Dynamic range on RED

Jarred Land said:
The HVX pushes 7 stops. 11 stops is incredible, 15 will melt people's brains.. but i dont think it's likely. Highlights are always the kicker... and im pretty confident the mysterium is going to handle the highs very well.
Click to expand...

Admittedly, an insane noob when it comes to this stuff...I am still learning all the limitations of my HVX. But would the 11 stops or more make it easier on us for lighting a scene?

I could see the benefits as with most low-budget features, perfect lighting setups don't always exist and neither does time.:)
 
wow, if RED ends up having 11 stops of dynamic range that would be awesome...

thats more then the DSLR is use and the images from that look very comparable to film.
 
Dynamic range is notiously hard to measure because it depends upon your noise tolerance. If you can accept a bit of noise, then the DR is higher than for someone who wants to see no visible noise.

A good DSLR, under measurement at DPReview has about 10stops DR. That measurement is perhaps a touch conservative, but go look for yourself - they have some nice interesting graphs. Check the review of the Canon 5D for instance.

Graeme
 
higher is better. :)

think of S/N like you do contrast ratio.. its the Signal to Noise ratio, so easier said, its how many times better the signal is to the noise. If the signal was close to the noise, all you would see is noise. the higher it is, the more efficient the signal seperates from the noise, so you can see picture over noise.

think if it like noise is white snow.. and the Signal/Noise ratio is the amount of black in a pixel.. if your S/N noise is low, your pixels would be a light grey and get lost in the noise. If the pixels where high and more black, you could see them alot better.
 
pretopost said:
Admittedly, an insane noob when it comes to this stuff...I am still learning all the limitations of my HVX. But would the 11 stops or more make it easier on us for lighting a scene?

I could see the benefits as with most low-budget features, perfect lighting setups don't always exist and neither does time.:)
Click to expand...

Anyone?
 
Simply described, higher dynamic range expands the visible detail in highlight and shadows areas. On a practical level this can allow for more dramatic (higher contrast) lighting, reduces fill light requirements, simplifies interior/exterior balance, etc. Nothing replaces good lighting, but high dynamic range definitely makes the job easier.
 
Greg Lowry said:
Simply described, higher dynamic range expands the visible detail in highlight and shadows areas. On a practical level this can allow for more dramatic (higher contrast) lighting, reduces fill light requirements, simplifies interior/exterior balance, etc. Nothing replaces good lighting, but high dynamic range definitely makes the job easier.
Click to expand...

So, depending on the situation, this would make it easier to film in situations with available light using reflectors to fill in shadows or even limited use of a small reinforcement kit?

I find with my HVX/DVX the balance of light levels is crucial and I was wondering if it is as hard to light for film DR or the DR that RED will provide...
 
Simply described, higher dynamic range expands the visible detail in highlight and shadows areas. On a practical level this can allow for more dramatic (higher contrast) lighting, reduces fill light requirements, simplifies interior/exterior balance, etc. Nothing replaces good lighting, but high dynamic range definitely makes the job easier.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Graeme will be able to say more on this. But I would argue that this isn't totally the case.

For example, the Viper can output a huge dynamic range. The trouble comes when you have to output this to DVD, Bluray or whatever. That contrast has to be brought back to within the contrast capability of the average television set without looking washed out.

In the case of shadows, if you want to capture a huge contrast range and display it on a television those blacks will need to be lifted. In other words, to display all that contrast range on a television the picture will look very flat indeed. So in grading you pretty much have to be selective over what parts of that range you want to keep, and what you want to get rid of. You won't be able to keep it all.

I've got a setup for my camera which allows an 11.5 stop capture range. The Varicam can apparently capture 13 stops when set up correctly! This is really pushing the cameras by using the black stretch and knee slope to make sure the full capture range of the CCD's are utilised in the recording. But things do look flat. The blacks have to be restored in post grading, and this can make things awkward if you shot an interview in harsh sunlight. It is ALWAYS better to reduce the contrast by way of reflectors etc at the time of shooting no matter how much range you have to play with from the camera. At first it does seem easier. But then after shooting you really have to be good at grading.
 
You could make the same argument about film dynamic range. It's a specious argument, IMO. This is a broad capture discussion and generalizations are inevitable. Of course one needs to keep in the mind how the end product will be displayed and then light and shoot accordingly. But higher dynamic range provides more options for lighting. I don't think that point is debatable and that's really the only point I made. In fact, it also provides more options for grading.
 
Last edited:
If you've ever read anything I've written about cameras and how I like them to be set up over the years you'd know that I'm a big advocate of setting them up for the maximum capture range. But is absolutely not a substitute for setting up and lighting, or using reflectors. The dynamic range gives you more room for manouvre. But at the expense of needing time to grade, and in some cases trying to cram a large contrast range into a limited tonal range.

10-bit colour for example is great. Those 1024 graduations of greyscale are very handy. But try to cram a super wide contrast ratio in there, and there are still limits. So the problem isn't so much that having a large dynamic range is bad (it isn't). But the limitations of cramming all that info into the same range that would normally contain a bog standard 'ready to use' picture from any other camera. We aren't all going to have the resources to work with RAW footage.
 
I never suggested that expanded dynamic range is a substitute for proper lighting. Nor do I disagree with your other comments. I try to keep my comments general because there are too many variables to do otherwise.
 
Proteus said:
So Z1 has a pixel pitch of 5 microns vs 5.4 RED's...
Click to expand...
Dynamic range vs. noise ratio is mostly about pixel area.
Z1 has 5µm x 2.5µm pixels, so they are much smaller than square 5.4µm pixels. Btw, varicam has 7.5µm pixels, so they are twice as big as hdcam and other 1920x1080 2/3" cameras.
There's of course smaller differences in ccd/cmos physical sensivity and ad-converters noise, but since RED and hdcam has quite a same size of pixels, RED's sensor really has to be a whole new generation product to have major improvement in dynamic range compared to hdcam with same noise levels.
 
The problem with a lot of cameras is that, by default, the camera is setup to not record that much dynamic range. The camera doesn't let you get all of the dynamic range possible.

And of course, sensor design and the a-->d convertors will make a difference... as well as color correction filtering in front of the sensor.
 
glenn chan said:
The problem with a lot of cameras is that, by default, the camera is setup to not record that much dynamic range. The camera doesn't let you get all of the dynamic range possible.

And of course, sensor design and the a-->d convertors will make a difference... as well as color correction filtering in front of the sensor.
Click to expand...

thats what makes raw capture so attractive :)
 
toke lahti said:
Dynamic range vs. noise ratio is mostly about pixel area.
Z1 has 5µm x 2.5µm pixels, so they are much smaller than square 5.4µm pixels.
Click to expand...

Yes, toke lahti you are right! I can't believe I did this mistake because I know about Z1's native resolution and its higher vertical definition (in interlace) in comparison to HVX200 and XL H1...
 
The problem with a lot of cameras is that, by default, the camera is setup to not record that much dynamic range. The camera doesn't let you get all of the dynamic range possible.
Click to expand...

Yes, but Glenn, they are set up that way for a reason. It would be impossible to set those cameras up for maximum range and have a picture that could be edited or output to a television without needing post grading to avoid a very flat low saturation look.

As Jarred said, RAW is very attractive. But ONLY if your workflow involves post grading. There should always be an option in there for recording a picture that can be used straight away.
 
Very true Simon. Most smaller budget indies, television programs, and video productions will not have the time or budget to go through a post grading process. They will need to get the footage correct at the acquisition stage. A RAW and post grading process will not be practical for them, but with RED they will have that RAW/grading workflow option available for when they have larger budget productions.

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com
 
glenn chan said:
The problem with a lot of cameras is that, by default, the camera is setup to not record that much dynamic range. The camera doesn't let you get all of the dynamic range possible.
.
Click to expand...

er, why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top