Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 61
  1. Collapse Details
    #31
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Razz16mm View Post
    Two issues with the Red footage. What settings were used to grade it? Are the windows actually blown out, i.e clipped, in the raw file or is the data there? Because if the data is there in the raw exposure, then the way the scene is rendered for value in the example is a grading choice, whether deliberate or not. A reasonable comparison with Arri log-C footage would start with Redcolor2 color space and Redlogfilm gamma as grading points and refining from there. The major difference between Arri and Red 1MX on a truly comparable exposure and grade would be just a little more noise in the deep shadows with the Red, not blown highlights.
    Many of these comparisons look to me like the R1 footage was graded with REC709 gamma and color space as a starting point, effectively throwing away 3 stops of available DR in the Raw file.

    Here is a true example of how an R1 Mx can handle extreme dynamic range when skillfully graded.

    http://www.zoomfilmtv.com.au/ftp/Dyn...rast_test2.mov
    WOW! That is amazing.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    444
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by greymog View Post
    It should be able to pull more detail without hdrx though, i think the test was to see how far it'll reach into the highlights when exposed for the 'average'. I guess. I may sound like a moron.

    But definitely could've pulled more out of the windows. I think at least.

    T
    You're correct. I didn't expose for the highlights. That was my choice to do so, to expose them all at the same level. I could have exposed the RED for the windows and traded some shadows for highlights, but that wouldn't be a fair point of comparison would it.



    jb
    Cinematographer
    Sydney Australia
    www.johnbrawley.com
    I also have a blog


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    444
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Razz16mm View Post
    Two issues with the Red footage. What settings were used to grade it? Are the windows actually blown out, i.e clipped, in the raw file or is the data there? Because if the data is there in the raw exposure, then the way the scene is rendered for value in the example is a grading choice, whether deliberate or not. A reasonable comparison with Arri log-C footage would start with Redcolor2 color space and Redlogfilm gamma as grading points and refining from there. The major difference between Arri and Red 1MX on a truly comparable exposure and grade would be just a little more noise in the deep shadows with the Red, not blown highlights.
    Many of these comparisons look to me like the R1 footage was graded with REC709 gamma and color space as a starting point, effectively throwing away 3 stops of available DR in the Raw file.
    It was graded in Lustre natively from the R3d's. The film was 2K DPX and the Alexa was Pro Res LOG. The end result was for 709 (and this is a test for a TV series so that's the final delivery) but there wasn't any more information in those highlights on the r3ds. I didn't expose for the highlights. I exposed to match what I exposed the film at. No grading was done aside from a little balancing (off a correctly exposed grey card.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Razz16mm View Post
    Here is a true example of how an R1 Mx can handle extreme dynamic range when skillfully graded.

    http://www.zoomfilmtv.com.au/ftp/Dyn...rast_test2.mov
    That just looks like an overworked HDR *look* grade to me. It doesn't seem very natural. Compare the top of the first lamp post in the proxy to the graded shot. It's darker than all the others in the bg. And the deep BG buildings hit by the sun are still clipped. The text says sun was metered at F32. But which part of the scene was F32 ? The clouds ? The buildings ? There is also no skin tone in the sun (aside from filtered dapple) to compare how this grade works when applied to skin tones. It's a single shot, not a shot that pans and changes, where heavily rotot'd windows and tricks are much harder to apply.

    My shot's aren't graded (like your example). They are only processed and balanced at a common exposure. I know I can expose for highlights and trade around for other DR. That's not what I was wanting to look at.

    jb
    Last edited by John Brawley; 06-05-2011 at 07:31 PM.
    Cinematographer
    Sydney Australia
    www.johnbrawley.com
    I also have a blog


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,449
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by John Brawley View Post
    It was graded in Lustre natively from the R3d's. The film was 2K DPX and the Alexa was Pro Res LOG. The end result was for 709 (and this is a test for a TV series so that's the final delivery) but there wasn't any more information in those highlights on the r3ds. I didn't expose for the highlights. I exposed to match what I exposed the film at. No grading was done aside from a little balancing (off a correctly exposed grey card.)
    It is acknowledged that Alexa shows about one stop more DR than a Red 1 MX, so I am not suggesting that the test was a misrepresentation. But the choice of ISO for reference exposure and gamma space for grading have a major impact on the information that can be extracted from the Raw file. What were those settings for the Red in this test? Comparing Alexa to Red in a video gamma vs a log gamma for instance.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #35
    Section Moderator Rick Burnett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    4,395
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by John Brawley View Post
    You're correct. I didn't expose for the highlights. That was my choice to do so, to expose them all at the same level. I could have exposed the RED for the windows and traded some shadows for highlights, but that wouldn't be a fair point of comparison would it.



    jb
    I've had this discussion with other people, and here is what I have noticed about a lot of different cameras. If you expose for say the skin of a person in each clip to be the same, the issue is, that location within the curves being used internally in the camera might not be the same. When I was experimenting with the AF100 as compared to the 7D, this was the first time I realized this. Once I started exposing for highlights and shadows and let the middle be where it was in ONLY the situation of comparing two cameras, I was amazed at just how far off they were. On the AF100, I constantly underexpose the skin more than I would have on a 7D and the final result is something where I push up the skintones, and then get a superior image to my 7D.

    Now, granted, I personally think that the Alexa did a FANTASTIC job on its own, hands down, and I think that is a valid point to make as well. But, I think you can also say that what ultimately matters is the whole picture. Cost is one issue, second is, you know that the Red isn't going to have the same lattitude, but if you work more into that lattitude, and expose for HL and shadows, do you get a better picture that is much more usable? Or, as you've pointed out, what happens in the shadows? Or, do you go in and try to tweak the settings more? So many variables!!!
    formerly know as grimepoch.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #36
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Razz16mm View Post
    It is acknowledged that Alexa shows about one stop more DR than a Red 1 MX
    According to the SCCE, it's more like two and a half stops more for the Alexa. Red One MX clocked in at 11.9, Alexa was 14.3.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    444
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry_Green View Post
    According to the SCCE, it's more like two and a half stops more for the Alexa. Red One MX clocked in at 11.9, Alexa was 14.3.
    As per this post from a few pages back.
    Cinematographer
    Sydney Australia
    www.johnbrawley.com
    I also have a blog


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    yeovil uk
    Posts
    1,455
    Default
    This was sown on another forum but it wont change the facts of quality order alexa/red/super 6


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #39
    Red Team Graeme_Nattress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    1,135
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry_Green View Post
    According to the SCCE, it's more like two and a half stops more for the Alexa. Red One MX clocked in at 11.9, Alexa was 14.3.
    According to the SCCE, a number of cameras have more resolution than they have pixels.
    www.nattress.com - Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP
    www.red.com - RED - 4k Digital Cinema Camera


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #40
    Member Jared Caldwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    71
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry_Green View Post
    According to the SCCE, it's more like two and a half stops more for the Alexa. Red One MX clocked in at 11.9, Alexa was 14.3.
    Barry, how do you account for the discrepancies between this camera test and other camera tests performed by Red and Red One MX owners who find that the MX sensor had around 13.5 stops of dynamic range? We are having a pretty lengthy discussion about it on RedUser.

    If you look closely at the Dynamic Range tests, especially the highlights test, the scenes are inconsistently lit from shot to shot.

    Lot of love for Steve and the ASC members who spent a lot of time on this test, but there are some major mistakes in this test, and I am surprised we could find these kinds of mistakes from people with their resumes.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •