Log/Rec.709, Headroom, and Dynamic Range....

[Chris Parker]

just read a very good blog. you might want to check it out....and of course...discuss.

http://prolost.blogspot.com/2008/02/...mic-range.html

[Paul Nordin]

just read a very good blog. you might want to check it out....and of course...discuss.

http://prolost.blogspot.com/2008/02/...mic-range.html

You might want to read this thread. It's a great run at this exact topic started by Stu
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=9214

[NateWeaver]

One way to build underexposure into your image without a LUT is to rate the camera at an ASA above 320. Do that and you can place skintones, etc where they look good on the monitor and still have highlights to recover later.

Of course this all happens at the expense of the noise floor.

[Mark Toia]

wow!!!, so much time on ones hand's.

Useful if you need to know this information, but at the end of the day, content will over ride latitude.

You can shot a movie on super8 and win Oscar for cinematography if done well.

Thanks for the info none the less,
Interesting read.

[dVonAllmen]

Here's a question:

When every theater has switched to digital projection does shooting underexposed to allow for the headroom of film become pointless?

More importantly, does it in fact hurt your digital theatrical "print" because you've introduced more noise than was needed?

Seems that I could wind up shooting underexposed for the film print that is going to be in theaters for a couple weeks in 2009 and wind up with a lower-quality version that people will watch for the next 50 years on their home 4K projectors once the price on those drops to $500 (which will happen eventually, with Moore's law and all that...)

[sander kamp]

I read the whole article and I can't agree with what he is saying. Without testing on a RED he suggests to underexpose with 2.6 stops to maintain highlights, regardless of what you are shooting. That is a very bad idea. Underexposing on RED will give you a lot of noise and noise on Red is not nice film grain but digital blotchy noise.

My recipe for good RED images: in low contrast situations you expose to the right, which means you expose as high as possible without blowing out highlights. In RedCine you then lower the exposure to something that more resembles the actual situation or something you like.

In high contrast situations you have to choose between noise in the shadows or blown-out highlights, most likely it will be something in-between. But better is it to reduce contrast in the scene: put something in front of that window so it doesn't blow out. Forget about middle gray and percentages, make your images look good in post.

[Hans von Sonntag]

Hi David,

A good histogram is a good histogram, either for film out, rec 709 or digital cinema compliance. There is no reason to expose differently, otherwise you know that you will have strong oversampling eg. PAL/NTSC out which will hide noise much better than 1080p for instance and be more forgiving. 4K therefore with no oversampling at all is highly prone to noise.

In this regard I am with you. For exposure it's important to know for wich format you are shooting.

Hans

(Do you have German realtives? Just curious...)

[Jay A. Kelley]

No. Signal is signal. The transfer guys get all types of digital, remember some of the footage we've been looking at in theatres, a lot of it off a Canon XL-1.

If you shoot like crap and call it a "style" well, then I guess you're coverd cause it will look like crap on film too! :)

But...

If you're stuff is beautiful, and you shot it on a digital medium, a little post work prepping it for film will still make it look wonderful. The techniques are in the hundreds, but the bottom line is the same for almost all recordings, "your best quality will be as good as your worst shot".

Don't get hung up on "printing to film" shoot the best movie you can with what you have. The tech stuff is nice, but remember, if someone is willing to pony up the kind of dollars to print your video to film, this means it's going to a theatre run, and this means the look of your picture is only a part of the overall consideration. They are doing it because they think you have a wonderful, PROFIT GENERATING movie.

We all love to think "my movie is going to be in 2,500 theatres". But the truth is, while the odds of that are better than winning the lottery, they don't FEEL that way. :) My advice is: tell your DP, "We're shooting on RED, so push RED to make the best picture you can, if it goes further than we're expecting, then we'll deal with that then".

Jay

PS: Of course, if your picture has a $50mil budget and has Jessica Alba's first topless scene... Then expecting a theatre run would be a different story! Then again, for that kind of gig... I think I might shoot film!

[Bill Anderson]

Big T:
having craft does not preclude sensitivity to content's value. Craft and content prosper in each others company. As a filmmaker, you damned well better have a firm grip on craft/technique. The world is full of people with sound ideas, but so few know how to realize them. They lack the craft. We all know that "latitude" won't save a fuzzy concept; but "latitude" will enrich a strong one. This goes as much for super 8 as it does for digital acquisition....

[Joe Carney]

One way to build underexposure into your image without a LUT is to rate the camera at an ASA above 320. Do that and you can place skintones, etc where they look good on the monitor and still have highlights to recover later.

Of course this all happens at the expense of the noise floor.

I'm getting lost here. how do you "rate" the Red or any camera above or below it's standard setting, or..what does the term "rate" mean. Sorry for the nube questions.