Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

Stills from RED...

Matt: Lovely images, beautifully lit (I'd love to see a photo of the lighting set-up), yet very noisy. Why so? Surely not due to lack of light?

Christopher: Nice image, and even at this frame size it shows how crisp the EPIC is. I'm assuming that with highlight recovery, that sunny patch on his sleeve will show detail? This kind of shot makes me want to buy a RED just for stills. Remember how I kept harassing you in the past about your EPIC stills and how they were noisy and harsh? I'd like to know what you're doing differently here. Obviously it's a software export issue. It's a mystery that needs to be solved, damn it!

EDIT: It's getting weirder. Joseph's shot of the pylon is soft, and Mark's shot of the girl is as sharp as a ceramic edged scalpel. I see a lot of soft stills from REDs and I see a lot of sharp ones. Sadly I don't have a computer that can run RCX so I can't try to solve the issue for myself.

So: WTF? I think users are taking frame extraction for granted and whether or not the results are sharp, it's an accident. I'm starting to understand why some people perceive REDs as inferior or unreliable cameras (which is obviously not true). There must be an optimal way to do this.
 
Last edited:
Shot with my scarlet
attachment.php
 
Karim D. Ghantous said:
Matt: Lovely images, beautifully lit (I'd love to see a photo of the lighting set-up), yet very noisy. Why so? Surely not due to lack of light?

Christopher: Nice image, and even at this frame size it shows how crisp the EPIC is. I'm assuming that with highlight recovery, that sunny patch on his sleeve will show detail? This kind of shot makes me want to buy a RED just for stills. Remember how I kept harassing you in the past about your EPIC stills and how they were noisy and harsh? I'd like to know what you're doing differently here. Obviously it's a software export issue. It's a mystery that needs to be solved, damn it!

EDIT: It's getting weirder. Joseph's shot of the pylon is soft, and Mark's shot of the girl is as sharp as a ceramic edged scalpel. I see a lot of soft stills from REDs and I see a lot of sharp ones. Sadly I don't have a computer that can run RCX so I can't try to solve the issue for myself.

So: WTF? I think users are taking frame extraction for granted and whether or not the results are sharp, it's an accident. I'm starting to understand why some people perceive REDs as inferior or unreliable cameras (which is obviously not true). There must be an optimal way to do this.
Click to expand...

It's from pushing too far in Redcine X Pro. It's a great tool but it doesn't have proper secondaries, etc. Ill repost once I take it through Resolve. Definitely plenty of exposure.

Keep in mind most people are pulling stills from motion at 24 frames a second with a 1/48th shutter, so you will get motion blur. Hence why they seem more soft than a still from a dslr set with a faster shutter.
 
Matt, thank you. I don't completely understand what secondaries are but that's my problem, not yours! :-)

Matt Ryan said:
Keep in mind most people are pulling stills from motion at 24 frames a second with a 1/48th shutter, so you will get motion blur. Hence why they seem more soft than a still from a dslr set with a faster shutter.
Click to expand...

Okay. But surely this cannot be true for all cases. Some stills are clearly shot from a stabilized camera and a still subject. Motion blur and softness surely are easily identifiable in almost all cases? And sometimes softness is not the issue, either. I'm upgrading my computer this year so I hope to install RCX (and other applications), download some footage and start investigating.
 
The still I posted is of Madison Lintz, a family friend and actress in the tv show, "The Walking Dead". We did this for fun last Halloween.
 
Karim D. Ghantous said:
Matt, thank you. I don't completely understand what secondaries are but that's my problem, not yours! :-)



Okay. But surely this cannot be true for all cases. Some stills are clearly shot from a stabilized camera and a still subject. Motion blur and softness surely are easily identifiable in almost all cases? And sometimes softness is not the issue, either. I'm upgrading my computer this year so I hope to install RCX (and other applications), download some footage and start investigating.
Click to expand...

RED camera's dont add any sharpening in camera, which is why they added the unsharp mask tool in Redcine to add sharpness to your liking (in post). It can also be a mixture of slightly off focus, talent movement, lack of contrast in the shot (contrast gives an image more apparent sharpness), etc...

Secondaries are used for minute and selective adjustments to an image. RedcineX Pro controls only give control over the entire image so pushing the mids lifts the entire mids instead of just a specified selection.
 
Stills pulled for print from a recent Western Union commercial shoot.
 

Attachments

  • A003_C008_1017P0.jpg
    A003_C008_1017P0.jpg
    102.3 KB · Views: 0
  • A003_C007_1017NX.jpg
    A003_C007_1017NX.jpg
    80.1 KB · Views: 0
  • A007_C013_1017RK.jpg
    A007_C013_1017RK.jpg
    81.9 KB · Views: 0
  • A007_C005_1017ES.jpg
    A007_C005_1017ES.jpg
    97 KB · Views: 0
  • A001_C012_1017U8.jpg
    A001_C012_1017U8.jpg
    94.3 KB · Views: 0
A few more stills pulled for print from a Sterns & Foster commercial shoot.
Final cuts were received a more vivid grade.
The directors cut is here: https://vimeo.com/41547425
 

Attachments

  • A013_C010_0712X5.jpg
    A013_C010_0712X5.jpg
    96.9 KB · Views: 0
  • A014_C002_07136I.jpg
    A014_C002_07136I.jpg
    78.9 KB · Views: 0
  • A005_C010_07128C.jpg
    A005_C010_07128C.jpg
    87.8 KB · Views: 0
Mark, cool video. :-) Sharp and clean as. What surprised the hell out of me is that The Walking Dead was shot on Super-16mm. It's cool but surprising.

Matt, thank you again. I suppose that answers at least half of the problem.

Paul, that 3rd still (man with sun at his back) is another great example of how RED is so close to film. It looks like I might have to cancel my plans of moving from DSLRs to 35 & 120 and just go RED instead. Eventually...
 
Karim D. Ghantous said:
Mark, cool video. :-) Sharp and clean as. What surprised the hell out of me is that The Walking Dead was shot on Super-16mm. It's cool but surprising.

Matt, thank you again. I suppose that answers at least half of the problem.

Paul, that 3rd still (man with sun at his back) is another great example of how RED is so close to film. It looks like I might have to cancel my plans of moving from DSLRs to 35 & 120 and just go RED instead. Eventually...
Click to expand...

Thanks Karim. I really feel the image on Epic and Scarlet are very close to film in the way they handle the highlight rolloff. I typically shoot with Cooke lenses, but that particular series was shot with a Red Lens (18mm & 25mm Primes). Was very impressed with them.
 
Christopher Barrett said:
Another for the kids section... hanging with my boy while he's watching Scooby-Doo. Epic and Cooke Panchro/i 100mm.
Click to expand...

Christopher Barrett said:
Looking out my office window...

5k 2.4:1 Cooke Panchro/i 32mm T 2.8 96 fps RCX Grade
Click to expand...

Mark Phelan said:
R1, Original M sensor, Nikon 80-200mm, 23.98fps, 1/48 shutter, no sharpening added.
Click to expand...

All fantastic shots!

I'm really impressed with the colorimetry of the vanilla Mysterium sensor, Mark! Was there any grading or one light color correction?
 
Chuck Z said:
All fantastic shots!

I'm really impressed with the colorimetry of the vanilla Mysterium sensor, Mark! Was there any grading or one light color correction?
Click to expand...

Just a normal S curve added to blow out the background a bit more. I did give a smidgen of saturation too, 1.085.
 
Chuck Z said:
the vanilla Mysterium sensor
Click to expand...

Vanilla is actually a delicious flavour and is no more plain or basic than any other. Take the vanilla out of vanilla ice cream and you just get dull, cold mud. Just 'cos you can't see it doesn't mean it's there.

Sorry, dude. I really get upset when people confuse vanilla with plainness.
 
thank you Jarred, here is the actual video footage I extracted the stills from, sorry about the editing job, was the first time I actually graded and edited something myself.


footage was exported from redcine into ProRes422 and edited in FCP, then uploaded as ProRes422 LT to Vimeo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top