Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

Skin Tone Highlight OLPF with DEB and/or Neat video good enough for low light?

B

Beom Koh

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hello,

I was wondering if Skin Tone Highlight OLPF with DEB and or Neat video plug-in is good enough for low light work.

I need to choose in between the STH OLPF and Low Light Optimized OLPF and cannot decide..
 
You can download neat video for free and do a trial test to see, that's what I dd. neat video is pretty crazy good on red footage, but I used it with the LL OLPF when I tested

I think neat video will amaze you
 
For what it's worth I've shot both OLPF's and the lowlight one lives in mine, I do a wide range of work, big shoots and small
 
I am not sure if anyone agrees with me, but to me the STH is a complete and total downgrade with ONE tiny exception, and that's the orb flares and "dot grid" artifacts that can occur on the LLO OLPF. The dot grid is only at small apertures pointed directly into a light source, and the orb flaring is nothing like it was on the original Dragon OLPF. I have yet to spot a single orb flare on a real shoot with my Dragon, and even deliberately it is not easy to make the orbs happen. Also, for what it's worth, the Epic and Scarlet MX had both of these artifacts all along and nobody complained. So if you didn't have issues with those, you will have even less of an issue with the LLO.

I haven't put the STH into my Dragon since I got the Low-Light. I think it should be the standard. I will probably only keep STH in the event I need to match another Dragon that has that OLPF.



Phil, David, and others have already compiled their detailed opinions on this, but here's where I think each OLPF is better and why:

LOW-LIGHT OPTIMIZED:
  • Sensitivity/Range: the STH loses you at least 1.3 stops in the shadows, but personally I feel like the loss in the shadows is greater than the gain in the highlights. The way I expose, which is very "digital," i.e. protecting the highlights, I feel like I have more usable range on the LLO. STH really needs to be exposed like film, slightly over to protect the shadows. I rate LLO at 800 and for most situations expose to the middle for a thick negative, but STH I rate 320 and over-expose a bit for a thick negative. Which basically means I'm rating even lower than 320. If you want an extra stop of highlight latitude at the expense of noise, just rate the LLO at 1600 and you can get that without any other drawbacks. So to answer your main question, the difference between the two is significant when you start pushing the files, and you will really be pushing the sensor with the STH as it likes to live in the ISO 250-400 zone.
  • Shadow Color Detail: The shadows on STH gain a strong teal tint which is not present on the LLO.
  • Grain Structure/Chroma noise: noise pattern of the LLO is finer, less chunky, and presents way less chroma noise than the STH in both daylight and tungsten.

SKIN-TONE HIGHLIGHT:
  • Tungsten/Blue channel: Slight but noticeable improvement in color. Big differences are blues are more saturated, and more accurate tones in tungsten lighting. If you use Dragoncolor2 on the LLO you can get still get very nice blues that roughly match the STH in Dragoncolor. Dragoncolor2 gives the STH even more saturated blues.
  • Sources pointing into camera: No orb/grid artifacts when shooting into bright sources
  • Highlight Roll-off: The very slightest improvement in roll-off, but not enough to warrant using this OLPF in my opinion.

So to make a long story short, my vote is: Request the Low Light OLPF and never look back! Unless all you shoot is fashion commercials in tungsten with TONS of light.
 
Can you order with the low light directly or do you have to have the skin tone highlight?
 
EDIT - David B mentioned, and I agree, LLO looks more like Sony and STH looks more like Kodak.



For me, I don't see much point in using NeatVideo, unless you are uploading to YouTube.
In my testing, YouTube compression makes a mess of any noise, film grain and fine detail (Vimeo less).
Therefor, any footage uploaded to YouTube created by any camera looks better w/ NeatVideo applied.

Frankly, I like the STH for all situations except "pointing it around my house at night".
I admit I have a bias against the concept of a "low-light camera" for cinematic use.

To me, the STH provides a better representation of color and luminescence roll-off in every comparison I have seen or done myself.
Try pointing it outside on a sunny day in Irvine and you'll instantly see what I mean.
Even when fighting underexposure, I prefer the more color accurate results from STH.

I feel the extra low-end from the LLO looks less natural.
For my tastes, DEB removes all perceivable color noise, leaves luma noise in a pleasing pattern, and looks less digital.

It is my opinion, the use of the LLO OLPF for acquisition provides a similar workflow as using the MX sensor (more color adjustments in post).
To clarify, if you really like the way you used to work w/ MX, then the LLO OLPF may be for you.
OR
The LLO may also be for you if you hate noise, don't care as much about color, and prefer limited/no light setups.
OR
If you like the Sony look, then use the LLO

With the STH, it is far easier for me to get pleasing color straight off the camera - Just treat it like film (it's actually less work in the long run).



Just my two cents!
:leaving:
 
Last edited:
So, Daniel has made some good points here from the other side of the fence. If you're actually going to have a proper lighting package, the STH is technically better. The color IS spot-on, but the difference (in my opinion only) is small enough to not warrant constantly swapping out OLPFs between setups. I like to use controlled practicals as part of my scenes, so keeping a low light level is kind of important for much of my work, and I don't feel like STH really works for that unless you are always wide open, which I don't like. Technically there is no reason not to use the STH for bright exteriors and the like, but once again... I want consistency across a project, and will surely have to break out the LLO for darker scenes. Just want everything to match. That being said, you could compare the OLPF-swapping approach to the ever-increasing trend of shooting film for daytime exteriors and digital for everything else.

There is a very filmic magic about the STH if you can expose it properly, but on a restricted budget that isn't always possible. On one of my first Dragon + STH shoots we had to shoot a daytime exterior in heavy shade under a canopy of trees, but the budget was incredibly tiny -- too small for us to have even small HMI lights. The shade was so heavy and extensive that we couldn't use any bounce, and there was very little light! In order to get exposed, I had to stack a bunch of daylight Kino Flos next to one another, and still shoot at T/1.8 on a 50mm, leaving us with razor-shallow DoF that was completely inappropriate for the scene in question. If I had the LLO at the time, I would've definitely shot on that, but for color consistency we may have had to shoot all of the exteriors for the short on that OLPF.


Also, the suggestion that the approach of LLO is similar to MX, is quite accurate. Expose it the same way and grade it kind of the same way. STH is a different beast, more like film. And like film, it needs light to keep those shadows clean. I say overexpose a little and recover some highlights, don't try to go digging out of the shadows. And you definitely need DEB for STH.

However, your question was about noise and you were talking about Neat Video, which obliterates noise, so I assume you are not the type who likes noise. And if you're asking about "low light" and have to pick one OLPF, the logical answer to your question is go with the LLO because it is great in low light, and it is more than good enough for everything else. It is still an improvement over MX but as Daniel suggested has a slightly more digital feel to it than the STH, and is missing a little bit of that magic. My advice is to start with the LLO if you already have experience with MX, and then try out the STH after your next gig. Also, requesting the LLO with your upgrade will get it to you MUCH faster than ordering one. It's not very expensive to own both and will save you loads of headaches worrying whether you're missing something by not using the other OLPF.
 
Isn't the LLO together with Dragoncolor2 enough to make it superior to the STH? I get the daytime scene benefits of the STH, but even in high budget movies you might want to use practicals with supporting light rigs instead of large light rigs.
The STH is great for high budget movies, but how many can afford those light setups?

The benefits are also for post, not just "youtube". Getting a clean image improves VFX and green screen work. And even if you are only worrying about delivery, what DOESN'T end up on youtube or online streaming? It's where it's going to live after shown on TV or at the cinema.

A clean image has more benefits than I think the STH generates for color and DR,
 
Christoffer Glans said:
Isn't the LLO together with Dragoncolor2 enough to make it superior to the STH? I get the daytime scene benefits of the STH, but even in high budget movies you might want to use practicals with supporting light rigs instead of large light rigs.
The STH is great for high budget movies, but how many can afford those light setups?

The benefits are also for post, not just "youtube". Getting a clean image improves VFX and green screen work. And even if you are only worrying about delivery, what DOESN'T end up on youtube or online streaming? It's where it's going to live after shown on TV or at the cinema.

A clean image has more benefits than I think the STH generates for color and DR,
Click to expand...

Have you ever done a side by side comparison of both OLPFs in mixed color temps, say for example, outside at night on a NYC street? Sodium vapor lights look much better/more accurate on STH than on LLO. Also, I noticed that out of focus light sources have an ugly star-shaped flare w/ LLO. Has anyone else noticed this?
 
Just get the LLO, you'll be happy
 
MichaelJQuill said:
Have you ever done a side by side comparison of both OLPFs in mixed color temps, say for example, outside at night on a NYC street? Sodium vapor lights look much better/more accurate on STH than on LLO. Also, I noticed that out of focus light sources have an ugly star-shaped flare w/ LLO. Has anyone else noticed this?
Click to expand...

It's still better to be able to shoot with practicals than have to rent lighting gear for thousands of dollars. It gives you options. Also, many of the problems people have with the LLO, exist on the MX already and that hasn't been a problem.
 
I've never seen an ugly star shaped flare, at least that I've noticed
 
I'd like to point out, that ANY noise reduction is destructive. Some do it better, some less successfully. I'm particularly disturbed, when someone goes into the shoot planning to use some kind of noise reduction as a tool to overcome some hardware shortcomings. Noise reduction should never be used as a matter of standard workflow. In my book, if noise reduction needs to be used, then someone screwed up, sorry...
 
Lots of cameras have noise reduction already built in. But I get what you are saying. I only recently tried Neat on a couple underexposed shots to test it out and was pretty surprised, wouldn't hesitate to use it if I had to save something, but one shouldn't plan that way unless it's unavoidable. ADD is a better path if you have the time, that's some good stuff.
 
Once more, built-in camera noise reduction or any other NR is not an excuse to use it. Neat Video is a good example of what NOT to use, if you can help it. Do yourself a favor and inspect the Blue channel after you apply it. Any noise reduction by design gets rid of certain information it deems to be noise, especially when it comes to spacial information. Using better temporal algorithms helps noise reduction somewhat, but it is still far from perfect. The other aspect of incorrect use of noise reduction is the loss of resolution. Again, inspect the Blue channel after applying Neat Video. So, all this talk about the superior Red camera resolution and then just in one swoop destroy it by using NR. Pretty strange...
 
I'm only now sending my Dragon in for the interchangeable upgrade, I've been shooting many projects on the STH without much concern, I tend to rate it at EI 500-800 but have pushed it as far as 2000 with pretty good results as long as it's not underexposed at those EIs. I'm going to test the LLO when I get it but I've really become fond of the skin tones and generally superb color of the STH so I'm most likely going to stick with it unless I have a low light specific project.
 
jake blackstone said:
I'd like to point out, that ANY noise reduction is destructive. Some do it better, some less successfully. I'm particularly disturbed, when someone goes into the shoot planning to use some kind of noise reduction as a tool to overcome some hardware shortcomings. Noise reduction should never be used as a matter of standard workflow. In my book, if noise reduction needs to be used, then someone screwed up, sorry...
Click to expand...

So you mean that movies like Zodiac and Benjamin Button were made by screwed up filmmakers? Almost everything used noise reduction.
Also, if you shoot something with a lot of practicals or you are in a location without lighting rigs, then you might want to push the ISO to be able to get a good image out of it. If you shoot 6K and downscale to a 4K delivery then some resolution degration in the blue channel won't matter much, you will still get a perfectly clean image with great detail.


jake blackstone said:
Once more, built-in camera noise reduction or any other NR is not an excuse to use it. Neat Video is a good example of what NOT to use, if you can help it. Do yourself a favor and inspect the Blue channel after you apply it. Any noise reduction by design gets rid of certain information it deems to be noise, especially when it comes to spacial information. Using better temporal algorithms helps noise reduction somewhat, but it is still far from perfect. The other aspect of incorrect use of noise reduction is the loss of resolution. Again, inspect the Blue channel after applying Neat Video. So, all this talk about the superior Red camera resolution and then just in one swoop destroy it by using NR. Pretty strange...
Click to expand...

It all matters how it looks in the end. I've been able to get a 4K delivery image from a 3200 that is totally clean using Neat video in resolve. I can inspect anything about the image and find out exactly how destructive that process were, but in the end I didn't loose resolution in fine details and the 4K image looks almost unbelievably clean. It all comes down to how the end result looks, going all science on an image pointing fingers on problems that no one sees when looking at the final product is irrelevant.
 
There are many comments in this thread I find very troubling.

When RED announced the naming convention for the OLPFs I rolled my eyes because I knew that by calling one OLPF "low light optimized" everyone would assume that they needed to use that OLPF for low light situations - and the "other" OLPF would not be usable for low light. And that is exactly what I encounter all the time. It's maddening.

If only RED would have just called it OLPF ver.1 and OLPF ver. 2 - then people would do more research and test .....

as opposed to ASSUMING LLO was always better in low light situations. IT IS NOT.

Just last week - a 5 camera pilot changed from Dragon to F55 the day before the camera checkout because the DP spoke to some "experts" who convinced him he would need to swap OLPFs all the all time. There is too much mis-information and misperception about the OLPFs by the fact that one has the words "low light" in it's name.

A correctly exposed STO pretty much destroys the LLO with respect to color. ESPECIALLY in mixed lighting.

I do everything in my power to keep people off the LLO and on the STO OLPF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top