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 :)

Tips for getting the best lookig footage

That course looks phenomenal I think I'll get it. It covers composition and blocking, but lighting not so much, and that was the third key element someone mentioned above. Anyone know of a similar comprehensive course covering lighting, given a lot of the emphasis in this thread has also been about lighting?
 
Mohamed Younis said:
Did you try it?
I normally prefer reading but this looks interesting.
Click to expand...

Yes I got it, and it's really amazing. Reading is great, but for blocking, I actually prefer seeing it. They have great examples really nicely explained. This course should be on everyone's computer really...
 
Mike Lary said:
If you read the 320 vs. 800 threads on Reduser as well as everything Graeme has said about exposure, then spend 10 hours on test shoots for every ten minutes you spend on the forums - you shouldn't have any problems producing great images.

Personally, I'd agree with the 'thick negative' approach. Expose for the sensor, watch your goal posts, use your eyes only for aesthetic decisions. Additionally, never shoot below 3K. If you need highspeed and 3K doesn't allow the your desired frame rate at a good compression ratio, shoot at half that speed and use Twixtor to bring you the rest of the way in post (or use a different camera).
Click to expand...

Good advice here, minus the "never shoot below 3K"....I'm personally getting sharp, noise free, amazing results at 2K and my confidence in it is fully restored - So long as you approach your scene like any other, and with the advice given in this thread. In fact, my advice is to practice shooting at 2k. Get the best possible image you can at 2K and anything else you record from the MX chip is going to look even better.
 
Matthew Scott said:
Good advice here, minus the "never shoot below 3K"....I'm personally getting sharp, noise free, amazing results at 2K and my confidence in it is fully restored - So long as you approach your scene like any other, and with the advice given in this thread. In fact, my advice is to practice shooting at 2k. Get the best possible image you can at 2K and anything else you record from the MX chip is going to look even better.
Click to expand...

Shot some green screen inserts for a larger national ad campaign yesterday (Canadian Tire) - It was a silk banner that drops into the frame and will be added to the completed spots.

Digital VFX / compositor team was in studio with us, and when I voiced concern over using the scarlet at 2K they called out BullS**T and asked for 2k, 60fps, @72º shutter. On set they showed me what they pulled and it looked incredible. So maybe this 'soft' 2k idea is just a self perpetuating myth? I'll have absolutely no problem shooting 2k for T.V. delivery (theatre projection may be a different story?).
 
Nice one! I was so worried before I actually got my camera, but honestly the 2k images i'm achieving are incredible! Like you said though, there are better resolutions for the big screen :) Glad to hear about your chroma key success mate :)
 
If you want a thicker negative that's your perogitive but the Epic has the most balanced DR at ISO 800. As long as you light adequately or at least to your desired astethic then there is no advantage to ISO 320. In fact I often times find that I have to drop my ISO to 320 in the grade to get the rolloff I like in highlights, if I had exposed at 320 I would never had had the highlight room to do that.
Do not judge the noise charachter of the Epic from the on board monitoring! Only use a properly debayed 4-5K image, the noise is significantly different.
 
Evin Grant said:
If you want a thicker negative that's your perogitive but the Epic has the most balanced DR at ISO 800. As long as you light adequately or at least to your desired astethic then there is no advantage to ISO 320. In fact I often times find that I have to drop my ISO to 320 in the grade to get the rolloff I like in highlights, if I had exposed at 320 I would never had had the highlight room to do that.
Do not judge the noise charachter of the Epic from the on board monitoring! Only use a properly debayed 4-5K image, the noise is significantly different.
Click to expand...

Evin, I completely agree with you on this. I've plotted the dynamic range of the sensor at various ISOs and even ISO 800 does not give an even distribution of highlights and shadows. (you have to be around 1280). Shooting at 320 seriously reduces the range you have in highlight overexposure. This means that you will have fewer stops over normal exposure before the highlights will clip. To me, this means a more video-like look.

The only time I shoot at ISO below 800 is when all the tones in the scene are below 2 stops over key. As an example, a night exterior scene where the actors faces may be lit to 1 stop over key and all other tones are under this would be a good choice for ISO 400 or 320. You would thus be filling the negative a bit more and have less noise and more grading latitude. There are times in night exteriors when I have not been able to rate 320 or 400- a scene lit by torches where I want the torches to actually light the actors as an example. In these cases I rate 800 or higher and have had no issue with noise. I do this knowing that I won't be able to push the image around as much in post.

But shooting a day exterior, or a brightly lit day interior or night interior at 320 is generally doing yourself more harm than good. There are no hard and fast rules but if you understand what's really going on with the sensor and consider the tonal range of your scene you can make an informed decision about how to rate and expose. There is a lot of talk on reduser about rating at 320 and I think if people truly understood how the dynamic range of the sensor performs at various ISOs they would reconsider. Having said all this, if it works for you then GREAT!!! Lots of people make great images shooting every which way.
 
Matthew Scott said:
Good advice here, minus the "never shoot below 3K"....I'm personally getting sharp, noise free, amazing results at 2K and my confidence in it is fully restored - So long as you approach your scene like any other, and with the advice given in this thread. In fact, my advice is to practice shooting at 2k. Get the best possible image you can at 2K and anything else you record from the MX chip is going to look even better.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that 2K quality is on par with 3K and up? I have yet to see any evidence of that, let alone any 2K footage I would describe as "amazing". Getting beyond subjective analysis, Red has acknowledged that 2K is a work in progress and that improvements are on the way.
 
Mike Lary said:
Are you saying that 2K quality is on par with 3K and up? I have yet to see any evidence of that, let alone any 2K footage I would describe as "amazing". Getting beyond subjective analysis, Red has acknowledged that 2K is a work in progress and that improvements are on the way.
Click to expand...

"Friends don't let friends shoot 2k."
 
George Butterfield said:
As long as you play back and view your movies through the EVF that method should work just fine.
Click to expand...

That's how I watch all my movies XD.

Seriously though, I used to always care about the histogram but I got some advice on here and used it (along with a light meter ofcourse) and I'm loving the results.
Let's me be a little more creative with lighting and it just works for me.
 
Great thread Mohamed - thanks for stepping up. LOT of us newbie-lurkers here reading with great interest!

Stu Aull
S-X #00199
Alaska
 
Wondering how many people expose using RAW view on the monitor and how many are using the new RG3?

It seems to me that if you're exposing using RAW, then when you bring it into RCX and apply the RG3/RED Color 3, it may be then overexposed?
 
Chris McKechnie said:
Wondering how many people expose using RAW view on the monitor and how many are using the new RG3?

It seems to me that if you're exposing using RAW, then when you bring it into RCX and apply the RG3/RED Color 3, it may be then overexposed?
Click to expand...


more and more I find myself referring to the RAW less religiously. In lower key situations I find myself referring back to it more often to just see a base of where the gamma curve is starting to affect my data (ie, comparing the two). I was finding myself in higher key situations, over exposing if i focused too much on the raw.

Now i just use it as a safety net for data. I've found where i like to meter the epic, and thats what I stick to. For me, I find myself trusting my eyes more that way, and getting exposures that I am happier with. If not, I find myself breaking things down into pixels, and obsessing over things that I should not be.

Thats just me though. I tend to be weird that way!
 
I don't really look at the raw view much anymore. I check the "goalposts" on the histogram, mostly to check for raw overexposure. I will occasionally toggle the exposure check to see what is blow out on the raw. I will look at the shadow goalpost as well but often when it shows a lot of unde exposure I have a lot of black information in the frame.

I recently shot some day exteriors that I wanted to make fairly dark and moodier. I exposed them to fill up the histogram while not clipping anything on the raw (using goalpost as a guide ). In dailies grading i graded the footage way down. But I shot a thicker camera original so that I have the most flexibility with secondaries in the DI. most of the tones in the scene will be a stop over key and under in the end result, but I exposed it much brighter while not clipping anything. This is the beauty of the raw workflow. You can take the ISO down in post and get detail back in highlight tones. This is very different than just taking highlights down on the lift gamma gain control. Compare the difference for yourself.
 
Is there any way to calibrate the RED LCD? Like with a Gretag McBeth i1 Display thing? I find that the 5.0 Touchscreen LCD is way to warm compared to footage opened in RCX on my calibrated monitor.
 
I use the RG3/C3 settings on the monitor an will occasionally switch to the RAW view to get a base, like you said. You will notice more o a difference between RAW an RG3 especially when you're shooting in low-light situations, as RAW view ISO changes aren't reflected in the monitor. I expose for the RG3 look, making sure my histogram is in check.
 
Daniel Kunz said:
Is there any way to calibrate the RED LCD? Like with a Gretag McBeth i1 Display thing? I find that the 5.0 Touchscreen LCD is way to warm compared to footage opened in RCX on my calibrated monitor.
Click to expand...

You're recording RAW so there's no point in trying to calibrate the LCD (you can't as it it's propitiatory)... you dial in your look (or colour palette) later in post. Or, you could create a look you are happy with and load that back onto the Epic - so you're seeing the exact colour balances/temps you prefer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top