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

[David Battistella]

In keeping with a sort of subtle hue, nostalgic filmish look....

I'm thinkin that polka dot umbrella was a soft pink...

 

[Gunleik Groven]

David Batistella:

The R3D:
http://gunleik.com/stills/ext_hdrx_2xr3d.zip

The RMD:
http://gunleik.com/stills/UMBRELLA_2.zip

My shot @ it:

The RMD:
http://gunleik.com/stills/gunleik_umbrella_01.zip

 

[Mike P.]

Couple of sec's @ 2000 ISO

174 MB ZIP
http://gunleik.com/stills/A006_C001_07310Z.RDC.zip

Hey Gunleik, was this stopped down to need ISO2000, or was the scene/sensor actually light starved to need the higher ISO while shooting/exposing?

I'm trying to figure out the worst-case lighting situations that still produce quality results. So far, taking a properly exposed image (at 800ISO) and just taking down exposure while bumping up ISO in RCXp has yielded good results, but because the images were properly exposed to begin with I figure that theres more than enough light to handle the higher ISOs... In other words, the sensor isn't really stressed because it was shot with enough light.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Hey Gunleik, was this stopped down to need ISO2000, or was the scene/sensor actually light starved to need the higher ISO while shooting/exposing?

I'm trying to figure out the worst-case lighting situations that still produce quality results. So far, taking a properly exposed image (at 800ISO) and just taking down exposure while bumping up ISO in RCXp has yielded good results, but because the images were properly exposed to begin with I figure that theres more than enough light to handle the higher ISOs... In other words, the sensor isn't really stressed because it was shot with enough light.

Good points

These are test images, so I stopped down to be able to look a bit into higher ISO noise.
I'll see if I can find some really underexposed RAW files, but this was a deliberate underexposure...

And I kinda like the result.

From the calibration point (320 ISO) it is about 2,5 stops under...

Still there's plenty of contrast in there....

And that's one of the things I love about the Epic (and hopefully the Scarlet, too):
How gracefully it handles high-contrast imagery.

Taking down exposure while up'ing ISO is just taking the exact same parameters up and down at the same time....
Doesn't really make sense...

here are 2 grabs from the 1st frame of that clip @ 800 and 320 respectfully.
It is pretty damned underexposed...

@ 2000 ISO/Flat

@ 800 ISO/Flat

@ 320 ISO/Flat

Dunno if that answers your question?

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Chris Puersti:

The RMD
http://gunleik.com/stills/chris_p_01.zip

 

[Mike P.]

Thanks, that's exactly what I wanted to know. And, yes, if you do have a truly underexposed .r3d please post it.

With a secondary, I can completely remove that flare on the darkside of her face that shows up at higher ISOs (like that 2000/flat render). From there you can add contrast back to that part of the image as well. I even took it up to ISO12,800 (just for fun) and by playing with "clarity" and "skin" in Alchemy, then adding "film look" with its grain, it's absolutely useable. That's actually why I wanted to get a light-starved .r3d (clip or still); right now I can get 12800 to actually look good in my opinion. Something tells me that it'll be a completely different ballgame if the scene/shot/subject doesn't have enough light and actually requires ISO2000+ just to show a skintone. Not that I would ever shoot anything like that, but it's still a good exercise to find out where the limits are.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Today there is no better CC software than Adobe PS5 working with tiff and so many intelligent filters that all can easy beat any of so called professional cinema grade software.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Thanks, that's exactly what I wanted to know. And, yes, if you do have a truly underexposed .r3d please post it.

With a secondary, I can completely remove that flare on the darkside of her face that shows up at higher ISOs (like that 2000/flat render). From there you can add contrast back to that part of the image as well. I even took it up to ISO12,800 (just for fun) and by playing with "clarity" and "skin" in Alchemy, then adding "film look" with its grain, it's absolutely useable. That's actually why I wanted to get a light-starved .r3d (clip or still); right now I can get 12800 to actually look good in my opinion. Something tells me that it'll be a completely different ballgame if the scene/shot/subject doesn't have enough light and actually requires ISO2000+ just to show a skintone. Not that I would ever shoot anything like that, but it's still a good exercise to find out where the limits are.

Mike, this image is pretty darned underexposed, but it still has some contrast... That's what makes it work.

Would love to see one of those 12800 developments you're talking about.

I re-read your initial post and updated my reply a bit...

Taking the ISO down and the exposure up - is basically moving the exact same parameters up and down at the same time and doesn't really make much sense...

Cheers!

G

 

[Björn Benckert]

Today there is no better CC software than Adobe PS5 working with tiff and so many intelligent filters that all can easy beat any of so called professional cinema grade software.

You are quite far from the truth with this statement. There are plenty of professional grading tools out there that can mimmic any thing done to colors etc in photoshop. Those programs also have tons of features that photoshop does not have so... you got it quite backwards actually.

Spend a few years scripting in nuke or such and you will realize that photo shop is more of an old dinosaur than anything else.

 

[Chris Puerstl]

I would have to agree it is very impressive what you can do with free software. In an earlier post, I did a quick grade in Assimilate Scratch 6 which does have a hefty price tag but well worth it, and I did a quick grade with a free software Redcine-X both results are very similar for a starting point. The difference is in the extra amount of secondaries you have in more expensive software. But again take a look at Resolve software is 1000.00 bucks were Scratch is much much more but both applications are amazing. Even the grading software Apple Color does a great job but one big downfall it is limited to 8 secondaries.

 

[Martin Beek]

Chris Puersti:

The RMD
http://gunleik.com/stills/chris_p_01.zip

Absolutely gorgeous!

 

[Mike P.]

Taking the ISO down and the exposure up - is basically moving the exact same parameters up and down at the same time and doesn't really make much sense...

Cheers!

G

yeah, I know... that's why I'm still looking for an actually underexposed image. When I raise the ISO it's obviously way too overexposed, and then I just crush everything back down to the same as it was before (~ISO2000ish level noise....) Where should I upload to? Image shack?

Basically all I'm doing is raising the ISO to 12,800 and the bringing UP the blacks so that they're bright enough to match the images so the codec doesn't break... From there, it can be render out and I can bring that file into AE or Colour and re-introduce contrast and adjust the brightness back down. Now because nothing was clipped or crushed from RCX, and being the resultant file is essentially a "clean", but really bright 444 image, I can re-introduce contrast and so forth without pushing the file to it's breaking point. That's also why the test is somewhat moot; it's like you said, all I'm really doing is upping the ISO and then compensating with another parameter, but I'm finding cleaner results by doing a render in between (almost like its filling in the blanks of the data with the render, rather than emphasizing the noise.)

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Hm... You're onto something, though a bit confused...

Have you tried taking out the image as redlogFilm?
That holds on to the highlights very well (that's partly what it's made for) and grade it from there.

That said, the image IS underexposed, but I'll look for some really badly underexposed clips.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Ol' Shake standard classics:

TrueLight, DigitalProjector, Log, Fuji...+Saturation...

TrueLight, DigitalProjector, Lin, Fuji...+Saturation...

TrueLight, DigitalProjector, Video, Fuji...+Saturation...

AND my last for tonight (and of course done in PS5):

Burning Love.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

OK here is a tungsten Exposuretest I did from over to under. The last exposure is @ T22 + an ND6
They all have HDRx channel in them so if that isn't low enough, you can just pick the X channel...

That gives 10 stops + the X channel (3) difference between the first and the last exposure....

As you can see from the slate, I shot the R1 MX side-by-side with the same optics on this test...

And here are the R3D's

http://www.gunleik.com/stills/exposuretests_r3d.zip

Hope that can help you with underexposure...


Cheers!

Gunleik

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Lovers-Gladiators-Blood-Passion-Love & Sex

Lovers-Gladiators-Blood-Passion-Love & Sex

Capture One Pro + DxO Optics Pro 6+ Adobe Photoshop CS5+Diverse Filters

Lovers-Gladiators-Blood-Passion-Love & Sex

Crop of the upper detail with both dancers heads.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

R3D:
http://www.gunleik.com/stills/A007_C013_0818LU.0000660F.R3D.zip

RMD:
http://www.gunleik.com/stills/RMD_01.zip

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Ol' Hollywood Studio rough tungsten light and standard correct skin tone exposure @ T

Ol' Hollywood Studio rough tungsten light and standard correct skin tone exposure @ T

Ol' Hollywood Studio Style with a rough tungsten light and standard correct skin tone exposure @ T5.6

 

[Gunleik Groven]

r3d/RMD
http://www.gunleik.com/stills/A007_C018_0818TJ.0001239F.zip

 

[Stefan Antonescu]

Gunleik, you're talented. Shoot a feature movie. You would be a good director.