just as noisy as 2K 240 fps? Or is the high frame rate introducing extra noise that wouldn't be there at 24p?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure, never tried shooting 2k at 24fps but perhaps I'll try it out when I have some time. I really think it's just you're cropping the sensor to such a small size. It's smaller than Super 16.

Adam Montville said:
I think that since it's cropping the sensor so far in, that at even 800ISO, the noise is very noticeable. I would think if shooting ISO 320, this may clean up the noise in 2K mode, and it may make the 240fps a bit better. (in this case, cleaner noise floor > highlight DR, so lower ISO would be desirable) Looks like there was plenty of light on that beach :P
Click to expand...

It might, you can adjust the ISO in post since it's just recorded as metadata in camera. Never tried to drop it down but it's worth a shot. I would also like to see how it does when rating it at 320 myself.

Melvin Ong said:
Thanks for the video Brian, its a good real world test for most of us who have not received our set.

It's pretty strange to hear that even at 8:1 compression ratio we get so much noise and artifacts. Nonetheless, its these kinda real world test that speaks more than specs.

Would you also reckon that the lens might play a big part when shooting cropped images? It seemed a little on the softer side with the cropped in shots.

Have you tried HDRx with it? Wonder if it's able to do some insane stuff like the epic dragon. :)
Click to expand...

Could be the lens and focus, I was shooting wide open at a 2.0 and pulling just off the monitor and by hand, to a fast moving puppy running towards the camera. Focus and lens still shouldn't affect the artifact and noise, but could also be underexposure, 2k... a whole host of things. I still mainly attribute it to the small sensor size you're using at 2k which really should be expected.
 
Brian Nguyen said:
It might, you can adjust the ISO in post since it's just recorded as metadata in camera. Never tried to drop it down but it's worth a shot. I would also like to see how it does when rating it at 320 myself.
Click to expand...
That may be true, however, if you pull it down to 320 ISO in post, then the shot will be underexposed for 320ISO, and lifting shadows puts you right back at 800ISO levels anyway. You would have to shoot and expose for 320ISO to get the best results. (f/stop / shutter)
 
Adam Montville said:
That may be true, however, if you pull it down to 320 ISO in post, then the shot will be underexposed for 320ISO, and lifting shadows puts you right back at 800ISO levels anyway. You would have to shoot and expose for 320ISO to get the best results. (f/stop / shutter)
Click to expand...

Yeah exactly, that's what I meant by rating the camera at 320.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top