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 :)

BASIC ISO RATING RED MX

Von Thomas

Von Thomas

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
529
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Los Angeles
Website
www.digitaltechnyc.com
For most of you, what is your base ISO rating for the Red One MX?

Also when shooting in dark under lit conditions, how would you rate the ISO?

I see DP's all over the place, and want to know what you find as your comfort level.



Von
 
Standard shooting 800, but a lot of times I end up grading down to 400 or so in post.

Low light is all preference and individual situations. If you want to be ultra safe in a controlled environment shoot at 320 and add more light where needed (but watch your highlights!)
However I have shot things in dark situations at 2000 and the noise has been fine with a little help from neat video.
 
This has been my experience with Epic/Scarlet, not Red One MX. However all three cameras are the same MX sensor.
 
I mostly expose for iso 320-640 and shoot at iso 800. Mx sensors are light hungry so fast lens and light really helps. ...........Dragon mmmmm......
 
first things first.



how do people define "rating a camera"? noise? dynamic range? both? it's actually really subjective. technically speaking the sensor is always working at 320.
 
ISO rating in a RAW camera is just metadata, but it does affect the amount of light that reachs the sensor if you adjust your f/stop accordingly (i.e. if your exposure is f/4 at 800 ISO and then you change your ISO to 400, you may open your lens another stop, to f/2.8, and that makes a difference) and the dynamic range (at ISO 800, you've got about the same stops above and below and acceptable noise, if you change the ISO you may under or overexpose more easily and get a noiser or cleaner image in each situation).

For low-key effects, or low-light controlled situations where you can decide the amount of light you're going to use, if you want a rich exposure or the cleanest image, in my experience with the MX sensor, the best thing is to meter to an ISO somewhere in between 320-500 and keep the camera set at ISO 800. And if you want to show on an external monitor a more accurate exposure (less bright) for your director, producer, client, etc. you can also adjust the ISO at the camera to 320-500. Bear in mind that this way the sensor will get more light, and thus, will burn your highlights faster, so be careful with the overexposure in high-contrast situations.
 
Ignacia, if you meter to iso 320-500 to get richer/cleaner exposure, then why would you shoot at 800? You're only going to bring it back down to 320-500 in Red Cine X, right?
 
I have a few clients that really do not test with the RED files off set, and use the ISO inappropriately. This past week, a DP blew his highlights to a point I could not retrieve them easily without getting magenta casts in the highlights. I'd prefer to shoot at ISO 800, to protect the highlights and make sure there is a balance in shadow and highlight data.

I was just curious to see how many of you go the 320 route. I personally do not see the advantage in going at 320 image wise, as I do not see a lesser quality picture at 800, and I believe that it is a good overall ISO to shot with.

I recently purchased a Canon 1DX. In my early days as a photographer, the normal ISO ratings were 100, 200, or 400, but at 400, you'd start to see a bit of grain with certain film. Ilford produced a 400 speed black and white reversal film that looked beautiful, without the normal grain of say Tri-X at the same speed. That was progress, and I see progress with digital capture technology, because now I can shoot my 1DX at speeds up to 5000 ISO and see wonderful images, that I never thought possible before (at such a high ISO), and that is how I view RED at 800, it's like the old 100, the only thing is you'll need ND's at times to get a shallower depth of field.

Is it just an old school philosophy (based on older film standards), that keeps you thinking 320 is a better quality file? I'm just asking because I've had DP's shot ISO from 50 (earlier Epic firmware) to 320, and get in blown out hell. Not saying you can't do it, do what you like, but protect your highlight, safeguard your shadows, you'll have a richer file.

This is my own opinion, and it's how I shoot. I think getting the most out of your file should be job one, that's why whether shooting stills or motion, I shoot for post, with as thick a digital negative as I can get. You know shooting the back 1/4 to 1/3 of your histogram does not give you all the image quality your sensor can produce, you need to populate it to get full color and image fidelity, but I know everyone knows this, I'm preaching to the choir.

Von
 
Last edited:
ok.. correct me if I am wrong here...
When we used to rate film, we did so with some sense of how the film would react when underexposed or overexposed regarding the manufacturer's rating.
We could then ask the lab to process it differently to counteract the lighting rating, if we so desired.

However, the image target we now work with has a definite sensitivity, and our ISO settings do not touch that on the MX sensor.

So.. adjusting ISO is really only adjusting the monitoring LUT, which may trick us into underexposing our image, or blowing our highlights.

How is his any use at all?
If the sensor has only one sensitivity, would it not make more sense for us just to tell the colorist or DIT how much to grade the image?
That is, tell them what ISO you wish you could have shot, and have them adjust exposure/contrast/etc in the post workflow?

C'mon.. tell me how I am misunderstanding the process.. because I very well might be
 
Christopher Mills said:
ok.. correct me if I am wrong here...
When we used to rate film, we did so with some sense of how the film would react when underexposed or overexposed regarding the manufacturer's rating.
We could then ask the lab to process it differently to counteract the lighting rating, if we so desired.

We could do this, typically you would test and find a formula that worked for you. But we had guild lines that we worked within, going outside those guild lines sometimes had disastrous results. But not every photographer ventured outside the norm ISO ratings. I for one had my formula, overexpose under develop. I typically shoot TRI-X at 200 ISO, gave me beautiful results, but here we're talking neg film. My process was much more subtle when shooting reversal.


So.. adjusting ISO is really only adjusting the monitoring LUT, which may trick us into underexposing our image, or blowing our highlights.

There are plenty of exposure tools to use on the RED cameras, not all DP's use them. Use them, you cannot be tricked, period. I recall on a lot of shoot the RAW view user button would get pushed, by mistake, and the DP would flip out, he never cared to see it, weird.

How is his any use at all?
If the sensor has only one sensitivity, would it not make more sense for us just to tell the colorist or DIT how much to grade the image?
That is, tell them what ISO you wish you could have shot, and have them adjust exposure/contrast/etc in the post workflow?

I never said the sensor had one sensitivity, I did say, I'd stay at 800 (with the RED Camera) whenever possible, then go up from there, as needed, but I personally do not go below 800. Besides the ISO is just and idea, a thought, a place to start, it's the aperture and shutter that I feel are key (as they control the creative side, depth, motion), the ISO is just a vehicle to get me there. I love to see the mountain in the middle, when ever possible, then I've have a DIT (or me) on set with Live Grade and dial in the look I think I want. There would be plenty of image info for VFX, post, grade, enough that will keep the integrity of the file intact all the way through the post production pipeline.

C'mon.. tell me how I am misunderstanding the process.. because I very well might be
Click to expand...


Von
 
I have tried to make a habit of using the exposure tools in the camera, and watching the histogram carefully.

I am still learning to use the tools, but I feel I have a decent starting point in camera when I treat the MX sensor as film stock of 640-800 ISO.

I guess I just don't see what is acheived by rating it at either very low or very high ISO setting.

Its not like a DSLR where you bake in a brighter (though often noisier) image by setting your ISO setting higher, is it?
 
Christopher Mills said:
I have tried to make a habit of using the exposure tools in the camera, and watching the histogram carefully.

I am still learning to use the tools, but I feel I have a decent starting point in camera when I treat the MX sensor as film stock of 640-800 ISO.

I guess I just don't see what is acheived by rating it at either very low or very high ISO setting.

Its not like a DSLR where you bake in a brighter (though often noisier) image by setting your ISO setting higher, is it?
Click to expand...

It is like a DSLR, actually, it's a DSLR motion camera, DSMC. But the only difference is, you can shoot RAW motion on a RED, you bake in everything on a DSLR when shooting motion (you still can shoot RAW stills on a DSLR).

TEST, TEST, TEST, thats the key. Do your own testing, in situations you may shoot in, then and only then will you have the exposure formula that is right for your style of image making.


Von
 
Thanks.. I will continue my testing. and my education. I seem to be at a point where i create repeatable results.. which is my goal.
 
When you adjust ISO when shooting, you are adjusting metadata which tells the R3D file how to display the RAW file. Opinions vary whether 320 or 800 whilst you're shooting are the best to aim for. Just shot a music video at 320, 500 and 800 (admittedly anamorphic so a bit more tricky to tell) but was happy with the results at all those sensitivities.
 
Oh, also, shooting 320 does have the advantage that you need less ND, which is good on all modern digital cinema cameras because of the IR colour shift issue at higher ND...
 
Trouble with low ISO settings is if you are attempting a film look on digital then a super clean, noiseless image with a tendency to clip in bright highlights is sort of the last thing you want... A bit of noise with a lot of overexposure latitude is closer to the way film looks and behaves.
 
I understand the inclination not to display a RAW image on set. It undermines confidence. I am still making my bones in this, so I can't afford that. In most cases only a couple people will have any idea what you are looking at much less undestand what it means, and it always creates questions, doubts and sometimes panic. Then you spend the next hour putting out fires, explaining your technique and justifying your choices. It is far less stressful for everyone (and quicker) if you only show your look, or in my case something close to it. If I want to know what the sensor is getting (I always want to know what the sensor is getting.) I look at the histogram and use the other tools. False color overlays don't create nearly as many questions as a RAW image does. I still will flip over to a RAW view to have a look at the extent and appearance of noise when I am working on the fringe but it is quick and very private.

I tend to rate the camera at 500 as a result of all of this, splitting the difference between the recommended 800 and RAW view's apparent 320. My concern is that by playing the middle I may have a tendency to sacrifice some more dynamic looks, but I currently view it as a practical way to keep the neg fat while protecting both ends of the exposure. I do this with the understanding that an image safely exposed can later be pushed in whichever direction I might choose.

As my confidence grows, I tend to push toward 800 ISO.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top