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 :)

Soft, Noisy and lots of Artifacts

Aaron, remember there are TWO 17-55 EF-S Canon lenses. The F2.8 can be had in the States for about $1100 One has a variable aperture depending on zoom level, and the other will remain at F2.8 at any zoom. The optical quality between the two is stunning, to say the least. Chromatic aberration, even when stopped down, is still evident on the cheaper lens.
 
I like to share my experience with the relative soft look of r3ds when I can so that other people can compare and contrast their experiences with mine. I never claim to be right or wrong, just true to what I have seen.

I have edited footage from all three varieties of Red cameras, just about every glass configuration one can imagine, and of course my very own Scarlet with Canon glass. One thing that has been absolutely consistent throughout the years is that Red footage is relatively soft at 100%, and even somewhat soft at 80%. I have never seen a tack sharp r3d, ever. That said, I would love to see one, if anyone would like to post? When I use the expression "tack sharp" I am comparing it to what one would get from shooting raw with a mediocre DSLR and mediocre glass, simply because it is a fair comparison. Therefore, I never can personally blame choice of glass when it comes to people encountering problems like these with their Red cameras. There is a period of adjustment and acceptance in the world of Red, but when one takes the time to adjust and accept, then things can get beautiful quick!
 
I haven't had personal experience with those lenses, but I can say that there is a noticeable difference in sharpness between my Tokina 11-16 and my Rokinon 35 (the 35 being sharper).

O/T, Michael was this shot in New Hampshire?
 
Michael McCaffrey said:
Brad that looks pretty good. If I crank my unsharp mask in premiere up to 250 I can get that (provided my sharpness is on max in the R3D settings).

Is it normal to have to turn the R3D files settings to max sharpness and add a significant unsharp mask to the image before getting something acceptable? Doesnt seem like that is standard procedure is it? Those images Matt Ryan posted earlier of the blonde girl and the knight had no sharpness applied at all and they still looked amazingly sharp. I need to shoot something besides trees to get a better feel for the issue but right now Im attached to an outlet because the CinemOxide battery plates are about 12 days late. Should be here today or tomorrow though.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it's normal to need to heavily sharpen every Red image you see. Some sharpening is normal to make things "pop" (because Red doesn't do any in camera), but it shouldn't need to be an excessive amount. I think you're lens is probably playing against you here though. I'll be interested to see what you find when your new glass arrives.

Oh and keep in mind that the still Matt posted before was downscaled to 1080p. My guess is that it was probably originally shot at 4k and that downscaling operation is helping it's sharpness out. Perhaps Matt could fill you in on that though... :)
 
Last edited:
Marie Turock said:
I like to share my experience with the relative soft look of r3ds when I can so that other people can compare and contrast their experiences with mine. I never claim to be right or wrong, just true to what I have seen.

I have edited footage from all three varieties of Red cameras, just about every glass configuration one can imagine, and of course my very own Scarlet with Canon glass. One thing that has been absolutely consistent throughout the years is that Red footage is relatively soft at 100%, and even somewhat soft at 80%. I have never seen a tack sharp r3d, ever. That said, I would love to see one, if anyone would like to post? When I use the expression "tack sharp" I am comparing it to what one would get from shooting raw with a mediocre DSLR and mediocre glass, simply because it is a fair comparison. Therefore, I never can personally blame choice of glass when it comes to people encountering problems like these with their Red cameras. There is a period of adjustment and acceptance in the world of Red, but when one takes the time to adjust and accept, then things can get beautiful quick!
Click to expand...
I agree with pretty much everything you have said here Marie except for it being a fair comparison between a RAW DSLR and RAW RED. It was my understanding that even when shooting RAW on a DSLR, some degree of sharpening is often applied in camera. Additionally, RED's OLPF (Optical Low Pass Filter) is stronger than almost all other cameras. Plus you would have a difference in pixel density and resolution the images are being shot - at all of which could make it hard to create a fair comparison. :)
 
Brad Allen said:
I wouldn't say it's normal to need to heavily sharpen every Red image you see. Some sharpening is normal to make things "pop" (because Red doesn't do any in camera), but it shouldn't need to be an excessive amount. I think you're lens is probably playing against you here though. I'll be interested to see what you find when your new glass arrives :)

Oh and keep in mind that the still Matt posted before was downscaled to 1080p. My guess is that it was probably originally shot at 4k and that downscaling operation is helping it's sharpness out. Perhaps Matt could fill you in on that though... :)
Click to expand...

Hey Brad,
Yes those particular shots were 4K downscaled to 1080. I pointed later that there are stills on my home page in 4K, 3k, 2K, and 1080 of all Red footage and none have been sharpened. The final project is 1080p and 2:35, hence why I uploaded those images at that size. Here are a couple of the shots in full 4K with no bars if you want a look at 100%. Should have explained that for those shots I posted earlier. Anyways, check out these JPEGS (crappy compression) in 100% with no sharpening. Shot under tungsten light as well. 24fps with 1/48th shutter. Please keep in mind these havent been graded yet.
Right click, open in new tab, then zoom in to 100%.
1.jpg

4.jpg
 
I can think of a couple of things giving you these results.

I'd have sent the r3d snaps to red support to make them have a look and shoot some alternate images in less demanding detail/contrast situations without hdrx to check if those images give you the same sort of result.
 
Yeah those shots, even at 100% and "crappy" compression are WAY WAY sharper than anything I've seen from my camera yet, even at 3:1 with lots of added sharpening in post. I hope this new glass works!
 
You might also try renting some different glass from a place like LensRentals or BorrowLenses, just to get an idea of how different glass "looks" before you commit to buying glass you may not end up being happy with.
 
Matt Ryan said:
Hey Brad,
Yes those particular shots were 4K downscaled to 1080. I pointed later that there are stills on my home page in 4K, 3k, 2K, and 1080 of all Red footage and none have been sharpened. The final project is 1080p and 2:35, hence why I uploaded those images at that size. Here are a couple of the shots in full 4K with no bars if you want a look at 100%. Should have explained that for those shots I posted earlier. Anyways, check out these JPEGS (crappy compression) in 100% with no sharpening. Shot under tungsten light as well. 24fps with 1/48th shutter. Please keep in mind these havent been graded yet.
Right click, open in new tab, then zoom in to 100%.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that Matt :)

Michael - this is the sort of sharpness you should be seeing with good glass - when you punch in to 100% you can see that they aren't crazy sharp, but they aren't blurry by any means either - there is detail that runs through the whole shot :)

Hopefully your new glass helps out. Shooting some alternative scenes might be a good idea like you mentioned also. Shooting that amount of tree's and foliage is demanding on even the best codec's!
 
Stephen Mick said:
Please post more shots, Matt. I need to see more before I can adequately say if they're sharp or not. :devil:
Click to expand...

haha, not sure if I even should have posted what I have. Once the ad comes out I'll post some pics of the "reverse" if you catch my drift. :thumbsup:
 
Here's another still from the Scarlet from another ad for the same company. Again lit with tungsten lights and shot with Zeiss CP.2's. No CC, just skin softening in Photoshop.
Here is one in 3K 48fps:
3Kclose.jpg
 
@Leon this is far more succinct than my response. Thanks!
 
And a few more in 4K just so you can have a look:
A011_C017_0812J2.0000000.jpg

A011_C012_0812GK.0001018.jpg

A011_C038_08128E.0001669.jpg

A021_C022_1203C1.00007571.jpg

A001_C007_1203B5.0000431.jpg


All of these shots are at 24fps and 1/48th shutter. Most of these are shot wide open on the CP.2's. Shot with Redcode 36.
 
Another thing to keep in mind is that the difference betwen 8:1 compression and 6:1 compression is pretty large.

Also try turning off HDR. That first image looks like REDCode is eating it hard.
 
NEW LENS (Canon f2.8 17-55mm) RESULTS:

I put the new lens on, went outside and shot some trees, brought it back into Premiere and guess what!? I could hardly believe my eyes. The NEW 17-55 f2.8 lens was softer than the 18-55mm kit lens I had been having issues with this whole time! I couldn't believe it so I threw up a focus chart and did the same test from 5ft away. Shot both lenses wide and telephoto. Little if any difference visible on the chart shots. This is awful! A brand new lens and a $16k camera and these images look like they were shot through a napkin. All I can figure is that its the backfocus or a lemon of a camera. Does RED not calibrate the backfocus on these before they ship?

Bob your burger shot looks amazing. Almost enough to make me want to not be a vegetarian anymore. (ehh, not really) Make me feel better and tell me you added a TON of sharpening and spent hours in RCX to get that shot.

Even if my backfocus is the problem, why is my new 2.8 17-55mm lens softer than the kit lens?! How does THAT happen!?

The Results:
http://66.147.244.90/~laymenmi/red/lens_comparison.jpg
http://66.147.244.90/~laymenmi/red/lens_comparison_outside.jpg
http://66.147.244.90/~laymenmi/red/17-55mm_5.6_at_17mm.R3D
http://66.147.244.90/~laymenmi/red/18-55mm_5.6_at_18mm.R3D
 
Just a question as I've been spying on this thread.

How exactly are you focusing Michael? Is there anybody near you with a 50mm-135mm f/1.4-f/2.8 prime lens? Can you shoot a shot of something about 4 or 5 feet from the camera? Do you have something shot at the 55mm "end" of the lens?

This could be backfocus. This could also be a few other things. I believe Red ships the camera with the backfocus adjusted to factory spec.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top