Truth or .... False Color

[D Fuller]

forget iso... iso is imaginary, i don't think it applies at all. my understanding is that the raw view is simply a map of what the sensor is collecting... no?

as per the histogram/etc, we don't want to forget about the guys throwing out to an external recorder only, but i think the video mode handles that...

Nothing to do with Mark's thread (with which I agree completely) but this has to be corrected.

Paul, ISO is not imaginary at all. The ISO setting on a Red camera is "just metadata", but an ISO number has real meaning for exposure.

ISO is a standard reference for measuring exposure; it is a measure of the assumed sensitivity of the imaging device (sensor or film stock). The fact that for Red cameras, the sensitivity setting (ISO or FLUT) is applied in post (or in the monitoring chain) doesn't matter, ISO is still the working assumption about how sensitive the device is when you calculate exposure. And for those of us who light the things in front of the camera, tools like light meters are important, but can only work if there are standards that allow the measurement to mean something for both the meter and the camera.

 

[Elsie N]

Nothing to do with Mark's thread (with which I agree completely) but this has to be corrected.

Paul, ISO is not imaginary at all. The ISO setting on a Red camera is "just metadata", but an ISO number has real meaning for exposure.

ISO is a standard reference for measuring exposure; it is a measure of the assumed sensitivity of the imaging device (sensor or film stock). The fact that for Red cameras, the sensitivity setting (ISO or FLUT) is applied in post (or in the monitoring chain) doesn't matter, ISO is still the working assumption about how sensitive the device is when you calculate exposure. And for those of us who light the things in front of the camera, tools like light meters are important, but can only work if there are standards that allow the measurement to mean something for both the meter and the camera.

David, do ISO changes have something to do with where 18% gray is located within the dynamic range?

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Nothing to do with Mark's thread (with which I agree completely) but this has to be corrected.

Paul, ISO is not imaginary at all. The ISO setting on a Red camera is "just metadata", but an ISO number has real meaning for exposure.

ISO is a standard reference for measuring exposure; it is a measure of the assumed sensitivity of the imaging device (sensor or film stock). The fact that for Red cameras, the sensitivity setting (ISO or FLUT) is applied in post (or in the monitoring chain) doesn't matter, ISO is still the working assumption about how sensitive the device is when you calculate exposure. And for those of us who light the things in front of the camera, tools like light meters are important, but can only work if there are standards that allow the measurement to mean something for both the meter and the camera.

I think Paul was actually saying to forget it with respect to tools - since you have ISO based exposure tool in VIDEO mode.

And yes - I constantly stress to people that although the ISO setting on the camera does not effect the exposure - 9 times out of 10 - it effects the CHOICE of exposure - either by reactions to the monitor path - or ... by a light meter if used - or by tools like the HISTOGRAM which are downstream from IRE/ISO processing and effected by it.

So ... yeah ... "it's just meta-data" .... but it's usually the meta data that has a heavy hand in your exposure - which is sort of a big deal

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

David, do ISO changes have something to do with where 18% gray is located within the dynamic range?

Yes. Exactly.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

And those tools are under VIDEO MODE in TOOLS right now - NOT when you hit RAW + EXPOSURE.

But to your point - why not have GREEN mapped to middle gray based on ISO - but the RED and PURPLE locked to sensor/RAW like stoplights?

In fact - RED's documentation does not even indicate what green means in EXPOSURE view - as it was not even there previously - it was only RED and PURPLE - GREEN was only in the "VIDEO MODE" - http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/exposure-false-color-zebra-tools

Green was present in the old false color tools dating back to the RED One with build 12 or 13, IIRC. It was middle grey there, but always down-stream of RGB LUT and IRE processing, so it had little bearing on RAW.

Anyway, I totally agree with these suggestions. I find myself using RAW + EXPOSURE quite often and it does tend to confuse clients and instigates a lot of questioning on why the image is so washed out. RAW view is just "Blah" view as far as I'm concerned and feels like an unnecessary step in a process that I've adopted to get the best exposure.

Way back in the early RED ONE days, a bunch of us were always asking for all meters to be applied to sensor limits or data points and not the processed image. Unfortunately, those of us asking seemed like a small minority. Eventually we got some of this, first in the form of the traffic lights and goal posts, but so much else seems to be just lacking. And this problem is even further compounded with Dragon and the available DR in relation to what our monitors can actually display.

Ultimately, I would like the camera to have a "RAW VIEW" but I want it to be a monochrome image that represent hard exposure percentages and limits of the sensor itself. Allow false color overlay on top of this that can be toggled -- as in color spectrum overlays, it needs to work like a hyperspectral system representing the actual acquisition limits of the sensor.


For either mode, I'd almost like my mid-grey point determined by meta-ISO to be represented by zebra. A tricolor false color could be useful as well on the monochrome image where it shows me actual sensor overload and clip and the third color being my mid point and let it float based on ISO. Or make a 4th color that floats based on ISO setting and keep an actual mid representation as well.

 

[David Battistella]

Yes I'm asking for a more ridged system that can be opened up for the seasoned pro who really knows what she/he does. I have my Epic set to 400 ASA, 5600 K, RedColour3, RedGamma3 and use later in post RedlogFilm with mentioned settings. I never change those settings. RedlogFilm is hardly usable for shooting but meaningful for evaluating exposure in high contrast environments.

Hans

Yes. It is a disaster out there for those who have no idea how to use a camera that shoots RAW. Its going to be a problem if you put these cameras into the hands of the novice user who expect results. Not sure how much RED can control or limit that too much. I mean, their camera menus are about the most useful and programable out there, for virtually any situation.

Shoot flat, grade later.

I never put a curve on. I can upload my shooting MetaData settings here for anyone to use.

RG3/RC3
ISO320 to 800
5000Kelvin
Saturation 1.2
Contrast .02

That's it. The only think I will ever move is the ISO. I don't want the final grade in the monitor. I want a "reasonable image". That's it.

Sure, there could be a "rookie button", but then those are the people that will tell you they want to shoot in darkness and light everything with a single 20 watt light bulb and then say, "Hey the canon is better in Low Light." Red can't chase those dicks, they will be pulling their hair out.

Battistella

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

David, do ISO changes have something to do with where 18% gray is located within the dynamic range?

Very good request!...

....This issue leads to the conclusion that regardless of endless threads and years of teaching Red's approach is too complicated for the majority of users. Things have to be much more easier.

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

Elsie I'm sure you know your stuff well. But all this ISO business does confuse people unnecessarily and puts even seasoned redusers a question-mark on their face. No wonder. In ancient times we could chose different stocks with different sensitivity (ISO) and used them for their supposed purposes. Now we have a sensor with an assumed sensitivity, the infamous "sweet spot", and a variety of ISOs to choose from. In the case of Epic we can chose from ISO 200 to ISO 3.200 (don't know the exact numbers in the moment). Red says, the "best" ISO is 800 for the MX. I for my part find 800 too much on the noisy side and prefer a stop less, ISO 400. If your ask Red what they think is the "real" ISO, they say ISO 320. Now if you take your light meter and choose 800 in the camera's menu you will experience new insights of ISOs in the digital world. The ISOs in the menu hardly cope with the ISOs that your meter spits out. Hardly any match to achieve. In the very most case the ISO in the light meter is half a stop lower than the selected ISO in the camera. Marketing?

Now wonder many people are confused.

Make ist easier and less prone to errors.

Hans

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

That's it. The only think I will ever move is the ISO. I don't want the final grade in the monitor. I want a "reasonable image". That's it.

Sure, there could be a "rookie button", but then those are the people that will tell you they want to shoot in darkness and light everything with a single 20 watt light bulb and then say, "Hey the canon is better in Low Light." Red can't chase those dicks, they will be pulling their hair out.

Battistella

Haha!

Hans

 

[Mike Harrington]

Wow...thanks for bringing this up Mark....

Not to get off topic, but while we are suggesting change....perhaps this may be a good path to avoid confusion and rework the displays.....

Tools should display a RELATIVE and ABSOLUTE mode....

Relative would be downstream....and would indicate clippings and even middle gray in the relative color space and ISO.
Although not a concern for film production as much....this would be vital for live SDI to a switcher...or those recording ProRes proxies.

Absolute....would be just that....actual sensor values upstream of any ISO or color space.

That way with a button push we could toggle between seeing the exposure in our intended output, say RG3 ISO 800, and seeing the exposure the way it is actually hitting the sensor, without having to change our veiw mode.....as the RAW monitor output is of very little use.

Edit: just to be clear...I am only talking about the tools here...not actual display....mainly just exposure tool...not sure false color would benefit from a linear non gamma encoded representation.

 

[David Battistella]

The ISOs in the menu hardly cope with the ISOs that your meter spits out. Hardly any match to achieve. In the very most case the ISO in the light meter is half a stop lower than the selected ISO in the camera. Marketing?

Now wonder many people are confused.

Make ist easier and less prone to errors.

Hans

But at the same time Hans I don't want ISO baked in.

Mark is right, we need an Operator Signal (i like Jeff's monochrome idea a lot), as it's second only to ground glass for composition. And we need a Monitor path that can be tweaked up for the clients and the monitor and the dailies etc.

At the Camera ---- DP wants to know what is hitting the sensor (i hope)
At the monitor ---- Client wants a pretty close to sexy finished look

Mark's suggestion is excellent.

-False color only reads sensor data when activated (ignores all other user meta) and never shows up on the "client stream" (But only ONE HD-SHI out of the camera BRAIN!!!)


But i don't think you need to kill RAW view to do this. I like RAW view. It also always reminds people RED shoots RAW all the time. Everyone else has adopted the word LOG, for their "crappy" view. RED has always used RAW, I don't see why that part of things should change.

Battistella

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

But at the same time Hans I don't want ISO baked in.

Mark is right, we need an Operator Signal (i like Jeff's monochrome idea a lot), as it's second only to ground glass for composition. And we need a Monitor path that can be tweaked up for the clients and the monitor and the dailies etc.

At the Camera ---- DP wants to know what is hitting the sensor (i hope)
At the monitor ---- Client wants a pretty close to sexy finished look

Mark's suggestion is excellent.

-False color only reads sensor data when activated (ignores all other user meta) and never shows up on the "client stream" (But only ONE HD-SHI out of the camera BRAIN!!!)


But i don't think you need to kill RAW view to do this. I like RAW view. It also always reminds people RED shoots RAW all the time. Everyone else has adopted the word LOG, for their "crappy" view. RED has always used RAW, I don't see why that part of things should change.

Battistella

I never thought of killing RAW and use instead RGB with baked in ISOs. On the contrary, the compressed RAW system is a vital part of Red's uniqueness. But you can keep it simple. Just use a 2 stop spread in ISO settings. In MX world put ISO 500 in the middle, 320 in the front and ISO 800 to the end. Don't let the user screw up things with tint, curves, contrast etc. RedGamma 1,2,3 4 and countless colour sciences. Let him chose from Rec709 and Log. Make Mark's idea happen and let the exposure tools only deal with the "native" sensitivity. ISO 320 and log gamma is basically the RAW View. Kill the RAW view. The world RAW in a viewing context makes the user wonder what RAW actually is opposed to the non-raw views available. Haha, a sputtering source of confusion. All these nomenclatures in the Red world do not really reduce misconceptions. And there are trillions of misunderstandings, myths and confusion out there.

Hans

 

[paulherrin]

Or make a 4th color that floats based on ISO setting and keep an actual mid representation as well.

i don't know how you get an 'actual' mid representation without applying some kind of LUT (redlogfilm/redgamma/etc)...
i think linking it to processing is the only way to determine where 18% is

 

[Elsie N]

Elsie I'm sure you know your stuff well. But all this ISO business does confuse people unnecessarily and puts even seasoned redusers a question-mark on their face. No wonder. In ancient times we could chose different stocks with different sensitivity (ISO) and used them for their supposed purposes. Now we have a sensor with an assumed sensitivity, the infamous "sweet spot", and a variety of ISOs to choose from. In the case of Epic we can chose from ISO 200 to ISO 3.200 (don't know the exact numbers in the moment). Red says, the "best" ISO is 800 for the MX. I for my part find 800 too much on the noisy side and prefer a stop less, ISO 400. If your ask Red what they think is the "real" ISO, they say ISO 320. Now if you take your light meter and choose 800 in the camera's menu you will experience new insights of ISOs in the digital world. The ISOs in the menu hardly cope with the ISOs that your meter spits out. Hardly any match to achieve. In the very most case the ISO in the light meter is half a stop lower than the selected ISO in the camera. Marketing?

Now wonder many people are confused.

Make ist easier and less prone to errors.

Hans

Au contraire, Hans (to knowing my stuff well '-). I'll forever be the student.

And unlike some years ago when I changed all my keyboards to Dvorak from Querty, I don't have to un-learn how to shoot film or more precisely, learn to correlate film shooting with digital shooting. Having only used point and shoot film cameras, the digital realm is become my first in-depth experience with shooting technique.

I've said on Reduser before that I think shooting RED-determined defaults and exposing to the right will give me 95% of what the camera is capable of. And 95% of a Dragon probably equates to 150% of what other frontline cameras can do... more if you include value. And using those default settings are my "rookie button" and I can get good images out of that.

Still, I'm glad the camera is capable of getting that other 5% worth of image, and threads like this lead me to believe it is worth spending the extra time learning the hardest part of the shooting experience to achieve part, probably not all, of that extra 5%.

Explanations like yours help those of us not well versed in the vernacular to grasp the concept more readily. Not asking the forum to dumb it down. Just keep the conversation going and those of us watching on the sidelines will figure it out.

 

[David Battistella]

I never thought of killing RAW and use instead RGB with baked in ISOs. On the contrary, the compressed RAW system is a vital part of Red's uniqueness. But you can keep it simple. Just use a 2 stop spread in ISO settings. In MX world put ISO 500 in the middle, 320 in the front and ISO 800 to the end. Don't let the user screw up things with tint, curves, contrast etc. RedGamma 1,2,3 4 and countless colour sciences. Let him chose from Rec709 and Log. Make Mark's idea happen and let the exposure tools only deal with the "native" sensitivity. ISO 320 and log gamma is basically the RAW View. Kill the RAW view. The world RAW in a viewing context makes the user wonder what RAW actually is opposed to the non-raw views available. Haha, a sputtering source of confusion. All these nomenclatures in the Red world do not really reduce misconceptions. And there are trillions of misunderstandings, myths and confusion out there.

Hans

I suggested limiting ISO in camera and Mark almost chopped my balls off.

But it's not a bad idea for those guys who show up with a 4.0-8 18-300 zoom and say, "hey no problem, just jack up the ISO to 3200, it's A ok"

I think you could in MX go from 320-1600, any more than that and you need to adjust in RCX and go buy a copy of NEAT VIDEO. I've been in lo-light no light, at some point you need an effing light! And that is ok, no camera is a miracle camera and this game we are in is all about the light! Going back to the RED M sensor in the RED one. you need to smash a lot of light onto these sensors (preferably 5600K light) to get some solid images. Even stuff shot in the dark is lit and theta is what some people just don't understand/

Battistella

 

[Mike Harrington]

i don't know how you get an 'actual' mid representation without applying some kind of LUT (redlogfilm/redgamma/etc)...
i think linking it to processing is the only way to determine where 18% is

18% gray is the linear value of 50% grey gamma encoded is it not?

 

[David Battistella]

Kabang!

Agreed.

Battistella

Nothing to do with Mark's thread (with which I agree completely) but this has to be corrected.

Paul, ISO is not imaginary at all. The ISO setting on a Red camera is "just metadata", but an ISO number has real meaning for exposure.

ISO is a standard reference for measuring exposure; it is a measure of the assumed sensitivity of the imaging device (sensor or film stock). The fact that for Red cameras, the sensitivity setting (ISO or FLUT) is applied in post (or in the monitoring chain) doesn't matter, ISO is still the working assumption about how sensitive the device is when you calculate exposure. And for those of us who light the things in front of the camera, tools like light meters are important, but can only work if there are standards that allow the measurement to mean something for both the meter and the camera.

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

At the Camera ---- DP wants to know what is hitting the sensor (i hope)
At the monitor ---- Client wants a pretty close to sexy finished look

David, the video in the video village has always been a rough picture of that what later will be achieved when post production is done. I know, times changed and the good old video-tap must now look like dailies. IMHO, RedGamma3 is fully sufficient at least when you set-up the client's monitor with additional contrast and saturation with the monitor's own controls.

RedGamma3 gives the operator a good idea what the contrast will look like later in post but allows for a good evaluation of the highlights and lows with the therapeutic understanding that there will be a stop or so more information when developing later to log (at least when shooting ISO 400).

IMHO, there is nothing else needed for safe exposing and happy clients.

I never use RedLogFilm for shooting, nor do I ever use RAW View. But then I don't use funky ISO settings beyond ISO 320 and ISO 800 or curves, tint and whatnot.

Hans

 

[David Battistella]

Whenever you come to Florence,

We go have a nice big fat steak and talk about this stuff!

Battistella

David, the video in the video village has always been a rough picture of that what later will be achieved when post production is done. I know, times changed and the good old video-tap must now look like dailies. IMHO, RedGamma3 is fully sufficient at least when you set-up the client's monitor with additional contrast and saturation with the monitor's own controls.

RedGamma3 gives the operator a good idea what the contrast will look like later in post but allows for a good evaluation of the highlights and lows with the therapeutic understanding that there will be a stop or so more information when developing later to log (at least when shooting ISO 400).

IMHO, there is nothing else needed for safe exposing and happy clients.

I never use RedLogFilm for shooting, nor do I ever use RAW View. But then I don't use funky ISO settings beyond ISO 320 and ISO 800 or curves, tint and whatnot.

Hans

 

[Marcus Struzina]

Thanks Mark for uncovering this, maybe a short term work around is to set one of the preset buttons (I've tried s-ssd user 1) to switch the press setting to Exposure check toggle, with the release setting to Raw check toggle, this achieves in one button press a solution to the problem.
Sorry if this has already been mentioned, this thread got long fast.
Of course I agree it would be better if the exposure check mode was just permanently in RAW as you recommend.

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

Nothing to do with Mark's thread (with which I agree completely) but this has to be corrected.

Paul, ISO is not imaginary at all. The ISO setting on a Red camera is "just metadata", but an ISO number has real meaning for exposure.

It has a lot to do with this thread. Mark makes a valid point regarding the missing logical structure of exposure tools including dismissal of the "RAW View" with its misleading nomenclature. Having this straight will help to avoid misunderstandings how the Epic works.

Nonetheless, I don't think that people will be alarmed by a thin histogram when the picture looks bright and shiny on their 5" monitor while shooting at ISO 3200 with bulb and a match lighting-up a cigar. Don't let them shoot with unrealistic high ISO numbers no professional would ever use. Epic is not the 5D and does not need their "numbers" to compete in the market.

Hans