SSD run times

[paulherrin]

in other words... for low light situations, you can expose for your shadows: get them as light as you can/want. then, IF NECESSARY, use HDRx™™™ range to cover any highlights that might start blowing out. The HDRx™™ will take another quicker exposure at the same time as the normal one, which covers those highlights for you. That's what's happening essentially, NOT an overall gain to the sensor to increase dynamic range. With these sensors, how dark your scene can be depends more on the lens speed than anything.

 

[Elsie N]

The thing we will remind people over and over again is that the best way to shoot HDRx™ is NOT over/under... which is what I think you are referring to "in low light". HDRx™ should be shot normal/under for highlight protection. Once you have committed to over/under, your options are extremely limited. You are stuck with a combination no matter what. Flexibility of combining the tracks is more limited.

The EPIC sensor is a huge performer in low light without HDRx™. If you use it in low light, rely on the main/normal exposure to get the shadows and the under for candles or other hot highlights.

Jim

Thanks Jim, any idea where the "sweet spot" so to speak, is in shooting low light?

 

[Brook Willard]

I was editing my post while you all replied, check it again.

I agree with Jim that doing an over/under HDR exposure versus a normal/under exposure is probably not always desirable. For the most extreme shots, sure... but that's really really really extreme.

The MX sensor is very happy in the Epic - you'll be rediscovering the sensor all over again when you shoot with the Epic. As Jim said, the sensor is really a performer on its own. If you know how to properly expose already, you will rarely need HDR. When you use it, you'll probably make very specific decisions about which HDR mode you use [I mean in terms of stops of protection, not one HDR versus another]. It's a super cool tool that is unbelievably impressive... but you're gonna LOVE the footage the camera makes already.

 

[Mark Pugh]

Jim, I know it's pedantic, but...
the "5K ANA" format has got nothing much to do with 5k.
Wouldn't it be better to find another label for that format that doesn't false-advertise?
Also, is there any chance of a 16:9 option that uses the full height of the sensor? ( I think it would be about 4.5k).

 

[Jannard]

Let me try this another way... expose HDRx™ just as you would as if it were turned off. No different. In most cases, just like with a RED ONE M-X, your highlights are fine. On the rare occasion that something is blowing out, just turn on HDRx™ and don't change your exposure.

Jim

 

[Elsie N]

I was editing my post while you all replied, check it again.

I agree with Jim that doing an over/under HDR exposure versus a normal/under exposure is probably not always desirable. For the most extreme shots, sure... but that's really really really extreme.

The MX sensor is very happy in the Epic - you'll be rediscovering the sensor all over again when you shoot with the Epic. As Jim said, the sensor is really a performer on its own. If you know how to properly expose already, you will rarely need HDR. When you use it, you'll probably make very specific decisions about which HDR mode you use [I mean in terms of stops of protection, not one HDR versus another]. It's a super cool tool that is unbelievably impressive... but you're gonna LOVE the footage the camera makes already.

Found the edit. Thanks

 

[Jannard]

Let me ask this... has anyone had a problem with getting detail in the shadows on a R1 M-X? The Mysterium-X sensor already kicks ass on film in the shadows. You don't need more there. It is the highlights that can be an issue. Think "highlight protection" and you will be fine.

ONCE YOU SHOOT over/under YOU HAVE COMMITTED TO A LESS FORGIVING COMBINATION. That doesn't mean you can't do it... but be forewarned and do lots of testing.

EDIT- And I agree with Brook.

Jim

 

[paulherrin]

For everyone that might be confused about the over/under normal/under exposure talk... It's basically just being stated that this method of capturing HDR is different than say, the traditional digital photography method where one makes a normal metered exposure, then underexposes one or more shot(s), then overexposes one or more shot(s). These in theory capture the entire range of the scene from dark to light.

The method for RED's HDRx is different. You expose normally (or towards the shadow detail you want) and again, ONLY IF NECESSARY, turn on HDRx to protect your highlights.

 

[paulherrin]

BTW, I'm glad to know that seeing these good HDR images from RED cameras will finally move us away from the overprocessed look we've seen over the past few years from some DSLR photography.

 

[Jannard]

For everyone that might be confused about the over/under normal/under exposure talk... It's basically just being stated that this method of capturing HDR is different than say, the traditional digital photography method where one makes a normal metered exposure, then underexposes one or more shot(s), then overexposes one or more shot(s). These in theory capture the entire range of the scene from dark to light.

The method for RED's HDRx™™™ is different. You expose normally (or towards the shadow detail you want) and again, ONLY IF NECESSARY, turn on HDRx™™™ to protect your highlights.

Correct. EPIC has more DR than a typical DSLR and less noise in the shadows so you don't need to go over/under. And you can't shoot motion HDR with a DSLR. They are different animals. HDRx™™ is so cool because you have such control over it, both how much you use and the motion it creates. If you like it, turn it up. If not, turn it down. Need more or less highlight protection... no problem. But if you go over/under... all that flexibility goes away.

Jim

 

[Elsie N]

For everyone that might be confused about the over/under normal/under exposure talk... It's basically just being stated that this method of capturing HDR is different than say, the traditional digital photography method where one makes a normal metered exposure, then underexposes one or more shot(s), then overexposes one or more shot(s). These in theory capture the entire range of the scene from dark to light.

The method for RED's HDRx™™ is different. You expose normally (or towards the shadow detail you want) and again, ONLY IF NECESSARY, turn on HDRx™™ to protect your highlights.

And to further clarify, Jim is saying that if you commit to the over/under HDRx™, you are pretty much locked in to using the footage as HDRx™ instead of having the option of splitting it out in post. That is, for low light conditions.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Let me try this another way... expose HDRx™™ just as you would as if it were turned off. No different. In most cases, just like with a RED ONE M-X, your highlights are fine. On the rare occasion that something is blowing out, just turn on HDRx™™ and don't change your exposure.

Jim

This sounds like what HDRx has sounded like all along... -

I am also not very surprised on Brooks remark about "rediscovering the MX"...

Cheers

G

 

[Jannard]

I also agree with Brook that there are extreme instances when HDRx™ will be mandatory... like explosions. And you will shoot that normal/under.

You cannot see the effect of HDRx in monitoring... and I think that is a great thing. It reminds you to expose just like you always have.

Jim

 

[paulherrin]

so... do we know anything about what ratios the CF cards can handle? and the implications on HDRx and framerates.

 

[M Most]

Brook... agree with you about 5:1 being "home", and would go one step further on 3:1 at 120fps. Impossible!

Jim

For features, sure. For television, based on what I've seen at Redcode 36 and even at 28, something like 5:1 is almost going against everything that Red has been able to offer to this point in terms of manageable data, without any real gain in terms of the image integrity. You're talking about as much data as one would get recording uncompressed HD on, say, an S.two - something which has largely kept companies from using it in the television world.

For television, I wouldn't be pushing these lower compression rates without really, really good evidence that there's a real payoff to be had. And with an HD deliverable, I really don't see that there is. Better to be pushing the 9:1 or so for television work, at least IMHO as someone who deals with it just about every day.

 

[paulherrin]

mike, glad you brought that up. we'll have to do some testing between ratios to see what we're really looking at as far as tradeoffs...

and i'm sorry i called you the grinch haha

 

[Gunleik Groven]

For features, sure. For television, based on what I've seen at Redcode 36 and even at 28, something like 5:1 is almost going against everything that Red has been able to offer to this point in terms of manageable data, without any real gain in terms of the image integrity. You're talking about as much data as one would get recording uncompressed HD on, say, an S.two - something which has largely kept companies from using it in the television world.

For television, I wouldn't be pushing these lower compression rates without really, really good evidence that there's a real payoff to be had. And with an HD deliverable, I really don't see that there is. Better to be pushing the 9:1 or so for television work, at least IMHO as someone who deals with it just about every day.

Thinkin' around the same lines here...

And 4kHD is still probably a viable format for TV - as far as I can think, without really testing it. Realtime transcodes are of some importance.

Getting the extra latitude and and precission out of the MX in the bottom I am expecting on the Epic Body + the option of HDRx™™ and fullframe high-speed and only using 5k for those 18/16/14 mm shots....

Just thinkin' out loud here on how to work it into the current workflows. (yup, I know that's a no-no, but that's how we get these cams into productionnn)

Then it will - of course - change.

-

 

[Antonio Forjaz]

Would this be a good set up?
I will be shooting as much as possible a 2 camera set up, meaning, my RED one MX and the EPIC, when I get it
4K 2:1 @ RC 9:1 all at 25 FPS

Will I be compromissing too much with these settings?

Question, RC 9:1 on a RED One MX is what setting? 28?

Thanks

 

[Jannard]

For features, sure. For television, based on what I've seen at Redcode 36 and even at 28, something like 5:1 is almost going against everything that Red has been able to offer to this point in terms of manageable data, without any real gain in terms of the image integrity. You're talking about as much data as one would get recording uncompressed HD on, say, an S.two - something which has largely kept companies from using it in the television world.

For television, I wouldn't be pushing these lower compression rates without really, really good evidence that there's a real payoff to be had. And with an HD deliverable, I really don't see that there is. Better to be pushing the 9:1 or so for television work, at least IMHO as someone who deals with it just about every day.

Agree...

Jim

 

[Tom Gough]

Great thread... :thumbsup:

All the best,