View Poll Results: Epic Native ISO ~ 800 vs 320

Voters
159. You may not vote on this poll
  • 800 ISO

    84 52.83%
  • 320 ISO

    75 47.17%

  Click here to go to the first RED TEAM post in this thread.   Thread: Opinion POLL: EPIC native ISO = 800 or ISO = 320?

Reply to Thread
Page 9 of 24 FirstFirst ... 567891011121319 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 238
  1.   Click here to go to the next RED TEAM post in this thread.
  #81  
    The definition of ISO by ISO for a raw shooting camera is basically "what the manufacturer recommends", which in the case of Epic is 800. Confusion arises when people look at raw view and find it has a similar amount of gain to 320, but that's because the purpose of the raw view is to allow you to see exactly what detail you've captured in your highlights. The end image is way too dark and too little highlight protection to be useful.

    What you perceive as correct exposure is all down to the setting of the development curve, and all curves add some gain to some tones. Because the ISO modifies the curve so that mid-grey is always mapped to the same final image tone, they're all valid ISOs. In each you trade noise for highlight protection (DR is the same for all) so really, the whole concept of "native" ISO goes out of the window and YOU must shoot at the appropriate ISO for your needs. We recommend that you start your ISO at 800 and take it from there.

    Graeme
    www.red.com - 8k Digital Cinema Camera
    Science enables stories. Stories drive science
    IPP2, Image Processing, Colour Science and Demosaic Algorithms
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #82  
    Senior Member Mark Toia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Could be anywhere in the world today.
    Posts
    4,144
    Quote Originally Posted by Graeme Nattress View Post
    The definition of ISO by ISO for a raw shooting camera is basically "what the manufacturer recommends", which in the case of Epic is 800. Confusion arises when people look at raw view and find it has a similar amount of gain to 320, but that's because the purpose of the raw view is to allow you to see exactly what detail you've captured in your highlights. The end image is way too dark and too little highlight protection to be useful.

    What you perceive as correct exposure is all down to the setting of the development curve, and all curves add some gain to some tones. Because the ISO modifies the curve so that mid-grey is always mapped to the same final image tone, they're all valid ISOs. In each you trade noise for highlight protection (DR is the same for all) so really, the whole concept of "native" ISO goes out of the window and YOU must shoot at the appropriate ISO for your needs. We recommend that you start your ISO at 800 and take it from there.

    Graeme
    Thanks Graeme,
    This is the first time this has been explained to me properly... and logically.
    Im probably the worst offender, I use 320 religiously, so much so that I never change it, even at night. With amazing results mind you.
    BUT!!!! After reading this, It sounds like I'm doing this wrong.
    Ill shoot my next job at 800 in daylight and see what happens. I'm sure it will be fine. :)

    PS... I'd love a drop in filter or a sensor for one of my cameras that was 25 or 50 iso... I hate having to chuck so much ND on the front, drives me nuts !
    Any solution on the horizon for low ISO Graeme? Like the monochrone..? Some obscure camera being made for DAYLIGHT use.
    Mark Toia
    Director / DP / Founder of Zoom Film & Television


    www.toia.com

    www.zoomfilmtv.com.au
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3.   Click here to go to the next RED TEAM post in this thread.
  #83  
    Mark, if you get great looking images you're not using the camera wrong. The only issue with setting camera to 320 is just "watch those highlights", so if you keep them in control you'll probably be getting very similar raw code values to if you'd used ISO800. All that matters is the raw code values - what ISO setting at is irrelevant as long as those raw code values are good. Our advice on 800 is to ensure people have a good starting point to get those code values.

    Graeme
    www.red.com - 8k Digital Cinema Camera
    Science enables stories. Stories drive science
    IPP2, Image Processing, Colour Science and Demosaic Algorithms
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #84  
    Senior Member Mark Toia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Could be anywhere in the world today.
    Posts
    4,144
    Quote Originally Posted by Graeme Nattress View Post
    Mark, if you get great looking images you're not using the camera wrong. The only issue with setting camera to 320 is just "watch those highlights", so if you keep them in control you'll probably be getting very similar raw code values to if you'd used ISO800. All that matters is the raw code values - what ISO setting at is irrelevant as long as those raw code values are good. Our advice on 800 is to ensure people have a good starting point to get those code values.

    Graeme
    Understood... and a good idea to have a little bit of high end protection for the not so cautious opertaors.

    So... How about a 50asa camera. I remember Jim and Jarred in the past talking about internal ND's... or something like that. I'm keen to help you feild test if something is in the pipeline.

    Thanks Graeme. again.
    Mark Toia
    Director / DP / Founder of Zoom Film & Television


    www.toia.com

    www.zoomfilmtv.com.au
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #85  
    REDuser Sponsor Gunleik Groven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    13,352
    Deanan mentioned a replaceable olpf with built in nd's.

    Has not heard about it since he left.
    Nd9, methinks. Which would get us to the 100 level.
    Life is good. So is RED...


    http://quine.no
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #86  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    153
    definitely 320 ASA. easy to determine. just set the proper exposure to your eye on ASA 800 while not viewing RAW, then toggle the raw button. When the image gets a little too dark for proper shadow exposure, you know the native, raw ASA is not 800.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #87  
    Senior Member Lauri Kettunen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,055
    Compare, we could also try to specify the "native" power of a microwave oven by comparing its heating up times to traditional electric ovens. For this reason I would say ISO is already part of history, but it's still there to smoothen the transition from the old tradition to the world of completely new equipments.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #88  
    Senior Member Terry VerHaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Marin County, CA
    Posts
    6,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Kushner View Post
    definitely 320 ASA. easy to determine. just set the proper exposure to your eye on ASA 800 while not viewing RAW, then toggle the raw button. When the image gets a little too dark for proper shadow exposure, you know the native, raw ASA is not 800.
    Yeah - cuz Nattress doesn't know much about RED. LOL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #89  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Toronto & Vancouver
    Posts
    3,708
    Being that it's RAW, doesn't it make more sense to just watch the goalposts regardless of the ISO setting? I mean, if your goalposts are empty, then it doesn't matter what the ISO is, nothing will be clipped/blown or crushed/noisy and you can place the mid-tone anywhere you want via your curves... Right?

    I've been in the habit of shooting at 800 and almost automatically lowering it to 320 in RCX and using a curve to get the mids back to where I want them (~40ire)... Everytime I read a thread like this I starting to doubt this process though.

    EDIT: Also, has anyone used the "Film10" look in the default directory (it ships with RCX.) It's RC2, but that's easy enough to change.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #90  
    Senior Member Ketch Rossi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ITALY | USA
    Posts
    14,475
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunleik Groven View Post
    Hahahahahahaha

    But we like and dislike in an image vary. An exposure i like, you may dislike. I may like the noise, you may not. And as Graeme has said a number of times, "native" iso in the digital domain is dictated by the manufacturers.

    A sensor may have a technical measureable midlevel. Which would dictate a certain iso.
    But
    As that may not be the point where you get the best technical image, that doesn't make much sense to stick to diehardly.

    Many digital cameras look not so nice out of their sweetspot, when you go too much over or under. And that fat spot is not allways exactly where the technical measureable iso should be.

    I never bothered to measure the iso, but the ones who have done seem to agree on a number around 200.

    That is fine.
    It is still not a good plan to shoot at 200, and if you go bellow 320 you are really just confusing yourself. Add wb and clamping of channels into the soup, and the answer is: you want headroom and contrast...
    Thus underexposing is the practical advice, to make a nice rolloff in both ends of the spectre.

    Epic does that more elegantly than any other camera i know of.

    I sometimes lower the iso slightly for some dp's though, to force the technical exposure a bit up. Our eyes and what we look for in images vary by a large margin. But in the end it is all about learning to know the tool as well as dp's used to know their stocks. THEN you can set the iso to whatever and get excellent results...
    I know extremely well my camera, and since the very first images, now part of the 700 Reel, I for one, know well that the Native ISO is 800, and shoot accordingly.

    What I meant as EXPOSURE been an important player, is to detail the importance of the EXPOSURE, and there is on likes about, you either Expose properly or you don't, if you do and shoot with the proper ISO then you get a great image, if you use the right ISO and don't Expose properly then you will get an image with either Clipped highlights or you are bringing in NOISE.


    There is no liking of Exposure, you should always Expose properly, then with a pristine and properly Expose image you can create any looks you want in post.
    F I L M M A K E R
    ____________________

    Reply With Quote  
     

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