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-X 256...O'Hara settled in at the bottom of the Rockies

The video looks great, Jeff! Keep up the good work!
 
Yeha, it looks pretty great. Could you by chance post a smaller (250meg) clip of that VW shot? Honestly, if it's a hassle, then don't worry about it (after watching the youtube clip I know it's good/what I hoped for at 1080p... I just wanted to take it up to 2000ISO to see how it handles.) Actually, even a .r3d still would do.
 
Jeffrey,
i'm specially happy for you for two reason.
First I have felt your anticipatin on the forum for the last few month and second our scarlets share the same name.
happy shooting.
 
Hey Jeffrey,

I downloaded your .r3d, but it claims the frame rate is 23.976. Did you conform it in camera?

Thanks!
 
Mike P. said:
Yeha, it looks pretty great. Could you by chance post a smaller (250meg) clip of that VW shot? Honestly, if it's a hassle, then don't worry about it (after watching the youtube clip I know it's good/what I hoped for at 1080p... I just wanted to take it up to 2000ISO to see how it handles.) Actually, even a .r3d still would do.
Click to expand...

Sure! I'll post it here when i have a second to make the .r3d for you.

And thanks for the support and comments everyone.
 
Eric J Robbins said:
Hey Jeffrey,

I downloaded your .r3d, but it claims the frame rate is 23.976. Did you conform it in camera?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
It conforms it in camera. You set the camera to w/e project timeline you'll be working in. I set mine to 23.976.

Yeha, it looks pretty great. Could you by chance post a smaller (250meg) clip of that VW shot? Honestly, if it's a hassle, then don't worry about it (after watching the youtube clip I know it's good/what I hoped for at 1080p... I just wanted to take it up to 2000ISO to see how it handles.) Actually, even a .r3d still would do.
Click to expand...
Edit:

Still .r3d of Audi:
http://www.filefactory.com/file/c2a49ac/n/A001_C072_01132N.0000112F.R3D

Motion .r3d of Audi:
http://www.filefactory.com/file/c2a4898/n/A001_C072_01132N_001.R3D
 
Last edited:
I can't understand how people say RED underperforms in low-light, video looks so clean for how much light there was.
 
Carlos Reyes said:
I can't understand how people say RED underperforms in low-light, video looks so clean for how much light there was.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. People say the 5D, 7D, and 1D perform better. IMO footage I've shoot on the original RED ONE in low light has been much better than my 7D.
 
Ok so yesterday I was out shooting a Timelapse for my 3rd or 4th day of shooting in daylight with no ND filters to this point.

Here is a screengrab.

Screenshot2012-01-26at15131PM.png


If you look at the full size file which I can upload if others want to look at it, nothing is sharp, even though my focus assist would make me think so. I focused in the middle plane where that last rise of the tiny mountain goes up before the planes and flat area.

In full resolution it's still soft. I was shooting at 1fps in 5K for a timelapse on the tokina 11-16, at 16, and at about 1/20 for shutterspeed, 800 ISO, and f14. Overall I'm happy with the image when in lower resolutions. Overall I'm not happy with the Scarlet in daylight settings. I'm trying to solve the issue of picking some sort of ND filter system to start using, I can't decide between a mattebox (which wouldn't be easy to use as I generally shoot skiing and do own zooms and more around quite often) or a Multistop fader filter (which I've heard also have there respective issues). Any advice here is greatly appreciated, and my budget would probably range to about $700-$900 to solve that situation at most.

I've also wondered if it's a backfocus issue. This is something I'm unsure of how to fix and frankly am a little scared to ruin anything by doing it. Any help or advice is greatly appreciated. I know there is a huge learning curve coming to a RED, I'm just a little frustrated with the images I've been getting during daylight hours. I've been happy with everything I've shot in lowlight though.
 
I think it can be a lens-thing, instead of a camera-thing. A photographer told me once that when you go past F11 you loose sharpness. I never noticed at 14 but did on 19. Maybe a wide-angle makes it lesssharp above F11?
I ain't shure, didn't experimented with it and don't go often above F9. Hope it helps you.
 
Start by not shooting at f14 (find your lens' aperture sweet spot), check focus at 1:1 zoom (still lenses are harder to focus than cine) and buy yourself an IR filter. Your image shows massive problems with IR pollution.
 
Tony Lorentzen said:
Start by not shooting at f14 (find your lens' aperture sweet spot), check focus at 1:1 zoom (still lenses are harder to focus than cine) and buy yourself an IR filter. Your image shows massive problems with IR pollution.
Click to expand...

Thanks Tony. Is something that can be used with an ND filter?
 
Honestly, I'm not real happy with my new Tokina 11-16. In some cases it just seems to be soft, even shooting at f5.6 I often can't get things as tac sharp as I would like them.
 
Tony,

I thought IR pollution was something that only usually came up when using ND filters?
 
The IR pollution is always present, and some camera sensors are more succepible to its effects. Using an ND filter just makes it more pronounced since you are cutting visible light (but not IR). I have been using Schneiders new platinum IRND's and they work great. Many people stack an IR filter with an ND, but I don't like stacking filters... too many times you can get weird color shifts, depending on the filter glass/coating quality, etc... but, I also realize the Schneiders are quite expensive for some people...
 
Jeffrey, this is just a suggestion, but if I were in your position, I'd start doing some controlled testing of your lenses. If you're not happy with the way they're looking you need to find out if there's something you can do about it. Others more knowledgeable than I can tell you how to test and what to look for. But again, if it were me, I'd be starting off by getting a focus test chart and checking focus at various apertures, preferably using controlled lighting, or using ND's. Most lenses are softer wide open, then are subject to diffraction again when closed right down, and will have an aperture or range of apertures somewhere inbetween where the lens performs the best. You need to find that sort of thing out for every lens you have in order to know how it will perform under different settings and situations. If no-one else chips in with testing procedures, look up some of the more in-depth and technical reviews that others have done of various lenses to see the sort of things you can find out with your own testing.

And, be careful about how you share the results. It's way too easy to make broad generalizations based on limited testing, and way too easy for certain aspects of ones results to be over-emphasized and blown out of proportion. It's up to each individual to decide for themselves the relative importance of the inevitable pro's and con's of each lens (or camera, or whatever). If a person tests a lens and finds it's just too soft for them no matter what they do, then that's what they've found out, that it doesn't suit their particular preferences or requirements, not that the lenses are crap and that no-one else should use them etc etc. Not aiming that warning at you in particular, just putting it out there generally. Find out what you need to find out, do what you need to do about it, and get on with whatever it is you're using the lenses for. Lens selection is a mine-field of potential conflict.
 
Les Hillis said:
Jeffrey, this is just a suggestion, but if I were in your position, I'd start doing some controlled testing of your lenses. If you're not happy with the way they're looking you need to find out if there's something you can do about it. Others more knowledgeable than I can tell you how to test and what to look for. But again, if it were me, I'd be starting off by getting a focus test chart and checking focus at various apertures, preferably using controlled lighting, or using ND's. Most lenses are softer wide open, then are subject to diffraction again when closed right down, and will have an aperture or range of apertures somewhere inbetween where the lens performs the best. You need to find that sort of thing out for every lens you have in order to know how it will perform under different settings and situations. If no-one else chips in with testing procedures, look up some of the more in-depth and technical reviews that others have done of various lenses to see the sort of things you can find out with your own testing.

And, be careful about how you share the results. It's way too easy to make broad generalizations based on limited testing, and way too easy for certain aspects of ones results to be over-emphasized and blown out of proportion. It's up to each individual to decide for themselves the relative importance of the inevitable pro's and con's of each lens (or camera, or whatever). If a person tests a lens and finds it's just too soft for them no matter what they do, then that's what they've found out, that it doesn't suit their particular preferences or requirements, not that the lenses are crap and that no-one else should use them etc etc. Not aiming that warning at you in particular, just putting it out there generally. Find out what you need to find out, do what you need to do about it, and get on with whatever it is you're using the lenses for. Lens selection is a mine-field of potential conflict.
Click to expand...

Thanks Les, I'm looking into doing that soon. And thanks to everyone else, your helping a ton!
 
Jeffrey Loewe said:
Thanks Tony. Is something that can be used with an ND filter?
Click to expand...

You can get clear Hot Mirror filters but as someone else mentioned, the best way to approach this is to buy an Hot Mirror IRND (combined filter) instead of stacking filters. However - they are crazy expensive so you should pick which mirrors you need wisely. Now - in the real world there are situations where you need to improvise (more than often, unfortunately) so when you stack filters you should be sure to always have the Hot Mirror as the first filter (meaning the one farthest away from the lens). Ideally you should use a mattebox because its the best way to control how light hits your sensor. If you're mostly shooting with stills lenses then you should be fine with a small 4x4" mattebox. Filters for that are quite a bit cheaper than the 4x5.6 filters normally used.
 
NDs would certainly help... but 1/20s makes you more prone to picking up small bits of motion in trees/leaves. Combine that with the f/14 aperture and you're probably looking at a significant impact of diffraction on the image. On a sensor with the pixel pitch of the Mysterium-X, you really don't want to go past f/11 unless absolutely necessary as you'll see the impact of diffraction at your typical viewing distance while editing/grading beyond that aperture.

Backfocus could also be at issue here. Having a correct flange focal distance is absolutely critical when using a wide angle lens. Longer lenses can be a bit more forgiving in this regard. Think of it like this: Long (telephoto) lenses have a shallow depth of focus on the subject side, and a deep one for the sensor plane side. Modern wide lenses in particular often use a form of inverse telephoto design, so they have deep depth of focus on the subject side, and very shallow on the sensor side. So a slight issue with alignment might not show on say a 100mm, 50mm or even a 24mm lens, but on a 11-16mm, it'll be obvious.

Another trick would be to find out your hyperfocal distance for the 11-16 when shooting a landscape like this. It'll be very useful on wides, as their rather deep DOF beyond extreme close range means you can usually get everything from close range to infinity sharp using hyperfocal distance focusing without resorting to crazy apertures that would induce diffraction. There's online, computer, and iOS/Android calculators for this. A quick running of the numbers says that at 11mm, setting your focus to about 2 feet would get you everything from 1.66' to infinity in focus at f/8, and at 16mm setting it to 4.25' would get you about 3' to infinity at f/8.

Hope this helps!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top