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 :)

The best $5,750 you can spend [updated]

Gavin Greenwalt said:
So what you're saying is the hue shift is exclusive to footage pushed in redcine-x. We shouldn't expect our last 3 stops in the shadows to be have a warm shift?
Click to expand...

That's not what I said... shoot a normal exposure and you will be fine, especially in the shadows. Under-expose 5 stops, then try to normalize the image and you may see a slight color shift... until we fix the calibration in a few days. Probably time to move along. This is turning into a non-necessary mess.

Jim
 
Correction its the best $4500 you can spend after you execute EPIC trade-in...

and Ill go even further and say the BUNDLE is the best $8750 you can spend as you get a RED Rocket card for $3000!
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #63
Gavin Greenwalt said:
So what you're saying is the hue shift is exclusive to footage pushed in redcine-x. We shouldn't expect our last 3 stops in the shadows to be have a warm shift?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that pushing something 5 stops under exposed up to key is very different than letting something 5 stops under play as a shadow... 5 stops under.

If you look at a normalized 500-800 ASA image [even with some creative color work slapped on there], everything falls into place. Shadows don't turn funny colors, they just turn to shadows. It's when you take something that's massively underexposed and push it up as aggressively that I did that you start to see the color shift. The good news is that the color shift will disappear as soon as RED populates the next version of their firmware.
 
Brook Willard said:
I'm saying that pushing something 5 stops under exposed up to key is very different than letting something 5 stops under play as a shadow... 5 stops under.

If you look at a normalized 500-800 ASA image [even with some creative color work slapped on there], everything falls into place. Shadows don't turn funny colors, they just turn to shadows. It's when you take something that's massively underexposed and push it up as aggressively that I did that you start to see the color shift. The good news is that the color shift will disappear as soon as RED populates the next version of their firmware.
Click to expand...

So for people shooting & lighting as they normally would an M sensor, what are the big differences we're going to see with the MX? I currently shoot at 320-500 and there is hardly any noise as we have all become accustomed to. If we were to setup two Reds side by side with proper key/fill & backlight on a subject, both rated at 500, what are the key differences that will immediately become apparent? It's like eating the best cake in the world for 2 years and then the cake makers say, 'Hey I have a new cake that's even better! Way better frosting!' My simple mind is still going crazy over this current cake, how can this new cake be that much better?
 
Richard Darge said:
So for people shooting & lighting as they normally would an M sensor, what are the big differences we're going to see with the MX? I currently shoot at 320-500 and there is hardly any noise as we have all become accustomed to. If we were to setup two Reds side by side with proper key/fill & backlight on a subject, both rated at 500, what are the key differences that will immediately become apparent? It's like eating the best cake in the world for 2 years and then the cake makers say, 'Hey I have a new cake that's even better! Way better frosting!' My simple mind is still going crazy over this current cake, how can this new cake be that much better?
Click to expand...

Great question... RED Rocket™ does exactly the same thing to REDCINE-X data as no RED Rocket™... just way faster. M-X does the exact same thing as M except with way less noise (and if you can find noise, it looks much better). This gives you a ton more options... both in low light shooting and pulling up detail at ISO 320-500. You may never need the difference... but I can tell you that, like RED Rocket™, once you have shot with M-X... there is no going back. Good news is that there is no requirement to upgrade. The M sensor does a great job. Having the M-X upgrade available to our customers for a reasonable price only seems fair.

Jim
 
Out of curiosity, would be cool to see these tests both debayered using redcolor rather then debayering the M differently to the mx footage, I know the mx kicks ass, just interested to see how much is the sensor and how much is the new software etc.
 
Troy Smith said:
Out of curiosity, would be cool to see these tests both debayered using redcolor rather then debayering the M differently to the mx footage, I know the mx kicks ass, just interested to see how much is the sensor and how much is the new software etc.
Click to expand...

Great question- I would love to see this as well. Or at least with Redlog and Camera RGB as those were the previous recommended settings. Why was RedSpace chosen?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #69
I chose RedSpace since it's the current release build's recommended shooting option and it's what works with the current SDK. I also wanted to see the M sensor as "I know it," not as it's only been for a few weeks.

I'll try to do a reprocessing of the M footage, but it'll take me a few days knowing me.
 
That makes sense. Thanks for the answer, and thank you very much for sharing your experience and thoughts on it. If you are able to process the footage again, that would be great. :)
 
Am I misreading this? It seems to me, based on the charts, that we lost a stop of highlights latitude on M-X? It seems that +3 on M doesn't clip while +3 on M-X does clip.
 
Shawn Nelson said:
Am I misreading this? It seems to me, based on the charts, that we lost a stop of highlights latitude on M-X? It seems that +3 on M doesn't clip while +3 on M-X does clip.
Click to expand...

Shawn... you just didn't read my posts about calibration.

Jim
 
Jannard said:
Shawn... you just didn't read my posts about calibration.

Jim
Click to expand...

I saw that the calibration issues were causing the tinting, I didn't realize it was causing M-X to unnecessarily clip. So M-X at +3 should be just as good as Red1 at +3? Basically I'm thinking outdoors, sunny day, shade. If my sky is +3, will the M-X capture the same amount of details in the sky as R1 but yet stops deeper into the shade?
 
Shawn Nelson said:
I saw that the calibration issues were causing the tinting, I didn't realize it was causing M-X to unnecessarily clip. So M-X at +3 should be just as good as Red1 at +3? Basically I'm thinking outdoors, sunny day, shade. If my sky is +3, will the M-X capture the same amount of details in the sky as R1 but yet stops deeper into the shade?
Click to expand...

I sure hope/think so.

Jims bold statements vs head to head shoots with the upcoming Arri cameras indicates that.
 
Calibration causes/enables just about everything...

Jim
 
Jannard said:
Whatever improvements we can make (hard to believe) will apply to both EPIC and R1 M-X cameras. The best news is that they can be shot side by side with virtually the same color and latitude.

Jim
Click to expand...

Great to see. This sways me into wanting to keep my R1s / upgrading the sensor AND using the credit for the Epics.

hmmmmmmmm....
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #78
I suppose I should redo this test after the new calibration is out. I didn't realize that a test like this was a little premature at this stage. I'll do a test again when the new firmware is out!
 
It is awfully hard to judge the noise in the -4 and lower M-X images due to the loss of contrast. Is that because the FLUT exposure adjustment that Brook mentioned using for after hitting ISO4000 doesn't operate the same way as the ISO adjustments? Or is this some new sensor feature or calibration problem? I assume adjusting the black level of those images to restore contrast would yield a better comparison to the old M sensor footage which was not processed in that way?
 
Noah Yuan-Vogel said:
It is awfully hard to judge the noise in the -4 and lower M-X images due to the loss of contrast. Is that because the FLUT™ exposure adjustment that Brook mentioned using for after hitting ISO4000 doesn't operate the same way as the ISO adjustments? Or is this some new sensor feature or calibration problem? I assume adjusting the black level of those images to restore contrast would yield a better comparison to the old M sensor footage which was not processed in that way?
Click to expand...

Let's wait for the new calibration and re-test before drawing any conclusions other than "the new M-X sensor is scary noiseless". How's that sound?

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