Truth or .... False Color

[Detlev Eller]

VERY excited to test this

PS - don't be afraid to remove RAW view all together if the fix is solid - here's a perfect example of issues/confusion with RLF > http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?113798-RAW-vs-Red-Log-Film

... the reason for some being confused should not be reason to remove it all together ... that´s like throwing out the baby with the bath ...

I for one, like to look at raw ...

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

... the reason for some being confused should not be reason to remove it all together ... that´s like throwing out the baby with the bath ...

I for one, like to look at raw ...

Okay - can you tell me WHY you like to look at RAW?

What does it do for you, specifically? What do you gain from looking at it vs. RLF, etc.?

Not challenging you - just want to know why some people want it - as I'm not convinced that most people even understands what they are looking at when they view "RAW" mode - and that's really why I want it gone -

I'd like someone to demonstrate it's value -

 

[Nick Morrison]

We should have a fix for it shortly. We are testing now.

Much kudos to Trent and the RED team for acting on this thread, and working on a fix! Much kudos also to Mark for his perseverance, and willingness to champion this much needed correction!

Having just waded through this entire thread, I have to say it's an invaluable read.

I tend to play it safe and always shoot at 320 and trust my stoplights, but honestly...that's as far as I go (I trust my histogram at 320, but not at 800). I'd love a more accurate way to monitor what's clipping, in a way that doesn't affect client monitor path (ie if they can keep watching client friendly RG3/RC3) while my DP and I have additional tools at the camera.

Thanks again to everyone who's contributed to this lively conversation...another reminder why I like Reduser so much.

best

 

[Detlev Eller]

... the reason for some being confused should not be reason to remove it all together ... that´s like throwing out the baby with the bath ...

I for one, like to look at raw ...

VERY excited to test this

PS - don't be afraid to remove RAW view all together if the fix is solid - here's a perfect example of issues/confusion with RLF > http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?113798-RAW-vs-Red-Log-Film

Okay - can you tell me WHY you like to look at RAW?

What does it do for you, specifically? What do you gain from looking at it vs. RLF, etc.?

Not challenging you - just want to know why some people want it - as I'm not convinced that most people even understands what they are looking at when they view "RAW" mode - and that's really why I want it gone -

I'd like someone to demonstrate it's value -

... sure, Mark ...

i take it, that RAW view is the closest to pure, clean data feedback i can get ... since the histogram changes depending on the settings, I like it to represent the distribution of light @ RAW ...
everything else, for me, is post ...

I capture for post.

... i may be wrong with my assumption and happy to learn about different ways, i also like to simplify and i am not anal about many things and i certainly do not have done a complete study of all options and it´s effects on workflow and efficiency ... but my hunch is, RAW mode gives me what i like to see ... and it is like "stable" ... an unaltered bias to learn about the nuances and nature of the camera ....

does that makes sense?



cheers,
Detlev


Edit (Added):

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?113711-extended-magic-hour-dragon-berlin/page5

 

[Nick Morrison]

I have one question. We've been talking a lot about adjusting your DR...that it's a workable "range" you can slide up into the highlights, or down into the blacks if you need it.

So If you want to protect your blacks at night, maybe shoot at lower ISO (240/360). Or if you want to protect your highlights (in bright sun), shoot much higher...say 1200 ISO.

What's the best way to MONITOR for this?

What I mean is...if exposure check is set to RAW, how can we then see what happens if we decide to move our range UP to say 2000iso?

Is the best way to see how this affects highlights by simply MONITORING in 2000iso on set?

And then checking RAW exposure at same time to make sure nothing is clipping?

Just love to know more about how to check RAW, but also move the DR range up and down (at a same time), and how these coexist.

Thanks!!

 

[Detlev Eller]

I have one question. We've been talking a lot about adjusting your DR...that it's a workable "range" you can slide up into the highlights, or down into the blacks if you need it.

So If you want to protect your blacks at night, maybe shoot at lower ISO (240/360). Or if you want to protect your highlights (in bright sun), shoot much higher...say 1200 ISO.

What's the best way to MONITOR for this?

What I mean is...if exposure check is set to RAW, how can we then see what happens if we decide to move our range UP to say 2000iso?

Is the best way to see how this affects highlights by simply MONITORING in 2000iso on set?

And then checking RAW exposure at same time to make sure nothing is clipping?

Just love to know more about how to check RAW, but also move the DR range up and down (at a same time), and how these coexist.

Thanks!!

... as i see and use it, ISO does not matter. the higher the ISO dialed in (in CAM / in RCX), the higher the noise.
Doing it in camera just gives an approximation of what to expect. Same with dialing in different color spaces and so on ...

i try to stick at 250 as long as i can.

... when shooting docu style late or at night, i know there will be noise in parts of the image, the decision is if the motive is worth having even with the noise and do whatever to improve the image in post processing.
In order to see anything, of course one has to dial in a higher ISO .... ISO at shooting time is just a way to alter the signal that ends up on the monitor. RAW is what is recorded. (as we all know)

ISO at RCX / post time ... is the balance between brightness and noise ... again, better keeping it as low as possible. it´s choice, though.

regarding the protection part, to protect the black, i leave a bit of head room on the right side of the histogram - to protect the highlights .... i leave it on right. (doh). I just wrote this for the sake of completeness.

I DO NOT see any version of the histogram as a mathematically correct representation of what data there is in the image.
I look at it more like a pilot looks at the altimeter ... which never shows the absolute correct vertical position aka height above sea level, but a good enough estimation of same to be safe ...

(note: altimeters are based on pressure which changes, as long as everyone in the same air space has dialed in more or less the same pressure from ATC, all works fine)


I never use false color for exposure. just the histogram. seems to work just fine ...


To me, the correct term to describe the histogram in cam would probably be a "trend" rather then a measurement.
So, different settings (RLF/RC3/RAW) are just different views to the same data - with the pleasant option to dial in the preferred color space - with RAW supposedly being the most neutral representation of distribution as well as intensity of light hitting the sensor.


in my view, the final distribution or emphasis on blacks or whites or both is done in adjusting the inner relation of the curve - in post - as long as the important areas do not clip aka have head room @ shoot.

shooting into the sun, i move the bulk of data (the mountain for lack of better word) as far left as i need to feel safe .... and so on ....

I move "the mountain" where i expect to work out the image - in post. since curves do effectively stretch data in parts of the distribution to compress them in others ... curves usually work better, the more data there is ... so, i juice up the most important part of the image ...


not sure if all this helps - or just adds to the confusion of some ...
but to sum it up:

thinking of:
trends - not absolutes.

+ the final image is created in post, not in camera.

... may help.



cheers & happy shooting,
Detlev



P.S. ... and then, i may be all wrong and don´t know what i am talking about or miss nomenclature, concpepts or procedures that are widely used ... i usually do not pay attention to these, i simplify ...

 

[Nick Morrison]

Detlev that all makes sense, but there is this interesting conversation going on right now about exposing at lower ISO's at night (ie letting highlights blow out more, because there is so little light anyway, and yet feeding your blacks as much light as possible). And exposing at very high ISO's during extreme daylight (to give more range to highlights, and starving the few shadows in frame as there's so few of them anyway). This idea of "shifting your DR" up and down is fascinating to me, but I'm not really sure how to MONITOR for it, or PREDICT what will happen accurately.

I totally get using all your RAW exposure tools. But not sure how to use a RAW 320 ISO, and then expose at 2000 ISO in the hot desert? That's what I'm trying to figure out.

I guess you trust your RAW exposure tools! And then MONITOR at your chosen ISO to get a sense of what it will LOOK like in post?

I pretty much get it. But hearing it from others is always welcome and useful!!

 

[ericyoung]

I want to keep RAW view if only to be able to strip away all metadata as a diagnostic tool. When my Epic lost black calibration memory, it was useful to know that the problem was a "real" fault and not metadata based. Similarly with the recent Motion Mount white balance problem. Being able to look at the image without applied metadata at least tells you that you are capturing a gradable image even if metadata is screwed. I may not use it often, but when I do, it's very useful!!

 

[Michael Tiemann]

Detlev that all makes sense, but there is this interesting conversation going on right now about exposing at lower ISO's at night (ie letting highlights blow out more, because there is so little light anyway, and yet feeding your blacks as much light as possible). And exposing at very high ISO's during extreme daylight (to give more range to highlights, and starving the few shadows in frame as there's so few of them anyway). This idea of "shifting your DR" up and down is fascinating to me, but I'm not really sure how to MONITOR for it, or PREDICT what will happen accurately.

I totally get using all your RAW exposure tools. But not sure how to use a RAW 320 ISO, and then expose at 2000 ISO in the hot desert? That's what I'm trying to figure out.

I guess you trust your RAW exposure tools! And then MONITOR at your chosen ISO to get a sense of what it will LOOK like in post?

I pretty much get it. But hearing it from others is always welcome and useful!!

I think you are confusing two issues. The reason for shifting the ISO in this counter-intuitive way is to prevent being tricked by ISO into making bad choices for RAW. Any schlub can walk into a dark room, crank the ISO up to 12800, see something that looks like black, white, and mid-tone gray and say "I'm a hero!" But when they hand off the image, the RAW is going to look like crap because the sensor was starved for light. By lowering the ISO in a dark environment and then exposing properly for that, you will really be sure to give the sensor the light it needs. Similarly, if you are in a super-bright environment, any schlub can lower the ISO down, open up the aperture for that "shallow DOF look", and then hand off an image that has really hammered the highlights. By raising the ISO in a bright environment and then exposing properly for that, the highlights will be well-protected, which is important because in a bright environment presumably the highlights is where the detail is supposed to be.

The RAW exposure tool can show you where in your image you are either starving the sensor too much or blowing it out too much. Any schlub can try to protect their image from the absolute damage of one extreme or the other, but the poor guys in post want to have lots of room to move where the real information of the image is supposed to lie. If the image is overall dark, they want lots of details in the darks. If the image is overall bright, they want lots of details in the brights. The RAW tool will tell you "all is well" outside the purples and the reds, and that may not be enough information to decide precisely how you want to land your exposure.

The wisdom that seems to be developing, which agrees with my own (albeit short) experience is to expose at ISO 320-400 for dark environments (naturally lit interiors with small practicals), ISO 500-800 for medium environments (interiors with many kW of lighting, normal exteriors), and ISO 1000-2000 for bright environments (beach, sand, etc). That will minimize noise in the darks and provide the greatest range of play for the medium and bright scenarios. The question of monitoring, then, becomes a question of focusing on the correct range of exposure of your scene within the exposure parameters you have set (ISO, shutter speed/angle, aperture).

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

I want to keep RAW view if only to be able to strip away all metadata as a diagnostic tool. When my Epic lost black calibration memory, it was useful to know that the problem was a "real" fault and not metadata based. Similarly with the recent Motion Mount white balance problem. Being able to look at the image without applied metadata at least tells you that you are capturing a gradable image even if metadata is screwed. I may not use it often, but when I do, it's very useful!!

100% Valid.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

I guess you trust your RAW exposure tools! And then MONITOR at your chosen ISO to get a sense of what it will LOOK like in post?

I pretty much get it. But hearing it from others is always welcome and useful!!

Bingo.

And that is exactly what you will be able to do with EXPOSURE tool, even when NOT in RAW view mode - when current firmware bug bug is fixed.

With the exception of the histogram - which is always tied to the ISO when not in RAW view. And technically, it IS IRE based even when in RAW view - it's just fixed.

 

[nigelsmith]

Nigel - please elaborate specifically please.

Apologies - I was mistaken in claiming that the traffic lights are also affected by ISO.
that's what it look liked to me last week but I guess I had the camera resting on my leg to point it at the studio lights, and somehow must have changed angle of view while I was adjusting the ISO.
I have just tested this again and can confirm that the traffic lights are operating outside of ISO.
Sorry for any confusion, and thanks to you for starting this thread and raising this serious bug.
Here's hoping we get a fix for this soon [and the option of losing green in 'false exposure' mode too?]

 

[George A.]

I think this might just be a BUG/ERROR/OVERSIGHT on RED's part - since the description that Trent from RED posted in this thread from the HELP menu is EXACTLY what I want.

Pretty sure I'm not insane and it only works correctly in RAW mode. Anyone have a camera handy?

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.

UPDATE on the whole EXPOSURE meter not working as advertised when not in RAW view (the way I want it to work in post #1) -

I have re-tested and verified with an engineer at RED that was it was working almost perfectly in the last 4.0 firmware builds released - but it does NOT work correctly in any of the 5.0 firmware builds outside of RAW view - RED is taking this very seriously and working towards a fix.

It DOES work perfectly in RAW view in all the 5.0 firmware builds.

We should have a fix for it shortly. We are testing now.

Hi!

It seems this particular issue has not been fixed yet (judging from the latest beta build).

Is RED still working on a fix? Looking forward to a solution!

George

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Hi!

It seems this particular issue has not been fixed yet (judging from the latest beta build).

Is RED still working on a fix? Looking forward to a solution!

George

It's still not fixed. Better - but still not working 100% ... so .... not working enough to rely on it.

FYI - RAW view tool has now been re-defined RLF RC2 ISO 800 5600K 0 TINT

That's a pretty major news flash IMO - good news is that now you can "re-create it" - bad news is that I have not yet tested the accuracy of the RED/MAGENTA "false colors" with this new RAW re-definition - it's high on my "to do" list for nest week - but just so you know ... RAW view tool is not the RAW view tool you used to know. This might end up being a good thing ... but ... I need to prove it out first. Unless Gunleik beat me to it.

 

[George A.]

I have not yet tested the accuracy of the RED/MAGENTA "false colors" with this new RAW re-definition

For what it's worth, the EXPOSURE tool - while in the "new" RAW mode (RLF RC2 ISO 800 5600K 0 TINT) - is not affected by ISO changes etc. Just as before. That's good.
I didn't have time to fully test the accuracy of the Red/Magenta false colors with this new Raw mode on my Dragon.

But - I am looking forward to the moment when the EXPOSURE tool will function as described in the manual and the "Help" file on camera. Like the goal posts and the stop lights. Hopefully soon!
I know RED must be working hard behind the scene to make it happen.

Trent - any update by any chance?
Thanks!

 

[Zeb B]

It's still not fixed. Better - but still not working 100% ... so .... not working enough to rely on it.

FYI - RAW view tool has now been re-defined RLF RC2 ISO 800 5600K 0 TINT

That's a pretty major news flash IMO - good news is that now you can "re-create it" - bad news is that I have not yet tested the accuracy of the RED/MAGENTA "false colors" with this new RAW re-definition - it's high on my "to do" list for nest week - but just so you know ... RAW view tool is not the RAW view tool you used to know. This might end up being a good thing ... but ... I need to prove it out first. Unless Gunleik beat me to it.

Standing by for your results and insights

 

[Wes Howell]

It's still not fixed. Better - but still not working 100% ... so .... not working enough to rely on it.

FYI - RAW view tool has now been re-defined RLF RC2 ISO 800 5600K 0 TINT

That's a pretty major news flash IMO - good news is that now you can "re-create it" - bad news is that I have not yet tested the accuracy of the RED/MAGENTA "false colors" with this new RAW re-definition - it's high on my "to do" list for nest week - but just so you know ... RAW view tool is not the RAW view tool you used to know. This might end up being a good thing ... but ... I need to prove it out first. Unless Gunleik beat me to it.

Raw view set to 800 ISO? That seems strange to me. I can see that on the Epic….but not the Dragon. We have more latitude and more flexible highlights. I think shooting everything referencing an 800 ISO is going to lead to some shots being underexposed and noisier images in many conditions. I would prefer to have RAW mode set around 320 ISO.

 

[Michael Tiemann]

Raw view set to 800 ISO? That seems strange to me. I can see that on the Epic….but not the Dragon. We have more latitude and more flexible highlights. No need to underexpose this camera, IMO. I think shooting everything referencing an 800 ISO is going to lead to noisier images in many conditions. I would prefer to have RAW mode set around 320 ISO.

+1. Or settable as a user preference. I'm very happy shooting ISO 800 as my nominal ISO, but I know in my heart of hearts that DRAGON sees the world at ISO 320, and I'd prefer that it always tell me the truth.

 

[Patrick Grossien]

And also - though I get why it shouldn't be renamed but eliminated - as it stands now I vote for the renaming of it to LOG VIEW

 

[Michael Tiemann]

And also - though I get why it shouldn't be renamed but eliminated - as it stands now I vote for the renaming of it to LOG VIEW

That also sounds reasonable. RAW is RAW and should be as close to RAW TRUTH as possible. Anything else is something else.