RED MX latitude for day exteriors

[Eki Halkka]

The technique is more advanced than this. One set of pixels can theoretically be set at a shutter speed 12bits lower than the other set, and 'theoretically' achieve 24 stops of latitude (though I would aim for 16 stops+, as 4096th of 1/48th a second shutter is pretty fast and I imagine no value overlap could result in issues with color information in an individual pixel). You could do one whole frame fast and one slow, but as there is no overlap, movement might be an issue.

The basic technique i suggest uses two accumulated frames to achieve a stop of additional DR. The result would be a 13 bit file, and there would be no problems with motion blur or anything like that.

This technique can actually be used with the current Red One, without any modifications - simply by shooting 120 fps 2K with 360 degree shutter and processing in post.

To get more dynamic range, even faster frame rates could be used with the same exposure on each (without motion blur problems), or some of the subframes could use a faster shutter speed (this would cause some motion weirdness, but achieve HDR dynamic range). These are not possible with the current gear.

 

[Matt W.]

I'm shooting a few low budget student thesis films this year, both are mainly day exterior scenes, and neither can afford film. I had heard that the MX sensor has very good latitude, and it may be within the budget. I've heard mixed numbers, 11 stops, 12 stops, 13.5 stops.. But I wanted to hear from anyone who's done day exteriors with the sensor.. How well does it handle shadows and highlights?

Our only other options are my HVX200a, or a 7d, which have both given me only about 8 stops at most, with very abrupt highlight blowouts. I'm trying to talk them into going for the RED MX, never having used it, but assuming it'll handle shadows and highlights noticeably better than an HVX or 7d.

Also, if we can't afford an MX, but can afford a RED ONE, would it be worth the extra money? Is the RED ONE's latitude/DR noticeably better than the HVX/7d?

The 7d has substantially better highlight detail than the hvx (with flat curves, maybe a stop and a half more dr past medium gray/45IRE). So if, for some crazy reason the 7d doesn't seem good enough for your thesis film, well, the hvx200 will be much worse.

The original red is similar to the 7d in terms of dr except it has far worse shadow detail and is extremely noisy in tungsten light (less so with the new processing, though). The skew and aliasing are much better on the red than on the 7d, but I would take a 7d over a non-mx red unless you've had experience with the red or you plan to shoot a lot of handheld or high frequency detail specifically. Yes, the red is capable of better imagery but it's also quirkier and harder to learn.

I've never used the mx but it seems great, by far the best of all options, though you still need a knowledgeable operator. I would guess based on tests I've seen that it has similar dr to the 7d at 320ISO but visibly better highlight rendering at 1000ISO. The mx may have "13 stops" of dr but in the same way the 7d has "11 stops"--they're all in the shadows, like 10 below 18% gray and three above. Shooting at a higher ISO shifts the dr to a more "film like" curve on the red mx (but not on the 7d), but will it give you five more stops of highlight detail? Absolutely not, no. And to some extent digital will always resemble reversal film, not negative film--there will always a relative excess of shadow detail and harsh highlight clipping because it's an additive sensor. (But of course digital has more spatial resolution than any negative film so there are trade-offs.)

The thing is, all of those cameras are awesome and provide more than enough image quality to make something great. Anyone who claims the red mx or even the 7d lacks enough highlight detail ignores the fact that butterfly and reflector rentals will always be far less expensive than upgrading to new sensor tech--and produce way better images in the first place. A high dr image doesn't look like an "hdr" image; it looks flat and generally boring (personally I think hdr looks bad 90% of the time, too, but it's a matter of taste). Those who are fanatical about dr (excepting people whose jobs are in sensor tech) are like amateur photographers who purchase a leica m9 and then never shoot anything interesting with it because it becomes more about the craftsmanship and tech specs than the image.

All of those cameras are fine and have enough highlight detail to shoot great footage; the 7d has two or three stops better dr than any camera under $10 grand from like five years ago. If you want a "film look" shoot 16mm (it's not that expensive!); otherwise any of these cameras will suit you fine but think about the grip package before you stress about tech specs. The camera is only as good as what it's pointed at.

 

[Eki Halkka]

Shooting at a higher ISO shifts the dr to a more "film like" curve on the red mx (but not on the 7d), but will it give you five more stops of highlight detail? Absolutely not, no.

Theoretically that only depends on how high an ISO you shoot at:

Compared to ISO 320:

ISO 640 = 1 stop more highlight detail
ISO 1280 = 2 stops more highlight detail
ISO 2560 = 3 stops more highlight detail
ISO 5120 = 4 stops more highlight detail
ISO 10240 = 5 stops more highlight detail

 

[Matt W.]

You can't be serious. The rental costs alone for the nd filters required to shoot 10240 ISO in daylight would surpass the cost of a decent grip package (reflectors, bedsheets, butterflies, even a small HMI par or joker kit). And the image would be grainy, full of IR pollution and color shifting, etc. It would be horrible.

Meanwhile, laying a bedsheet at the talent's feet and setting up a few reflectors would cost like fifty bucks at most and result in a good image with any of those cameras.

Ask not what your camera can do for you, but what you can do for your camera.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

On MX, ISO800 (our default) has nearly 5 stops above mid grey to begin with.

Graeme

 

[Dane Brehm]

I completed 2 Features on MX and about 15 MusicVideos/Commercials on various lenses.

I've gotten great results from both 1280 and 1600 isos from the MX.

My recommendation for a Sunny Day EXT is shoot 320 so you know exactly where your highlights are. I typically have a Hot-Mirror ND1.5 to live around 4-5.6 on the lens. know you have 2.5 over 18% and about 7 under.

On my last Feature we would use our 2nd Unit/B Camera which was a M sensor as our Daylight "Stock" then use the MX as interior/Night "Stock"

MX can be like shooting 500asa film during the day. If you need the Shadow detail then go MX its the only way to shoot. If you want to have less ND and shoot wider open use the M sensor.

I'm sorry I can't stand the rolling shutter on the t2i,7D, and 5D but does have its purposes just not as my primary or secondary camera.

goodluck,

 

[Matt W.]

Which is more than enough 99% of the time! The hvx has about 2-2.5 stops above middle gray; the 7d just over 3-3.5 at most. I'm not knocking the mx, just saying that what you put in front of the camera is much more important than the camera itself.

But yeah, the 7d's rolling shutter is HORRIBLE for handheld work and the aliasing is fairly bad, too.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

The MX sensor is actually better than the Canon at low light.

I was specifically talking about the RED One, not the RED One MX.

What I said about the RED One MX was, "There are no circumstances I can think of where photographically the 7D is better than a RED One MX, although sometimes it fits in spaces the RED doesn't."

For crash cam, go for the t2i. Exact same image quality as the 7D, but lighter and cheaper.

We've beat heads about this here before... I don't think the T2i has the same image quality as the 7D. Perhaps if you are testing both cameras under ideal circumstances. Frankly however I think you are just being uncritical of the T2i when comparing it to the 7D. I admit that's easy since they are both cheap cams- but I find it unprofessional.

I see a lot more codec issues with the T2i and I attribute that to its having just one DIGIC chip compared to the 7D's two chips.

That specific weakness makes it unacceptable specifically as a crash camera. I mean... talk about a situation with exactly the sorts of issues I see in the T2i vs. the 7D.

If I've got the sort of budget where a crash cam is even a viable option, I can spring for the difference and get a 7D.

All that of course assumes I need S35 sensor. If I want a very deep DoF, then I can gleefully get a low end camcorder, and have the benefit of autofocus with a better technical image. (I mean... I'm not sticking a remote FF rig on the camera if I plan on destroying it... and I'm pretty sure my 1AC would stab me in the neck if I suggested having her pull on the crash camera.)

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

If you are on a tight budget get EX1 + redrock M2e (latest adapter) - it's really pretty good, especially with Nanoflash - the in-cam Ex codec does not like focus pulls and can fail with giant macroblocks. ...

Oh I forgot about this in the EX-1.

Its true... there is a workaround in camera though that makes it more acceptable.

Turn sharpness way down on the EX camera. All the way down if you can stand it.

This will give you a better in camera image, and if you need sharpness then you can always add it in post.

Sharpness all the way off actually represents what the sensor and glass deliver, all the other sharpness is added electronically.

(I don't think any camera at all applies softening if you turn sharpening down/off in camera.)

 

[Paul Harding]

OMFG, MX rips 7D and HVX a new one. It's not even funny. And the HVX only looks good with a lens adapter, which means you have to rate it at like 80 iso. The Red One pre-MX was great for sure, but those 2 extra stops are really something else.

Check out this frame grab in Redcine-X. Bright midday sun, no budget for a giant overhead silk. Note the histogram -- everything between the goalposts. And you can see when I adjust the FLUT slider, the detail in the white of the shirt is there, as is the detail in the grass in the shadow below her left arm.

Definitely make sure you have at least one reflector, though. Indispensable.

I notice your ISO is 800 would that be the norm for shooting in bright daylight?

 

[Wayne Morellini]

The basic technique i suggest uses two accumulated frames to achieve a stop of additional DR. The result would be a 13 bit file, and there would be no problems with motion blur or anything like that.

This technique can actually be used with the current Red One, without any modifications - simply by shooting 120 fps 2K with 360 degree shutter and processing in post.

To get more dynamic range, even faster frame rates could be used with the same exposure on each (without motion blur problems), or some of the subframes could use a faster shutter speed (this would cause some motion weirdness, but achieve HDR dynamic range). These are not possible with the current gear.

That is what I thought you were meaning. The technique I'm talking about would require very little firmware change if it was doable in hardware, and if you can set the camera up to take a frame at one shutter length then a frame at a different shutter length continually, it would require no firmware change at all (I think this might be what they are currently doing with improvised HDR). But as Graeme didn't say anything, I will take that as a hint that independent pixel exposures might not be supported (though I thought it might possibly just be possible to selectively read out pixels and rest them, leaving pixels for a next frame). However, if this sort of dynamic (special effects range at this stage) were possible it would be very exciting to say the least. For very low end HDR+high bit depth+low light is a king hit (you just simplified very low end lighting).

Some day, in the future, a fixed 2/3rds/4/3rds/s35 4K 3D 50p with 16-20 bit HDR+low light Scarlet will may come out, and be a wonderful camera to produce some excellent low end results in skilled hands. My dream (well you can add as many frames per-second up to 1000, to that list, and as many stops under 30 as well, and 120db+ low light, but I'm being practical).

 

[Wayne Morellini]

I have just shot a feature film with the new M-X sensor on Anamorphic lenses, the majority of which was day exterior in pine forest. My advice would be to keep the ISO at 800 (use lots of ND filters) to keep your stop down around 2.8, 4 and take extra care in planning your shots in relation to the sun.
If your careful and you make sure that your background has just as much sun or shade on it as your foreground, you'll find balancing your exposure much easier. Avoid shooting actors in shade with a sunny background and your golden.
Use the Red, stop worrying about the latitude and start thinking about how your going to balance your exposure because either way, whether your shooting film or digital, balancing exposure for day exteriors is a challenge.

I agree, this is the practical way for whatever camera you land up using. I once came up with a design for a variable neutral density filter for a lens adapter years ago that preserved more shadow detail, that could enable as many stop increase in latitude as many of these HDR sensors on many cameras (adaptable to sensors too) but I abandoned it after HDR technology arrived. But without such a device you have to go through a lot of these efforts to fight physics to get the few extra stops range.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Oh I forgot about this in the EX-1.

Its true... there is a workaround in camera though that makes it more acceptable.

Turn sharpness way down on the EX camera. All the way down if you can stand it.

This will give you a better in camera image, and if you need sharpness then you can always add it in post.

Sharpness all the way off actually represents what the sensor and glass deliver, all the other sharpness is added electronically.

(I don't think any camera at all applies softening if you turn sharpening down/off in camera.)

No, sharpening ("detail") should be at 0 - the thing the in-cam sharpening knows what is noise a lot more than any post tool could. At detail=0 you get no artifacts at all but you do get 'smart' sharpening.

 

[Matt W.]

OMFG, MX rips 7D and HVX a new one. It's not even funny. And the HVX only looks good with a lens adapter, which means you have to rate it at like 80 iso. The Red One pre-MX was great for sure, but those 2 extra stops are really something else.

Check out this frame grab in Redcine-X. Bright midday sun, no budget for a giant overhead silk. Note the histogram -- everything between the goalposts. And you can see when I adjust the FLUT slider, the detail in the white of the shirt is there, as is the detail in the grass in the shadow below her left arm.

Definitely make sure you have at least one reflector, though. Indispensable.

A 12X12 silk costs about $50/day to rent at most. How can you not have the budget for that and yet have the budget for an MX red? The dr in the shot is fine (if not noticeably more than the 7d until you push and pull, which would do no good on a correctly-exposed shot) but the shot itself looks bad; the shadows are unpleasant and the color cast is weird. I'd much rather have a 7d and a butterfly.

 

[joshua csehak]

I notice your ISO is 800 would that be the norm for shooting in bright daylight?

Yup. Like Graeme said, you get 5 stops above middle grey at iso 800, which is basically like film. You might want to adjust to protect (or obliterate, depending on your style) the highlights, though, but I like (and I believe it's recommended) to stick with 800. Of course, that means ND up the wazoo. Hot mirrors, if you can afford them, but I don't really feel like they're a necessity.

A 12X12 silk costs about $50/day to rent at most. How can you not have the budget for that and yet have the budget for an MX red? The dr in the shot is fine (if not noticeably more than the 7d until you push and pull, which would do no good on a correctly-exposed shot) but the shot itself looks bad; the shadows are unpleasant and the color cast is weird. I'd much rather have a 7d and a butterfly.

Who's gonna hold it, Reed Richards? This was running around Providence jumping in someone's backyard with only a few hours' notice. Much easier to use reflectors, when there wasn't a lot of moving around in the scene. I purposefully posted a shot that looked bad to show off the DR of the sensor. OBVIOUSLY, it's not color-corrected -- you're seeing a screenshot of the raw footage. When I want your opinion on my shooting, I'll ask for it. Geez Louise.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Who's gonna hold it, Reed Richards? This was running around Providence jumping in someone's backyard with only a few hours' notice. Much easier to use reflectors, when there wasn't a lot of moving around in the scene. I purposefully posted a shot that looked bad to show off the DR of the sensor. OBVIOUSLY, it's not color-corrected -- you're seeing a screenshot of the raw footage. When I want your opinion on my shooting, I'll ask for it. Geez Louise.

I don't think you have a great attitude here. Between not reading people's posts before replying, and this snippishness... I think you should re-evaluate your communication style.

Now that I've been mean... what you are saying is that your budget needs to include more than just the 12x12, it also requires stands and crew. A reasonable position. You can say that nicely.

Just like you can note that you were showing a technical test, not a final work, politely. It clearly was not obvious to the commenters. Generally if you do something like that, its worthwhile to note what you are up to and that it isn't a finished piece when you post. I happen to differ with you on the value of your test example, but that isn't my point now.

Criticism is part of our craft, and you need to learn to take it in stride. I know it makes me feel bad even when I agree with the critic, and worse when I disagree with them, but that's the life. Sometimes that just means ignoring it when it wasn't what you were looking for and moving on.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

if you can set the camera up to take a frame at one shutter length then a frame at a different shutter length continually,

The basic technique i suggest uses two accumulated frames to achieve a stop of additional DR.

Any HDR technique which uses different frames will work only if nothing in the shot is moving. Or if you like ghosts.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Some of R1-MX examples shot daylight with NO FILTERS at a sunset magic hour in Vienna Danube City Channel:

Shot on R1-MX with Carl Zeiss Olympia Jena 180mm f/2.8 @ f/11, ISO 800, Shutter 1/50, 25 fps.

Shot on R1-MX with Carl Zeiss Olympia Jena 180mm f/2.8 @ f/16, ISO 800, Shutter 1/50, 25 fps.

Shot on R1-MX with Carl Zeiss Olympia Jena 180mm f/2.8 @ f/11, ISO 800, Shutter 1/50, 25 fps.

Shot on R1-MX with Carl Zeiss Olympia Jena 180mm f/2.8 @ f/16, ISO 800, Shutter 1/50, 25 fps.

Shot on R1-MX with Carl Zeiss Olympia Jena 180mm f/2.8 @ f/16, ISO 800, Shutter 1/50, 25 fps.

 

[XiaoSu Han]

We came to the conclusion that it would be the safest to expose so it's in a 10-stop range.

We did the following test:

Setting up a black and a white piece of cardboard,

having a light which is dimmable - expose so that the black parts of the frame are just not showing any purple in EXPOSURE information (false colors) and dim the light up until it's just not RED.

Measuring the reflected light resulted in 8 stops of latitude in REDCOLOR and 10 stops in RAW mode. In my eyes it's a realistic 10 stops of latitude because if it's partly clipped I can't properly use it. If it's barely visible in the shadows can't use it as well.

That's without any postprocessing, but it's the safest way to expose in our opinion.

What are the flaws of this test?

 

[joshua csehak]

I don't think you have a great attitude here. Between not reading people's posts before replying, and this snippishness... I think you should re-evaluate your communication style.

Seriously? When have I not read other people's posts before replying? I don't understand what you're referring to. I think I'm generally pretty positive and helpful. I mean, I posted those screenshots to show people how much detail the sensor holds in both the highlights and the darks. I think it was pretty obvious that that was the point of my post. Not to "show off" my work.

Wait, do you mean that I missed your response to my post earlier in this thread? Because I did -- it's hard to keep up with everything! Dude, the last thing I want is to make enemies here. I thought you were referring to the MX -- it's not unreasonable to think that Canon would be better at low-light. Graeme thought it, before he ran a test that proved differently (he tested the MX vs. the 1dmk4 in stills mode, IIRC). And if you say the t2i has worse image quality than the 7D, I'll take your word for it. I haven't run any tests. Everything I've read says they're the same, but it sounds like you know what you're talking about. I hardly think it's unprofessional to be wrong once in a while.

Now that I've been mean... what you are saying is that your budget needs to include more than just the 12x12, it also requires stands and crew. A reasonable position. You can say that nicely.

I don't think you were mean. I think it was constructive criticism. Yes, I could've said it more nicely, but come on! Reed Richards! That was funny! A little?

Just like you can note that you were showing a technical test, not a final work, politely. It clearly was not obvious to the commenters. Generally if you do something like that, its worthwhile to note what you are up to and that it isn't a finished piece when you post. I happen to differ with you on the value of your test example, but that isn't my point now.

Well if you don't see the value of my screenshots, by all means, tell me why!

Criticism is part of our craft, and you need to learn to take it in stride. I know it makes me feel bad even when I agree with the critic, and worse when I disagree with them, but that's the life. Sometimes that just means ignoring it when it wasn't what you were looking for and moving on.

I've got no problems with criticism. I get criticized all the time, and I'm pretty sure I take it in stride. On the other hand, indiscriminate unconstructive negativity sucks. I don't think a sarcastic response is the biggest deal in the world. But I'll do my best to tone it down in the future