Advice needed - 2k raw underexposed shows heavy grain

[Clermond]

I made another resolve try with + 1.2 exposure in camera tab,
some additional adjustments in FCP X and export from FCPX as image (no Photoshop!)

pretty nice and look how many details still under the table!
You also see one handicap of 2K RAW: a color moire visible in the carpet for example

 

[Matthew Smith]

That hat looks amazing compared to what I had, I'm very excited!

I made another resolve try with + 1.2 exposure in camera tab,
some additional adjustments in FCP X and export from FCPX as image (no Photoshop!)

pretty nice and look how many details still under the table!
You also see one handicap of 2K RAW: a color moire visible in the carpet for example

 

[paulcurtis]

It's a good example of how uncompressed can be useful. If this was in a codec you'd be stuffed because the compressor would have stripped those 'unseen' shadow details right away

I don't know this for sure but one of the issues of using BMDFilm is that it is not an open curve and in fact quite the opposite BMD seem very reluctant on giving out any information. The assumption is that the curve is compensating for their own cameras both in terms of colour science and perhaps also dynamic range. So pushing a different camera through it is not totally accurate or perhaps even making the best of it. YMMV.

It could be that pushing the exposure up at this stage is pushing the values further up that BMDFilm curve where the response might be different. I'm not sure that *any* cameras are truly linear in their output (i can see the 700 isn't) so pushing your images through a curve designed for other cameras may produce different results.

I'm nit picking because to the eye BMD generally produces nice results and it's pretty much a standard Log C curve but colour isn't 100% there.

cheers
Paul