Truth or .... False Color

[Mark L. Pederson]

I am totally getting the discussion about exposure tools.

Let et me explain.

At iso320 raw view all the exposure tools give you an idea of light hitting the sensor. (Known value)

Is that correct?

No.

On the MX sensor - when you rate to ISO 320 - and you look at FALSE COLOR via EXPOSURE tool - you will NOT get the same "known values" as when you switch to RAW VIEW and look at FALSE COLOR via EXPOSURE tool. When you do that - you get "what's really going on"

Which is why I said that it is NOT CORRECT to say that RAW VIEW is based on 320ISO - the tools are NOT. Only the RGB representation.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

No.

On the MX sensor - when you rate to ISO 320 - and you look at FALSE COLOR via EXPOSURE tool - you will NOT get the same "known values" as when you switch to RAW VIEW and look at FALSE COLOR via EXPOSURE tool. When you do that - you get "what's really going on"

Which is why I said that it is NOT CORRECT to say that RAW VIEW is based on 320ISO - the tools are NOT. Only the RGB representation.

Which is true because Matrix, WhiteBallance, ISO, general fiddeling with saturation/gain/color/LUTs/LOOKS all affect the image (and thus the metering) unless you view RAW.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Possibly this is a bug that came in when the green colour was added to Exposure Overlay. My memory (which could of course be completely wrong) is that originally the purple and red overlays were RAW based as advertised.

That's logical - but as far as I remember - RAW view has been the ONLY way I could get the tool to work correctly - and for the longest time I have been begging and posting for the ability to have RAW view on the LCD and RG3 or RedLog out the monitor path - until a light bulb went off in my head after someone suggested to me that RAW view should just go away as it causes so much confusion - and I realized - all RED needs to do is make the EXPOSURE tool work independent from ISO - huge bonus if GREEN is actually tied to ISO/18% grey - and then EVERYONE would be happy because - IF you want to use IRE/ISO based tools - you can go into VIDEO mode.

The plot certainly thickens now that I see that the description in the HELP actually says it does exactly what I want it to do ... but it doesn't ....

So ... let's hope it's a BUG and the next firmware addresses it - and I can delete this whole thread and start a new one about how awesome False Color can be

 

[Bob Gundu]

Perhaps the technical problem is that even the RAW view is still just a gamma curve to give a reasonable representation of what the sensor is seeing. Unless it's a bug, is there technical barriers with how the camera is hard wired that this exposure tool cannot function as needed? Perhaps Greame can chime in here for clarification.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Which is true because Matrix, WhiteBallance, ISO, general fiddeling with saturation/gain/color/LUTs/LOOKS all affect the image (and thus the metering) unless you view RAW.

And not to derail the thread - but of course we need a LOG view out the monitor path that is REDlogfilm that is NOT effected by any meta - for CDL & 3D LUT workflows.

But I'll save that fight for another day

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

My suggestion is that there are two type of menus. One called Standard and one called Pro. The Pro contains all the bells and whistles available and thus is complicated like the one we have now. It ist recommended for S3D usage, multi cam, LUTs etc....

Glad someone else agrees. Suggested this notion few times over the years.
I don't agree with the naming convention but principle is the same.

if someone can't drive in F1 they move to F2 or F3. If you can't drive you hit the wall. If you don't know the car, that is not reds problem. It's a professional tool, not a handy cam. Some want it basic, some want all the tools.

Next problem becomes, "well I had it in basic mode and my picture still look like shit" well, the pictures look like shit because you have been using cameras that compensate for a lazy lack of talent. Red is not a complicated camera, it's actually an honest camera. Many students blew a few hundred feet of film because of lack of knowledge, not because the film was no good. That's good, that's a learning process.

Red should not not be holding peoples hands so that everyone loves them. I think it's laid out pretty well now, based on a lot of user input from the start.

battistella

I propose considering these occurences:

- When fiddling through menus needlesly complicates shooting process
- When staring at camera's false color and stoplights prevents or limits the shooter thinking about the real color and lights, allowing him to rely on these tools.

I would say that simplified menu option would not make camera less capable, quite the contrary, it would make it more practical in many scenarios and it would enable less dependency on additional camera aid and computerized approach to image capture. Which helps the shooter develop his skills.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Perhaps the technical problem is that even the RAW view is still just a gamma curve to give a reasonable representation of what the sensor is seeing. Unless it's a bug, is there technical barriers with how the camera is hard wired that this exposure tool cannot function as needed? Perhaps Greame can chime in here for clarification.

I am very sure there is no technical barriers - because the values are calculated and displayed over a given image - so they can get the same calculation and just display over a different image. And they are always calculated for goal posts and stop lights.

 

[Maz Mawlawi]

That's logical - but as far as I remember - RAW view has been the ONLY way I could get the tool to work correctly - and for the longest time I have been begging and posting for the ability to have RAW view on the LCD and RG3 or RedLog out the monitor path - until a light bulb went off in my head after someone suggested to me that RAW view should just go away as it causes so much confusion - and I realized - all RED needs to do is make the EXPOSURE tool work independent from ISO - huge bonus if GREEN is actually tied to ISO/18% grey - and then EVERYONE would be happy because - IF you want to use IRE/ISO based tools - you can go into VIDEO mode.

The plot certainly thickens now that I see that the description in the HELP actually says it does exactly what I want it to do ... but it doesn't ....

So ... let's hope it's a BUG and the next firmware addresses it - and I can delete this whole thread and start a new one about how awesome False Color can be

Agreed. There was a time when this used to work the way you want it Mark. The purple and red were never affected by ISO and relied entirely on the RAW sensor...I can confirm it is indeed now broken and no longer work this way. Has someone contacted RED directly about this?

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Agreed. There was a time when this used to work the way you want it Mark. The purple and red were never affected by ISO and relied entirely on the RAW sensor...I can confirm it is indeed now broken and no longer work this way. Has someone contacted RED directly about this?

Yes, I have contacted RED about this over many months, and even posted here on RU about the issue - and I make a huge effort at Reducation to make sure people know exactly what the tools do and how to use them - but like general confusion over Black Shading - I felt like it was time to blow this thing up in a thread - so at least everyone is aware of the issue and workarounds/hacks - hopefully this thread gets the right persons attention. After all ... we are talking about exposure.

 

[David Battistella]

Hans,

The ferrari analogy was more surrounding the fact that they tend to need professional drivers, who aren't nessesarily nerds but do know how to drive, like any good DP knows their tools.

i agree with you on many points, but to this point, to really understand red one had to study it deeply as an imaging device.

Ultimately, my own personal methods are simple.

1. Leave it at 320 to 800 ISO depending on the scene circumstances.
2. Use RAW view and histogram and goal posts to judge exposure.
3. Use 1/8 blue filtration on all tungsten only and some mixed lighting scenes.
4. Treat it like film and know which scenes you can push/pull based on your noise threshold preference.

Ultimately, these things can be completely over complicated by offering a wide range of exposures in camera, by electronic exposure checkers that don't work on the basic exposure value of the camera.

with Alexa ISO is baked in and the camera does some stuff internally to compensate based on that setting, it does a few things for you if you switch to 1600 ISO and bakes that in. With red you could shoot the same scene at. 1600iso and then process it at 320iso with curves. Either way, with film or red, or Alexa, you have to know you basics.

So Red is a more flexible system, more to tinker with.

So what you are asking for is a bit more rigid system to make it easier and more accessible to more people?

Battistella

INHO, the biggest obstacle Dragon has to face is an easy access for all those folks who are not F1 driver but very good chauffeurs of luxury sedans that carry demanding clients. Please read some lines in one of the endless "exposure" threads popping up every here and then. They all show that even seasoned user oftentimes don't really understand what is going on when shooting with a Red Epic.

Regarding learning process: In 2010 I shot my last roll if 35mm. I started shooting digital in 2008 on my RedOne; it took me some time to understand the route Red wants be to go. I know Alexa and some other cameras. They are all different and need all a deeper reading of the guide-book. If there was a standardised method life would be so much easier. In this regard film was as easy as it gets. Red invented the area of digitale film acquisition but Arri made it accessible to the seasoned DPs.

Red should take their leadership back. DR and resolution is one thing, easy access the other vital part. Frankly, Red's menu works for the adept well, not so much for the non-owner/DP who has to rely on the knowledge of DITs and third parties. This was very different in the age of film.

The easier the access is the more people rent the Dragon or buy it for them selfs. Marks's comments are good comments and a helpful step in the right direction but I guess for KISS' sake Red should investigate much deeper how things could be simplified.

Hans

 

[David Battistella]

Which is true because Matrix, WhiteBallance, ISO, general fiddeling with saturation/gain/color/LUTs/LOOKS all affect the image (and thus the metering) unless you view RAW.

ok. I'm curious, So what ISO is raw view?

 

[David Battistella]

But but I am genuinely looking for what is correct. If I asked you,, what ISO Is raw view showing me? What would the answer be?

Battistella

No.

On the MX sensor - when you rate to ISO 320 - and you look at FALSE COLOR via EXPOSURE tool - you will NOT get the same "known values" as when you switch to RAW VIEW and look at FALSE COLOR via EXPOSURE tool. When you do that - you get "what's really going on"

Which is why I said that it is NOT CORRECT to say that RAW VIEW is based on 320ISO - the tools are NOT. Only the RGB representation.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

ok. I'm curious, So what ISO is raw view?

It is 320 (as you have stated) but less fiddeling with all the other above mentioned parameters by RED or the operator...

Thus the metering looks different in raw-view, than 320/RG3/WB3200...

 

[David Battistella]

It is 320 (as you have stated) but less fiddeling with all the other above mentioned parameters by RED or the operator...

Thus the metering looks different in raw-view, than 320/RG3/WB3200...

you know we are all actually on the same page with all of this.

so the solution is to have all the exposure tools represent what raw view sees, without ever having to switch to RAW view or perhaps by eliminating RAW view altogether?

Thats it?

If that's it, I'm all for it all of it as long as I know the base ISO.

battistella

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

But but I am genuinely looking for what is correct. If I asked you,, what ISO Is raw view showing me? What would the answer be?

Battistella

I would tell you that on MX sensor - RAW view is close to 320 - but mapped very differently in the highlights - just toggle between the two on a scope - VERY different. NOT the same.

It is an RGB representation that I strongly suspect was based on a method for matching M sensors and MX sensors. It AIN'T "RAW" - and ALL tools in this view are NOT based on 320.

 

[Scott Crawley]

If the false color overlay is inaccurate in a given color space I agree that needs to be addressed, but having analysis tools that reflect RAW data displayed with an RGB image would be less correct and more confusing for everyone IMHO.

If you find it difficult to reassure a client RE the exposure choices now, imagine how difficult it would be when you have to explain that the histogram they are looking at is not actually representative of the image they are looking at. It would have the effect of pulling the rug out from under them as well as yourself. As it is now, at least you can flip over to RAW to assure the client that there is headroom in the negative.

 

[Jake Wilganowski]

So WTF. Yes, I remember it working correctly in the past for sure, when did it change?!! Do you know Mark? I'm realizing the past couple of jobs it may not have been working correctly. This is kind of a HUGE DEAL. Red needs to publically address this IMMEDIATELY. When one of the best tools to judge noise and clipping is wildly inaccurate this is unacceptable. WTF, really.

 

[Trent Lillehaugen]

The intention is that the red and purple bands in Exposure tool act on the RAW data. However, without getting into details, there are some limitations and this will not always be perfect (especially when monitoring at extremely low/high ISOs, etc). We will run through more tests here to see if the current behavior needs to be corrected.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

If the false color overlay is inaccurate in a given color space I agree that needs to be addressed, but having analysis tools that reflect RAW data displayed with an RGB image would be less correct and more confusing for everyone IMHO.

I disagree 1000% percent.

Having an exposure tool that reflects sensor/raw clip and noise/floor would reassure anyone.

Please explain what method you use now to "reassure a client RE the exposure choices now"?

What I am suggesting - the ability to show your client or not show them - the Exposure Tool over the image they are looking at - does exactly the same as "at least you can flip over to RAW to assure the client that there is headroom in the negative." - without having to disrupt anyone with the ugly ass RAW RGB representation.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

The intention is that the red and purple bands in Exposure tool act on the RAW data. However, without getting into details, there are some limitations and this will not always be perfect (especially when monitoring at extremely low/high ISOs, etc). We will run through more tests here to see if the current behavior needs to be corrected.

Great news Trent!

FYI - In all my tests - I can't get it to behave even at middle ISOs. MX or Dragon.