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 :)

So what can you do with a Scarlet-X...

Great shot Gunleik!
These are my two looks on it:
012.png

013.png
 
WOW, those were nice Alexandre!!

really loved the dark one.

Are these from RCX?

In case, could you mail me the RMD's?

Put it in a folder, zip it and mail to:
gunleikgroven@gmail.com

... and thanks Stefan! You're too nice!
I can be hired, though... :)

Thanks!

Gunleik
 
Gunleik! I really appreciate you posting your findings and letting us play with the clips too....it's like I get to play with my Scarlet before it arrives. Thanks again, people like you make the world go round. I'll post some results soon :) CHEERS!
 
Alright, well, it turns out you can hide noise fairly well in dark areas by crushing, and areas that have enough light to be boosted (via curves or ISO) can actually look pretty good. The problems arise when the sensor effectively has no light to pick up, at which pint the sensor pattern noise shows up without seeing anything else (we already knew this, but it's very good to see it in action with that exposure test). For example, i can pull a useable skintone off that T22+, however if I boost the black areas the same amount all that happens is pattern noise gets brighter. That's more or less what I wanted to know; at which point there is no image data left to boost and at which point the ISO is uncleanable.

... It's basically exactly what you said G; I can pull a useable image out of that T8 or even T11 shot (how many stops are they underexposed?), and they end up looking basically the same. In the examples provided, when it's stopped down any more than T11, the sensor doesn't pick up anything else to actually boost/see in the darker areas. I mean, still, it's crazy how dark that T22 shot is, and I can actually get an image of the two subjects out of it (the rest is just black, but still.)
 
Mike, and all... You'll need light to make images.... :)

Photography is conceptually about controlling light...

It is in the name:

Photo: Light
Graphy: Drawing

It is an active action, not a passive happening.

The point of doing exposure- and cameratests is pretty much to learn to know your tools and their limits on set and in post.

THAT will eventually and hopefully contribute to giving you the skillset needed for controlling light...
 
Here is my go.....RAW is simply amazing. I especially love what happens to highlights when you go crazy with them....the way they bleed out and, yeah. I'll get better with my descriptions but right now I'm just in awe of what can be done. It feels like I need to learn so much more now that I have RAW choices (changin ISO, WB, etc)..but I love learning. Thanks again for posting these!
mts_grade_001.jpg
 
J Davis said:
here's the difference I see between the export and what I see in the rcx viewer.
I've tried exporting tiff, dpx, display profile, no profile, and all the exports look like the lower one

6337557899_0ec2cb71ce_b.jpg
Click to expand...


I have tried to regenerate that problem, and haven't really succeded.
Maybe someone from RED can chime in.

here is a screengrab where the exported TIFF is over the preview from RCX-pro:

grab.jpg


There is a slight gamma-difference, but nothing close to what you have...
 
A003_C008_0811KV_001_web.jpg

RCX-PRO+PS5CS = Look of FUJI ETERNA Vivid 500: Tarita from Tahiti, Exotic Dancer from 1001 Arabian Nights or Rio de Janeiro Carnival Brazilian girl.

A002_C028_0725O4_01_web.jpg

RCX-PRO+PS5CS = Look of FUJI ETERNA Vivid 160: A street scene from Oslo, Norway.
 
RCX + PS


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top