Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

RED MX ISO

Martin Ubilluz

Martin Ubilluz

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
418
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Website
www.mu2pro.com
Maybe this had been answered but I need something solid. The MX is set to 800 ISO when you get the camera but is it still 320 ISO in RAW... If im shooting outside do I need more ND?
 
You need more ND. You can still rate at 320, but you're starting to eat into your available DR. The sensor is noise free at ISO 800 (even up to 1000~1600 in many cases). So the higher you can rate the camera to expand your low-end range, will give you better highlight roll-offs and more shadow detail while maximizing usable DR. Shooting ISO 320 on MX would be analogous to shooting ISO 160 on the original Mysterium. Not as drastic of a difference, but it would cause the same sort of compression within your exposure range.
 
im guessing IR is not a problem any more because I will have to add a bit more ND then usual now right?
 
IR response has been greatly improved. Having an IR mirror in the kit is still a good idea for certain situations, but you don't need to worry about IR+ND all the time like on the original M chip.
 
To IR filter, or not to IR filter

To IR filter, or not to IR filter

First off, IIRC Art Adam Wilt (I have fused them into one person for my own twisted reasons :coolgleamA:) at PVC did some testing on the MX you should review if you are concerned about IR pollution. My advice is to use it on ND 1.8 and above only. From footy I have seen in grading the new IR/OLPF sandwich in front of the MX cuts anything below that just fine. I like to check black fabrics as the synthetics shift purple/brown noticeably if there is inadequate IR blocking but black cotton much less so, YMMV.

BTW high ambient temps tend to make it worse.

Cheers - #19
 
I got my MX today and when I switch to RAW view everything is much darker I wondering if the RAW is still 320 ISO
 
Martin Ubilluz said:
I got my MX today and when I switch to RAW view everything is much darker I wondering if the RAW is still 320 ISO
Click to expand...

Effectively yes.

But because the shadows on MX are so much cleaner than those on the original M sensor, you can 'push' 1.3 stops to 800 ISO without noticeable noise.

By setting the ISO to 800 you have to close the iris 1.3 stops to put the mid-tones in the same place they were at 320 ISO. You therefore get 1.3 stops more highlight protection.

I am currently writing an article explaining this in more detail, and when it is complete I will put a link to it on Red User.
 
AND you only get that protection through reclaiming the highlights by post-processing @ a lower ISO.

Starting to lean towards a "shoot @ 800, process @ 320" 'ish paradigm. At least for high-contrast material with highlights in the top region. Reclaimimg those stops in post is a nice little thing.
 
hi guys, what is IR and NR? I think different term for different continanats, please advise, thanx:undecided:
 
Gunleik Groven said:
AND you only get that protection through reclaiming the highlights by post-processing @ a lower ISO.
Click to expand...

Or using the latest REDcineX and outputting EXR which gives you un-clamped float.
 
If i shoot at 800 and then in redcine put the ISO to 320 wont everything just be darker then how i shot it?
 
Not neccesarily... -:)

If you compensate with a curve, you'll both keep your highlights and lift your lowlights without adding gain/noise (which is what iso/exposure does). Not that there is much noise in there anyway...

If you're going for a grade, you could do redlogFilm wit a little lift in the bottom, more DR and better precission, and your highlights will stay intact.

Heck, I start to see why I have put this in my Alex vs MX comparison... -:)
 
Gunleik Groven said:
IR = infra red.
ND = neutral Density

Haven't heard any continental differences to this...
Click to expand...

thanx, I have never used an IR camera, how do you switch to IR on the red? also I think I meant DR when I asked about NR, and DR i see is dynamic range? sorry too many late nights of editing sending my translation chip on the blink :)
 
Ryan, we are referring to filters you place in front of the camera. Not different types of sensors.
The red one is not an infrared camera, but the sensor does pick up some light in the infrared spectrum.

Placing a infrared filter in front of the camera & lens blocks light of the wavelength length to the sensor. A neutral density filter, when placed infront of a lens, cuts down the intensity of light hitting the sensor. ND's are often used if it is too bright outside to get a usable image from the sensor.

Hope that helps.
 
Justin Nguyen said:
Ryan, we are referring to filters you place in front of the camera. Not different types of sensors.
The red one is not an infrared camera, but the sensor does pick up some light in the infrared spectrum.

Placing a infrared filter in front of the camera & lens blocks light of the wavelength length to the sensor. A neutral density filter, when placed infront of a lens, cuts down the intensity of light hitting the sensor. ND's are often used if it is too bright outside to get a usable image from the sensor.

Hope that helps.
Click to expand...

thanx justin, aware of the ND's bt not of IF's, so what image does the IF filter give to the red? sorry about the questions, just not familiar with IF? and does this work hand in hand with a specific kind of light, thanx again
 
I don't know what "most people" do, but it's pointless to get highlight - protection on-set (by setting the ISO @ above 320) if you don't reclaim it in post (by lowering it)
Digging up the lowlights is pretty trivial. Keeping the highlights is a bit more tricky.

But if you shoot for "DTD" (my new: Direct to delivery term) with in-camera grading etc, you can set the ISO wherever you find noise pleasing and post from there.

You will lose a lot of latitude, though. (But that ain't allways bad)

You basically have to know whether you're shooting for DI or for for DTD. If you know the answer to that question, you will know what your on-set exposure priorities should be...
 
Ryan Sean Davy said:
thanx justin, aware of the ND's bt not of IF's, so what image does the IF filter give to the red? sorry about the questions, just not familiar with IF? and does this work hand in hand with a specific kind of light, thanx again
Click to expand...

IF filter away IR light...

The more ND filtering you use, the more IR light wil get through, as conventional ND's don't filter IR light.

I have seen a few theories in the line of "Above ND X, allways use an IR cut", which is a bit simplified, but usually good advice.

Problem is that IR pollution can vary a lot due to uncontrolable factors, like what's going on in the sky - even on the same location the same day, without heat neccesarily being the only telltale factor. Snow f.ex. can reflect it and maximize the pollution. As far as I can see, there's no viewable indicator as to when the IR pollution hits but looking at your image. But it IS true that the more ND you use, the more likely you are to get into trouble.

I don't like to allways run around with an IR cut in front, though because, when you know what to look for, it is often quite easily spotable.

Symptoms:
Greens go mushy and grey (like forests or grass.)
Blacks go violet . (trousers, shirts and fabric are often quite telltale objects)
Greys go magenta.

There are combined IR/ND filters out there, that some love and I hate (of course I need to be a wacko in this regard, too...) -:)

When the combined filters are stacked, you tend to get unwanted artifacts due to mirroring between the filters, that regular ND's won't give you. This can happen if you only put in a pola...

So I prefer to use regular ND's with an IR cut in front, when needed.

(We ran practical tests on this this summer on a TV-series, and when finnished, we all agreed that the combi-filters were much more of a ticking bomb, than occationally recording a bit of IR pollution, which you mostly can grade away.)

Gunleik
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top