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 :)

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

Mark, if I who shoot a lot more with practicals and minimal light rigs need primarily low light optimized, are you still recommending using the STH? Some say the Dragoncolor2 creates a better color result with the LLO.
Hope you could clarify this.
 
When it comes to NR. It's most important at FF. WHat I mean is, if you are doing a 1080 HD finish, the likelyhood of needing NR decreases. If you are downconverting even to 4K you see much less noise than in 6K and less in 2K or HD.

So the noise/NR argument needs to be understood in this way.

AS soon as you start grading and scaling down the images, the less noise you will see.

You will see the most amount of noise or texture in 6K REDLOG, but that does not represent your finished image.

Noise reduction needs to be applied/considered according to the frame size of the finished master.

Battistella
 
David Battistella said:
When it comes to NR. It's most important at FF. WHat I mean is, if you are doing a 1080 HD finish, the likelyhood of needing NR decreases. If you are downconverting even to 4K you see much less noise than in 6K and less in 2K or HD.

So the noise/NR argument needs to be understood in this way.

AS soon as you start grading and scaling down the images, the less noise you will see.

You will see the most amount of noise or texture in 6K REDLOG, but that does not represent your finished image.

Noise reduction needs to be applied/considered according to the frame size of the finished master.

Battistella
Click to expand...

I had a bit of a problem with a low light STH shot that was delivered in 4K. There were more noise then acceptable and I needed to do Neat Video NR on it before it worked out.
So, even with a 6K-4K reduction it's visible. I think we need to assume a 4K delivery, because that's where 6K shines.

David Battistella said:
^Truth
Click to expand...

Yes, but for me, I cannot guarantee that I have enough lights to maintain a correct exposure in all situations. What if you shoot a night scene and you really want the night city background to be visible (not New York kind of lit city, but a regular town)
 
I hear you Cristoffer. I live in a farily dimly lit european city myself :)

The key is that the sensor is the same and the OLPF's are adjusting light levels hitting that sensor. The LLO if biasing the exposure toward the shadows (more like EPIC MX that we are used to) and the STH is biasing exposure toward the getting rid of the hard highlight clipping that we were constantly battling agains on the MX.

Obviously if you find that biasing the exposure down is for you then that is great for you, but what I think Mark is referring to (but he can comment himself) is that in budgeted, lit broadcast tv, MOW or film, people are hearing FUD about the STH, when in those situations it actually shines. Gone girl is a great example of this.

Of course there are always compromises for an indy shooter, so we get faster glass and the LLO to compensate for that stop we loose on the STH (even though I am partial to the STH myself for its more distinct look). Or if you are doing aerials on a t2.9 zoom lens, you want the stop in the shadows over the stop in the highlights for night city, etc.

The choice is there, the sensor is great, but for a budgeted film using the STH in virtually every situation is very doable.

On the noise thing. It is also very much a taste thing. I find folks who come from a video DSLR background tolerate less and Film background want a little texture. It's all relative to taste. Its nice to have that choice.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of NR, but that is just me.

Battistella
 
Christoffer Glans said:
Yes, but for me, I cannot guarantee that I have enough lights to maintain a correct exposure in all situations.
Click to expand...
Hey Christoffer - it does sound like you could be best served by the LLO. If you often starve the sensor of light - and using a light meter - you can not get an appropriate/available T stop rating at 640 or 800 for example - you are most likely better served with the LLO.

Christoffer Glans said:
What if you shoot a night scene and you really want the night city background to be visible (not New York kind of lit city, but a regular town)
Click to expand...

Well ... there's a pretty big range of "regular towns" - but if I was shooting a night exterior with existing light only - I would push more light to the sensor above and beyond what my aperture could give me by shooting with a slower shutter speed. How much slower would depend on how much motion - and the speed of that motion in the shot. If you don't have a lot of fast motion in the shot - you would be amazed how much slower of a shutter speed you can use.

I'd take a slower shutter speed on the STO OLPF before I'd change to the LLO - but that's just me. As you know ... it's all subjective. For me, color fidelity is more important than sensitivity.


I just really HATE all the FUD out there that you can't/should not shoot low light on the STO OLPF.
 
Last edited:
I also find the LLO to be maddening. This was initially the "crappy" OLPF. The "Hey, guys. We kinda screwed up the OLPF and are going to replace them all for free" model. So all of us early Dragon owners sent our cameras back to RED to have them swap out the OLPF for version 2.0. But it wasn't long after that some people realized the new and improved OLPF was cutting out more light. Not a whole lot, but enough to have an impact. A lot of people complained and so RED brought back the old OLPF as an option, naming it the Low Light Optimized version and giving the new version the name of Skin Tone and Highlight OLPF.

For what it's worth, I've been waiting around forever to get the self-install kit for the interchangeable OLPF, mostly because of the UW OLPF option that I'll probably need here in the coming months. I could always send my camera in, but I don't see any need. The v2.0 (STH) OLPF lives in my camera. It's awesome. Yeah, I shot for a few months with the original (LLO). I don't like it. It does let in more light, but that's the only thing it does better. That said, I have no trouble with the STH OLPF in what would traditionally be called "low light" situations. IMO, there's a difference between shooting "low light" and trying to shoot in the dark. Yet those two concepts seem to be muddled nowadays.
 
The key thing mark mentioned is a meter reading. If you have a metered amount of light you are pretty much set.

there seems to be this idea that a camera should capture perfect images with no measurable metered light. Ok. Maybe the as7 does this but is a base 3000iso camera. I'm not too keen on that 3000 ISO for everything else.

With very little light or in available light I've had great results with the STH. I have the LLO as well but prefer the STH.

this was all sth

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?120031-DRAGON-Florence-Italy&highlight=

Battistella
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
IMO, there's a difference between shooting "low light" and trying to shoot in the dark. Yet those two concepts seem to be muddled nowadays.
Click to expand...

Amen.

And for what it's worth - having taught hundreds of people from around the world in Reducation and other seminars - I have found that a vast majority of camera owner/operators - who don't come from a film background and use a light meter - underexpose more often than exposing for an optimal image - a full stop on average using WYSIWYG, Histograms, Exposure meters, etc. as an exposure method. Mostly because they don't actually understand RAW and ISO.
 
I tend to like a darker look, and I know that underexposing the sensor is not going to give me good results so I tend to meter at EI800 and set the camera at EI500, this is so the monitor and SDI output look the brightness I like but I'm still exposing at about EI800. In fact I often bump my darker shots back up to EI800 in RCX when transcoding. I know this sounds bassackwards as hell but it works quite well if you like moody lighting and don't want to induce noise. However I've shot plenty at EI 1600 and EI 2000 and the texture is certainly there but it's not unpleasant, quite organic and easily dealt with by post NR if desired. I only really want the LLO OLPF for those specific projects or shots that really demand every last photon, and wouldn't really benefit from the better color anyway. As always though, I'll be testing, testing, testing.
 
I must say that after replying to this thread in favor of the LLO, I got curious and put the STH back in my camera for the first time since getting my LLO, and I think I am back on the STH train now. The colors and the "feel" are so different from the LLO. I didn't realize what I had with that OLPF. STH really does want light though, DEB definitely a must, and NR above ISO 500. But the color is worth it. Especially in tungsten and mixed light. As soon as you hit 3200K there is some really special stuff going on. But even in daylight, really nice feel to the footage, gorgeous (dare I say "Alexa-like?" ) roll off, and it handles color casts from filters better than LLO.
 
Is it possible to get some side by side comparison between the STH and the LLO (hopefully on someone's face as humans are what we film most of the time)?
Some of the arguments in favor of STH is more of a bashing of the LLO in the same way as the LLO people bash the STH so I'm still not sure which one to use.
 
Im pretty sure phil has done a massive series of side by sides that pretty much reveal the whole story.
It really comes down to a preference.

With DEB enabled I, me, personally, have no concerns with STH. None.

Battistella
 
From someone coming from a MX, I love my LLO Dragon. Never tried the STH one, but for what I do, its exactly what I wanted. Colour is much, much better than on MX, and the low light actually better than MX. So I am one very, very happy costumer with my Dragon right now. Probably better resistance to flares is what I expect from the Weapon upgrade if I am to keep my current sensor and OLPF, and that would be more than enough for me. The Dragon sensor IS THAT GOOD.
 
LLO.jpg
STH.jpg


Who can guess which OLPF is which? Both shot at ISO 2,000 @ T2.8 w/ a 35mm and 50mm Lomo Square Fronts.
 
Last edited:
Sergio Perez said:
From someone coming from a MX, I love my LLO Dragon. Never tried the STH one, but for what I do, its exactly what I wanted. Colour is much, much better than on MX, and the low light actually better than MX. So I am one very, very happy costumer with my Dragon right now. Probably better resistance to flares is what I expect from the Weapon upgrade if I am to keep my current sensor and OLPF, and that would be more than enough for me. The Dragon sensor IS THAT GOOD.
Click to expand...

Excellent point sergio and another important point is that you pick the exact one that is right for your situation which is exactly what having a choice is about.
 
With a little bit of color correction, I could get them to match pretty well.

STH_vs_LLO.jpg


It's also possible that my 35mm and 50mm don't match to begin with, colorwise. I'll have to do another test using the same lens for both OLPFs.
 
MichaelJQuill said:
With a little bit of color correction, I could get them to match pretty well.

STH_vs_LLO.jpg


It's also possible that my 35mm and 50mm don't match to begin with, colorwise. I'll have to do another test using the same lens for both OLPFs.
Click to expand...

That-s what was feeling odd. I think lens characteristics really came into play here. I'm not getting that sort of tint/skin tones with my lenses in similar conditions...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top