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 :)

Thoughts and Tips responses here...

Diffrent white-numbers

Diffrent white-numbers

After playing around with the old and new Redcine-X, I realized that the whitebalancepoint was totally diffrent between the two. I got 2948 on the old one and 3408 on the new. Both were lit 3200 and read just below. Any thoughts?

Best

Patrk
 
Patrik Forsberg said:
After playing around with the old and new Redcine-X, I realized that the whitebalancepoint was totally diffrent between the two. I got 2948 on the old one and 3408 on the new. Both were lit 3200 and read just below. Any thoughts?

Best

Patrk
Click to expand...

New kelvin measurement is much more accurate than before over a wide range of color tempertures. Before we had a hard time getting the difference between 2800k and 3200k right, which is now not the case.

Graeme
 
Jannard said:
This is the place for comments.

Jim
Click to expand...

REDCINE-X is fantastic, It's another landmark development !

Any chance of adding vector & waveform panels?

Your observations and teaching techniques on the locked down threads are also spot on!

When everyone realizes the flexibility of RAW.. the light bulb will go off!!

Flexibility= RAW allows the user to change footage with out changing the original files, as technology improves so will the footage you shot years
ago!

Dave
 
Graeme Nattress said:
New kelvin measurement is much more accurate than before over a wide range of color tempertures. Before we had a hard time getting the difference between 2800k and 3200k right, which is now not the case.

Graeme
Click to expand...

Thanks for this feedback Graeme, I have also seen this behavior between the camera AWB (4800K), latest Red Alert (4800K), and RCX 90 (6100K). all three produce the same image, but which is correct?

Neil.
 
When you get the new build with the FLUT enabled in camera, AWB will match with RC-X. In the end, indeed, if you get white white it makes the right image. Especially RC-X and going forwards, we using the kelvin reading as an indication of the prevailing lighting conditions to provide for better colour accuracy.

Graeme
 
Sir Graeme !

Referring to HDR,i still believe it is possible right at the output channel of your pixel array.Just by splitting every single pixel output channel into three different output of high gain,medium gain and finally low gain and merge all the outputs back with a kind of tone mapping amplification where all the three output merge to produce something higher.Russians are doing it at the sensor level before post-production,i know so far.
Thank you for being a hell of a man and think about this.

Alain
 
Last edited:
Well, that just allows you to trade quantization noise for analogue noise. It doesn't actually do HDR.

Graeme
 
NUFI said:
Sir Graeme !

Referring to HDR,i still believe it is possible right at the output channel of your pixel array.Just by splitting every single pixel output channel into three different output of high gain,medium gain and finally low gain and merge all the outputs back with a kind of tone mapping amplification where all the three output merge to produce something higher.Russians are doing it at the sensor level before post-production,i know so far.
Thank you for being a hell of a man and think about this.

Alain
Click to expand...


For real HDR as you said, you need three photosites in each pixel like the project Dynamax by Panavision.

Anyway with actual M-X and FLUT™ by Graeme... hard days for Jhon Galt.
:ihih:
 
And the hard work never ends.

Graeme
 
NUFI said:
Sir Graeme !

Referring to HDR,i still believe it is possible right at the output channel of your pixel array.Just by splitting every single pixel output channel into three different output of high gain,medium gain and finally low gain and merge all the outputs back with a kind of tone mapping amplification where all the three output merge to produce something higher.Russians are doing it at the sensor level before post-production,i know so far.
Thank you for being a hell of a man and think about this.

Alain
Click to expand...

Alain, you can already acheive this with the RED One in post. Especially so with the new color science and even more with the new sensors - albeit, as graeme suggests, you will be subjecting your image to additional noise - there may be situations where it could work well or at least be usable though.
 
Vico Martin said:
For real HDR as you said, you need three photosites in each pixel like the project Dynamax by Panavision.

Anyway with actual M-X and FLUT™™ by Graeme... hard days for Jhon Galt.
:ihih:
Click to expand...

HDR is really compression of a wide dynamic range original into the more limited range of your finish medium to maintain details at both ends of the value range.
No reason you can't do it with a single exposure on M-X by processing a scene twice at different ISO settings, once for highlights and once for shadows then overlaying the two in the normal HDR post manner. Has more value for the limited dynamic range of print media than it does for digital display other than for some special effects looks.
 
David Rasberry said:
HDR is really compression of a wide dynamic range original into the more limited range of your finish medium to maintain details at both ends of the value range.
No reason you can't do it with a single exposure on M-X by processing a scene twice at different ISO settings, once for highlights and once for shadows then overlaying the two in the normal HDR post manner. Has more value for the limited dynamic range of print media than it does for digital display other than for some special effects looks.
Click to expand...

HDR is not Tonemapping.

HDR means you have many stops of dynamic range. Processing once for shadows and once for highlights creates no new data. You can't "make" an HDR image out of a single low dynamic range image. You can tonemap either a normal or an HDR image. But even then there is no reason to process an image twice. Just get the most dynamic range that the sensor can possibly capture into an image and then feed the linear image into a tonemapping algorithm if desired.

The only reason you load multiple images into HDR applications is to let the program 'stitch' the images back together to gain an increased dynamic range from two different exposures. Processing the same image twice in order to increase its dynamic range would be like taking a 4k file splitting it into two 2k files and then recombining them to 'make' a higher resolution image. You're just adding two unnecessary steps to frustrate yourself.
 
I'm curious what opinions are on the use of a HDR motion? IMO, it makes images too flat and unappealing for most work. That is not to say 15 stops wouldn't be nice in the future, but beyond that, to me at least, seems like you would hit the point of diminishing returns.

I'd personally rather see display technology catch up to where the blacks are black, and whites are actually very bright at the same time.
 
Álex Montoya said:
But how much DR is HDR? It's not a fixed number.

In fact, when you do bracketed exposures you may be adding 4 stops to the single image. If the original DR was 8 stops you may be ending with 12 wich is in the range of the new sensor.
Click to expand...

Which is precisely what double-processing RED footage would be. It would be like taking two 8 stop sections of the image and then recombining them to get back the original 12 bit image that was captured in the first place. :D

Personally I don't think it's HDR unless you have 16 stops. But you're right it's a flexible target.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top