UNDEREXPOSING Red-One Footage, then raising it UP in RedCineX. ??

[George D.]

In the old days of film if a shot was underexposed by one or two stops, it had to be pushed in the lab during developing or printing. This increased the grain and contrast, and therefore deteriorated the quality of the end result.

When shooting digital with the Red-One and a shot is underexposed by one, two, or even three stops, does it do the same thing? Is it fixable in RedCineX with no loss of quality?

In the specs for the Red-One they talk about the fantastic dynamic range that the Red-One has. Is dynamic range the same thing as exposure latitude in film?

What kind of "latitude" does Red-One digital footage have? As I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, shooting digital with the R1 is more akin to shooting with "positive" film than negative, and therefore, it does not have the exposure latitude as negative film did.

*I ask all this, because for the shots we are doing currently, I "must" increase the depth of field and adding more light is NOT possible. As per what others have told me on this forum, I do not want to increase the ISO beyond 1600. So, I would like to underexpose by setting the f-stop one, two, or even three stops down. Then, bring the exposure back up in RedCineX post. I was hoping that in this way, I could maintain the better DOF, end up with a decent exposure, and have minimal to no loss of quality.

What do you guys think? My experience is in film, so please forgive me as I continue to learn the Red-One and this new medium.

Any help or advise is appreciated.

Thanks.

.

 

[Shane Kelly]

George, it really doesn't work the same as film. The camera has a native iso, every adjustment that you make in the menu apart from shutter is just metadata.
When you set the iso to 1600, you are essentially underexposing by a stop (or more). If you shot the scene at 800 and brought it into redcine, then brightened it, you would get the same results.
"minimal to no loss of quality" is just not going to happen, especially at more that a stop under. Your options are: get more light, get faster lenses, plan the shot differently or, I have to say it, get the right camera for the job.

 

[George D.]

George, it really doesn't work the same as film. The camera has a native iso, every adjustment that you make in the menu apart from shutter is just metadata.
When you set the iso to 1600, you are essentially underexposing by a stop (or more). If you shot the scene at 800 and brought it into redcine, then brightened it, you would get the same results.
"minimal to no loss of quality" is just not going to happen, especially at more that a stop under. Your options are: get more light, get faster lenses, plan the shot differently or, I have to say it, get the right camera for the job.

Thanks, but, more light is impossible. I do NOT need faster lenses because I need to stop it DOWN for increased DOF. There is no other way to plan the shot. And, I have the PERFECT camera for the job.

There has to be a better solution.

???????????????

.

 

[Philippe Van Horebeek]

Shane explained that very well. I just want to add one thing :

As I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, shooting digital with the R1 is more akin to shooting with "positive" film than negative, and therefore, it does not have the exposure latitude as negative film did.
.

That is only correct when you talk about shooting with regular videocameras. When shooting in RAW, you can consider the result as a digital negative. You can therefore push the exposure to the limit of clipping highlights to create "a thick negative" (with maximum detail) if you want.

If you are working with an MX-sensor, you can expect 13 stops of total dynamic range (exposure latitude).

 

[Shane Kelly]

Thanks, but, more light is impossible. I do NOT need faster lenses because I need to stop it DOWN for increased DOF. There is no other way to plan the shot. And, I have the PERFECT camera for the job.

There has to be a better solution.

???????????????


.

good point, you don't need faster lenses for what you are trying to do, I hadn't had my coffee yet.
However, you obviously don't have the perfect camera if it will not let you accomplish the shot.
If you are insistent on using the red,I guess the one other thing to try is to underexpose i.e shoot at 3200iso) and run the shot through a plugin called neatvideo. I haven't used it but have seen some good results.Other people on here have used it i'm sure.

 

[George D.]

Shane explained that very well. I just want to add one thing :



That is only correct when you talk about shooting with regular videocameras. When shooting in RAW, you can consider the result as a digital negative. You can therefore push the exposure to the limit of clipping highlights to create "a thick negative" (with maximum detail) if you want.

If you are working with an MX-sensor, you can expect 13 stops of total dynamic range (exposure latitude).

Thanks, that is very helpful.

So, you're saying that with the MX sensor, I have 6-1/2 stops above and 6-1/2 stops below optimum exposure? Correct ?

.

 

[Paul Russell]

If you can't get it at 800 ISO at 180 degree shutter with the aperture you need for the DOF, then you'll have to push the digital data in post, and either increasing the ISO, the FLUT, the Brightness or the Exposure in RedCineX will bring out the noise. You could also try shooting at 1/32 sec but that will increase your motion blur and make the footage look more video-like.

As you're exposing in a dark environment, you'll have to set your ISO for 800 while shooting so that your histograms show up correctly. Try to keep the red column on the left of the histogram as low as possible and you'll optimise your noise to the lowest the camera can offer.

 

[Shane Kelly]

You haven't described the shot but would split diopters work for you? It can be a really interesting look and one that you don't see much anymore.

 

[Radim Schreiber]

Two possible suggestions. Underexposing footage and brightening it up will result in more noise and some loss of detail in shadows. Try removing some of the noise in the post. Second, use slower shutter speed. Instead of 1/48 or 1/60, use 1/24 or 1/30... of course this will produce more motion blur, but in some cases that may be OK.

 

[David Battistella]

This depends entirely on where you set your middle grey. It's not a constant.

The highlights will eventually clip in digital.

Digging underexposed images out of the dirt can get pretty noisy depending on what you are utlitmately trying to see.

It's not the same as film. It's not a chemical process.

Like film it generally looks better with daylight balanced light.

I do suggest that you 1/8, 1/4, or 1/2 blue to all of your tungsten sources to help reduce the blue channel noise that pure tungsten can produce. Or light it all tungsten and use an 1/8th 1/4 or 1/2 in the mattebox.

It all depends on the shot and your "noise tolerance". With proper care the noise is remarkably filmic, you won't be disapoointed.

Obviously, do some tests if you can.

Low light and deep focus can be tricky, but it can be done.

David

Thanks, that is very helpful.

So, you're saying that with the MX sensor, I have 6-1/2 stops above and 6-1/2 stops below optimum exposure? Correct ?

.

 

[Uli Plank]

To reduce noise in post I suggest Neatvideo (slow, but cheap and great quality) or Relativity (fast and expensive).

 

[Michael Palmieri]

Anything up to a 250 or 270 shutter looks great. You'll gain a bit of light that way, and to my eye this does not look "video-y" at all.

 

[David Rasberry]

Another alternative would be to shoot a crop mode like 3k with a shorter focal length lens to get greater depth of field at the optimum exposure setting.

 

[Cail Young]

Anything up to a 250 or 270 shutter looks great. You'll gain a bit of light that way, and to my eye this does not look "video-y" at all.

Especially if nothing is moving in the frame.

That said, depending on the shot, 3200 can look good on the MX. Especially with Neat Video or other temporal noise filters.

 

[D Fuller]

George, All of these suggestions are good. But I think now you really need to test them for yourself.

As an old film hand myself, you might think of it this way: When you push-process film, you increase the grain. (How much is OK depends on what you are doing.) And when you go into telecine, the colorist can help you out with noise reduction. But only to a certain point, and then things start to look weirdly processed.

All this is true in digital cinema, and in very similar ways. With the right subject, and if you are willing to crush the blacks to some degree, you can get away with a lot. And NeatVideo is a very powerful tool that can buy you at least a full stop by reducing noise. (BTW, it's available as a free demo, so you can try it out.) But the only way you're going to be able to go into the field with confidence is to test the combination, so you know what the limits are.

As an example, I shot this moose at dusk, when I could barely see to focus. I think I was working at ISO 1600, but I pushed it farther in RedCine with curves. (the password is MaineMoose)

This is only a reference clip, so has not been noise-reduced, or even really graded, but it is significantly brighter than it looked to my eye.

 

[Rob Lindsay]

George

You didn't describe the shot you are doing, but could you shoot at a lower frame rate? I remember reading that years ago when caught in fading light on a BBC shoot, the DP asked Alistair Cooke to turn slowly to the camera for the last shot of the day which they did at 6fps. With some rehearsals, they got the shot.

 

[George D.]

George, All of these suggestions are good. But I think now you really need to test them for yourself.

As an old film hand myself, you might think of it this way: When you push-process film, you increase the grain. (How much is OK depends on what you are doing.) And when you go into telecine, the colorist can help you out with noise reduction. But only to a certain point, and then things start to look weirdly processed.

All this is true in digital cinema, and in very similar ways. With the right subject, and if you are willing to crush the blacks to some degree, you can get away with a lot. And NeatVideo is a very powerful tool that can buy you at least a full stop by reducing noise. (BTW, it's available as a free demo, so you can try it out.) But the only way you're going to be able to go into the field with confidence is to test the combination, so you know what the limits are.

As an example, I shot this moose at dusk, when I could barely see to focus. I think I was working at ISO 1600, but I pushed it farther in RedCine with curves. (the password is MaineMoose)

This is only a reference clip, so has not been noise-reduced, or even really graded, but it is significantly brighter than it looked to my eye.

Well, David, that's amazing. If you got that kind of result shooting only at 1600ISO and barely able to see to focus, then bumping it up in RedCineX, I'd be very happy with those kinds of results.

Thanks.

.

 

[George D.]

George

You didn't describe the shot you are doing, but could you shoot at a lower frame rate? I remember reading that years ago when caught in fading light on a BBC shoot, the DP asked Alistair Cooke to turn slowly to the camera for the last shot of the day which they did at 6fps. With some rehearsals, they got the shot.

Thanks Rob, but I that is NOT possible. We're shooting wildlife and a lower frame rate in this instance is just not feasible.

.

 

[Christian Munoz D]

Bobcat Shot on Red One-M Low Light

Bobcat Shot on Red One-M Low Light

George,

Here there are a couple of shots of a bobcat shot at dusk in Massachusetts on Red One-M Canon 150-600 at 600 F5.6 ISO 600 (First Shot) and ISO 1000 (Second Shot). On the second shot I applied Neatvideo in a minimal capacity just to match the first shot. The artifacts you may see on the image are mainly for the compression on Vimeo.
There is nothing to worry about underexposing 2-3 or even more stops with Red One-MX. So, go ahead, do some test and see for yourself what are your limits.

 

[George D.]

George,

Here there are a couple of shots of a bobcat shot at dusk in Massachusetts on Red One-M Canon 150-600 at 600 F5.6 ISO 600 (First Shot) and ISO 1000 (Second Shot). On the second shot I applied Neatvideo in a minimal capacity just to match the first shot. The artifacts you may see on the image are mainly for the compression on Vimeo.
There is nothing to worry about underexposing 2-3 or even more stops with Red One-MX. So, go ahead, do some test and see for yourself what are your limits.

I'm impressed Christian. I'll do some tests, but it looks good to me. I also like your slow motion Vulture...nice!

Thanks.

George