Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

Build 16 ISOs...

Sorry but I still didn't get your point.

Do you mean by changing the T stops, working wide open, you change the resolving power of your optic and therefore you change the resolution...?

Or is this really realted to, and only to ISO?
Click to expand...

That's what I understood but it looks as it has got more to do with using the stops sitting more to the right?
 
The "sweet spot" of the RED ONE is 320-500 ISO. You will get the most resolution between these numbers.
 
Jannard said:
We don't choose to do this... it is the nature of the sensor. A sensor has a "native" ISO. Push too far in either direction and face the consequences. It happens in steps. ISO 2000 is noisier than ISO 1000. And ISO 125 is softer than ISO 250.

Jim
Click to expand...

Oh no, I meant why would I choose to shoot 100 ISO instead of dropping an ND if there is a resolution loss :) I know you wouldn't choose for your camera to do that!

And also if there is little difference in lattitude, do you mean above and below 18% gray I have the same number of stops of detail. Or is it moving from blacks to highlights.

Ian
 
Shawn Nelson said:
Does changing the ISO in camera still strictly a meta data with absolutely no permanent changing?

For instance: bright sunny day, I've forgotten my NDs and I'm closed all the way down and the sky is over 108 IRE (purple on the false color), if I change the ISO from 320 down to say, 100, will that cause any extra data to be recorded (and thus, not clipped) than if I had stayed at 320?

Another scenario: street corner at night, we got a 2.5k when we should have gotten a 4k. We're shooting at 320iso with the lens WFO. If I change to 1000iso so I can see what I am doing, will that introduce more noise than if I had shot at 320 and bumped in post?
Click to expand...

Clipping is caused by your actual exposure, not the metadata or viewing ISO. If proper exposure is T5.6 at ISO 500 but you view that at ISO 2000, when you open the image in RED Alert!, the metadata will show it at ISO 2000 (too bright). Just reset to ISO 500 (your actual exposure) and it will look right.

With Build 16, if you keep your viewing ISO and shooting ISO the same (as most of us do)... WYSIWYG.

Jim

Jim
 
ibloom said:
Oh no, I meant why would I choose to shoot 100 ISO instead of dropping an ND if there is a resolution loss :) I know you wouldn't choose for your camera to do that!

And also if there is little difference in lattitude, do you mean above and below 18% gray I have the same number of stops of detail. Or is it moving from blacks to highlights.

Ian
Click to expand...

You are on the right track. You would want to drop in an ND and choose 320 or 500 instead of ISO 100 (at least I would). But if you didn't have an ND, you still can operate with a small resolution hit (assuming you did not want to change your shutter speed).

Jim
 
Jannard said:
Your meter will match your monitor which will match the image when you open in RED Alert! (or REDCINE).
Click to expand...

And Log & Transfer in FCP? Will it match?

TIA,

Uli
 
A legit 320 sounds great to me

A legit 320 sounds great to me

To paraphrase MacGregor the best way to get a flatter, more 35mm negative style shoulder for the top end when shooting the RedOne is to under-expose in acquisition and then redistribute values in post. If you set your ISO to 500 or 640 AND adjust your exposure to avoid clipping then the only significant limit to your DR will be noise tolerance when you lift the bottom end. If the noise characteristics of B16 are as good as the Red Leader is touting then the useable latitude of the RedOne should increase.

Really looking forward to shooting with B16, thanks to the Red Team for all their hard work. The noise seems less harsh in the B16 samples. In some shots there is meaningful content in Zones 2 & 3 which have been the toughest to work with in recent builds, especially with lower Kelvin temperature sources.
 
Jim,

Ok, I definitely understand the logic behind shooting at a higher ISO in low light situations so that I can see what I'm shooting in the monitor. This will give me an idea of what my image will look like after I increase exposure in post.

BUT I still can't really grasp the logic for lowering ISO in bright situations. With film, if you choose a slower ISO (ex. 100), the film is less sensitive so that keeps you from overexposing. But on Red, if you lower the ISO, the monitor will look darker than the RAW file really is, so wouldn't that compel me to open my iris and over expose on accident?

Julio
 
What is the best noise filter for RED? Have you guys tried running TIFFs through Photoshop's luminance noise filters, for example? I tried that out on some of my noisy DSLR shots last night, and it worked pretty good. If you crank the noise filter too much, it tends to look soft, flat and milky, but with 30%, for example, you notice a pretty huge drop in noise.

Maybe batch RED TIFFs through Photoshop?
 
Don Julio said:
Jim,

Ok, I definitely understand the logic behind shooting at a higher ISO in low light situations so that I can see what I'm shooting in the monitor. This will give me an idea of what my image will look like after I increase exposure in post.

BUT I still can't really grasp the logic for lowering ISO in bright situations. With film, if you choose a slower ISO (ex. 100), the film is less sensitive so that keeps you from overexposing. But on Red, if you lower the ISO, the monitor will look darker than the RAW file really is, so wouldn't that compel me to open my iris and over expose on accident?

Julio
Click to expand...
I think the only reason why you'd do that is in a situation where you don't have enough ND filters and don't want to change your shutter settings.

But who knows, maybe some people will enjoy the ISO 100 softening effect, and use it instead of some Soft FX filters... :wink:
 
Slinnn said:
I think the only reason why you'd do that is in a situation where you don't have enough ND filters and don't want to change your shutter settings.

But who knows, maybe some people will enjoy the ISO 100 softening effect, and use it instead of some Soft FX filters... :wink:
Click to expand...

But even if you don't have ND's, lowering the ISO doesn't make the sensor less sensitive, so I don't get how it could prevent you from blowing out the highlights. If your iris is stopped down, and you're out of ND's, and you don't want to change your shutter speed, but the image is STILL too bright, then lowering the ISO doesn't really do anything, does it? I mean, your highlights are still going to blow out on the R3D. What am I missing?

Julio
 
I am repeating all the time that ISO 320 is still the king.

Probably with B16 it has got a lot "fatter" then before in B15...

So in RA you can nicely "dig up or pull down" to get picture of your "dreams".

ISO 125 ... <<<<ISO 320>>>>... ISO 2000.

The rest is about a lens and T/F stop that is used for that particular shot.

For example don't expect to get visible and usable picture on T5.6

in a total dark situation with very low available light even if you could try to set at ISO 2000 and up.

Then the first you should get the fast sharp lens available like a Zeiss Master Prime, use wide open at T 1.3

or even much faster at T1.0 using Leica Noctilux-M 50mm f/1.0 with upcoming PST IMS.

Than you could feel safe to a bit "adjust" the picture in RA if it was not enough till the noise is acceptable.

Also we should not forget the new features like a WYSIWYG and RED Space.

And a random noise is reduced at minimum with 9 1/2 stops of latitude at Dynamic Range of 66dB.

That's how I see B16 at its best.
 
Tom said:
What is the best noise filter for RED? Have you guys tried running TIFFs through Photoshop's luminance noise filters, for example? I tried that out on some of my noisy DSLR shots last night, and it worked pretty good. If you crank the noise filter too much, it tends to look soft, flat and milky, but with 30%, for example, you notice a pretty huge drop in noise.

Maybe batch RED TIFFs through Photoshop?
Click to expand...

Noise filtering on a still image is a completely different beast than noise filtering on moving images. You get all kinds of artifacts and odd looks when done with the wrong technique. For video there exists temporal, spatial, temporal-spatial, 3D convolution, motion vector masked, and a whole lot more filter. Temporal filter e.g. can do wonders on static shots, but in movements produce ghosting and smearing. Spatial filters can soften an image quite a lot, other types produce ringing, halos, dots...
My favorite is a combination of temporal-spatial and motion vector masked filtering technique - but that comes with a huge render performance hit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top