RED CAMERA HDRx footage posted

Flat and dull is fine, as colour negative film looks just as flat and just as dull when scanned with a high-quality device. My major concern regarding this technique is the absolutely awful motion blurring artifacts it creates: it's monochrome gray. I'd hate to see what it looks like on a 4-5K image, instead of the tiny one they posted.

If dynamic range is a concern, film is still the best answer—unless you need extreme resolution for some reason.
 
yakabelly said:
Flat and dull is fine, as colour negative film looks just as flat and just as dull when scanned with a high-quality device. My major concern regarding this technique is the absolutely awful motion blurring artifacts it creates: it's monochrome gray. I'd hate to see what it looks like on a 4-5K image, instead of the tiny one they posted.

If dynamic range is a concern, film is still the best answer—unless you need extreme resolution for some reason.
Click to expand...

go onto the forum and read read read. motion blur artifacts will not be an issue. i dont know enough giant words to describe how they do it. but read the thread. ul be impressed. - im a diehard red fan if u havent noticed. haha
 
Guys - stop hating on RED. This is an incredible advance. You can choose not to shoot with the HDR mode. Can any other camera get close to this performance at 5K? Don't think so.:thumbdown

I cannot understand people who just want to nit pick. This was a deliberate test in a challenging situation to show off the camera's strength. Jarred had to close down a thread because some guy called Brad kept on nit picking a down sized 8 bit jpeg from a 5K R3D.

Given half the chance if anyone here who gives such negative vibes on the Red were given an Epic to shoot with, I am sure they would not stop drooling. So come on - The camera rocks guys............and you know that.....perhaps the fact that most of us cannot afford it makes us feel a little well............ ya know.......:grin:
 
I ran it through color and as you'd expect from the highly compressed web codec, it didnt hold up very well (DO NOT READ BETWEEN ANY LINES - I REFER HERE ONLY TO THE WEB CODEC ON THE LINK)

But, graded it looked really nice.

What I did see whilst grading, on the centre Binion's sign there are two blue neon strips that flank it. This area has considerable moire and the grade wouldnt hold there due to that.

Would be great to get a hold of the raw footage.
 
I am really looking forward to when they get the HDR tuned up a bit more and then give it to some people who can go test and grade some amazing work. People are going to be blown away.

I don't know how anyone cannot look at that picture that actually shoots video doesn't understand the AMAZING potential of that video. I am SO tired of blowing out on high dynamic scenes, or having to use flags, filters or more lights in ways just because my camera only does about ~8.5 stops of DR and not for artistic reasons.

At least I'll have the AF100 which will give me more range soon! :)
 
Zak Forsman said:
IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.
I AGREE
Click to expand...

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
This is a very exciting implementation. Detail is held throughout the picture in highlights, mids and shadow areas. This would be a joy to grade.
 
I'm one who has been quite critical of Red's marketing hype, but this looks great. This also looks a lot better than some of the HDR clips I've seen elsewhere which look over compensated. If the ghosting doesn't turn out to be a big problem, this could be an awesome, game changing tool.

I'm also speculating that there's going to be a learning curve to adjust this, and light it. Though this is a pro camera all the way, there may be a risk of some to just pick up the camera and think you don't need to worry about lighting because it has 18 stops of latitude...
 
Reading on reduser... sez 'shot this iso 500 hdr +4...' other guy sez 'Jim, what's HDR +4?'

Jim sez 'highlight protection, +3 to +6'

So if I get this straight, we're working 'backwards'? Exposing the shadows adequately, and cranking up highlight protection? get the shadows manually? that's brilliant.

Like really, effin brilliant. Come to think of it, all the dinky li'l 'intelligent exposure modes' are violently bumping up the shadows. This just sounded like something so obvious... expose shadows, then turn on highlight protection? I dunno, I just woke up, it seems simple when he put it like that, and effin brilliant.

I'm still all about screw scarlet till it comes out. And yes I will shoot what I have bla bla Really over that thing till it's out, but for the first time in a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time... really, just really ....

... I want a RED one. I think I'm gonna want a red one for a week. The feeling will suck. That was one hell of a frame grab. Dammit I wanna play with those kids.
 
Ok, I just had some coffee. Awake now. This is ridiculous. I've officially lost my mind again.

It is disgustingly and obscenely ridiculously crazy stuff these guys are doin. I can't wipe this grin off my face. I'm not very big on out of control reactions, but I have stuffed that for today.

That footage is gross. I only use negative words coz I can't find positive ones no more. I'm showing this to everyone in beirut. Its insane.
 
Perhaps now folks will stop hating on RED. these gusy are doing some amazing stuff.:smile:
 
The high dynamic range provides more options by postponing the decision making till you get to post. But the output must still show good color and contrast in the subject exposure range and this is especially true if the shots involve human skin.

Still camera sensors vary from 9 to 14 stops, but in their normal modes they all represent about 8 visible stops of dynamic range, more than 9 is very rare. The real limitation in photography is the required contrast which must be present in the zones about 3 stops above and 3 stops below 18% grey. With a given contrast in that range, the rest of the range can only be shaped to protect the highlights or lower the shadows. There is not much room in this process though, above 2 stops of overexposure protection the steep curve will look 100% white anyway and the same limitation applies to shadows. The only exception is landscapes which can still look natural with a higher dynamic range.

The dynamic range of modern film is shaped by the transfer of a low dynamic range film or paper print. Very similar to the limitation we have in digital. The filmic color comes from the high midrange contrast. The public does not want to see technical images of high dynamic range, they only care about pleasing images that engage them in storytelling.

Cinematography will not be affected by a few extra stops of dynamic range as cinematography was not affected as an art when these improvements appeared in modern negative film stock. The extra dynamic range might invite some people to skip lighting. But those shouldn't call themselves cinematographers in the first place because they see themselves as problem solvers, not creative artists.

The main advantage I see is much cleaner shadows and exposure correction. I know what I need around the 18% grey and I know how much highlights I can contain and present, but there is always room for improvement in shadow noise and exposure mistakes.
 
An example:

Original, wide range like negative but we need to make it look good:

in-out.JPG

Expose for inside, coca cola red will be red, wood will look like wood and hopefully skin tone will look normal in saturation and contrast:

in.JPG

Expose for outside, coca cola red will be red, the sky will look normal, and again, skin tone will look normal:

out.JPG

Both images are using about 9-10 stops of dynamic range.

Doing this in post is useful and seriously powerful, it saves some time on set when these two looks are required. Modern film stock can do this with a sacrfice in grain level. A normal camera can achieve the two looks if you decide what you need when you are actually shooting. But there is no way to have both interior and exterior look good. We need good contrast at massively different exposure levels and no curve can do that. There is no way to achieve that in post when using film and there is no way to do this in digital. This is the danger of high dynamic range in inexperienced hands. We can have interior and exterior look good only by physically bringing the exposure levels closer and limiting the actual scene dynamic range. Light the interior in this case, ND the windows in an interior shot in a building. Cinematography. No double exposure artifacts and a camera with normal single exposure dynamic range will work fine. And when someone walks from outside to inside, they will not look like zombies.
 
I saw the footage and am impressed. I am just sick of the marketing hype and the many announcements of cameras which have not hit the market in years. I prefer silent development in the background and an official release date which delivers a product we all can buy. I´d prefer if I could have to decide between scarlet and af100 in 3 months and both would be sitting in front of me on the shop counter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top