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 :)

Why not ISO 100?

Brook Willard said:
I'm having a difficult time understanding how the dynamic range does not change [considerably] anymore.

Lets say that the camera has 5 stops over and 6 stops under [at the native 320]. If I rate the camera at 640, it should now have 6 stops over and 5 stops under. Conversely, if I rate the camera at 100 ASA, it should now have 3-1/3 stops over and 7-2/3 stops over. By this logic, I don't see how any softening could come about... no resolution hit, just a dynamic range readjustment.

So to get to the same dynamic range at 100 ASA with the loss of some resolution detail makes it sound like some other mojo is happening there. Is it an actual gain-based change to the sensor or is it all somehow in the debayering algorithm?
Click to expand...

I'd say IMHO, that one big change that seem to have happened is the noise levels and therefor also my preference of using those levels. So the actual DR was always there it's just that some of us wasn't comfortable with it. If the noise levels change for the better we will feel more comfortable with those levels and therefor see it as if the DR has changed.


Fredrik
 
A point of clarification please:

Is the ISO setting of RED:
1. Purely meta-data as applied to the RAW footage.
2. An in-camera setting that affects how noise reduction and other image processing is implemented prior to RedCODE RAW compression.

I imagine that changing the ISO does change how the footage looks on an on-set monitor. I can also see how the ISO rating is a guide to how much light is needed to get optimum performance. However, I thought one point of RAW is that it ISO is not baked into the image.

Edit: Also, is the decreased resolution at low ISO due to luma cross talk between photo-sites at high intensity? I.e., the image blowing out?
 
i didn´t know this iso100 "issue" yet, so a very informative thread today for me.

joofa, i agree the most you said, but i think the raw-file concept is new to the most of us in filmmaking and so every new "discovering" from jim, red team or customers is very welcome to me to learn this camera.
 
So then why would anyone ever want to shoot at anything less than 320? That's what I can't figure out.
 
Joofa said:
Gunleik, if you are going to do multiple transformations (change ISO, change brightness, change curves, etc.) at the same time, then it is very much dependent on the implementation. For e.g., is Red collapsing transformations in such cases or not (people working After Effects know very well the effect of collapsing transformations in spatial scaling; people working with Shake also know this on how to insert nodes without breaking the chain of collapsing transformations).

If you have found a secret sauce of getting good results in doing multiple transformations together, then it may not be taken to mean something inherent in the nature of transformations and it may be how the cumulative effect of those multiple transformations was "baked in" via a particular implementation by a particular manufacturer.
Click to expand...

Actually there's no "secret sauce", more like: Different images may have a different route in the developing process. There's no "one" way, and thus I dislike the batchprocessing often needed due to time limitations and RCs buggyness.

So all I say is: If you have an image that might call for it, try this:

Gunleik
(Who have stayed notoriously away from AE, but have worked a bit in Shake...)
 
Shawn Nelson said:
So then why would anyone ever want to shoot at anything less than 320? That's what I can't figure out.
Click to expand...

I would shoot ISO 125 with confidence if I was short on ND's, just like I would shoot ISO 1000 if I was short on light. There is less much difference with ISO 125 than ISO 1000. If I had ND's, I'd shoot ISO 320-500.

Jim
 
I'm guessing that ISO is no longer just MetaData. Works for me. Whatever it takes to get the best image possible.
 
Doc Holliday said:
I'm guessing that ISO is no longer just MetaData. Works for me. Whatever it takes to get the best image possible.
Click to expand...

ISO is only metadata... right up to the point where you change exposure. Then it is not just metadata.

Jim
 
Jim,

The noise in B16 definitely looks more organic and pleasing. Depending on what we were shooting we felt that 640 was the maximum ASA we could shoot provided there was some good exposure there. The stills of B16 look to expand this arbitrary "acceptable" range more.

Can you please please please post a B15/B16 comparison so we know what we are talking about here? Most of us here are familiar with the cameras current performance and this would help us understand more of what we are seeing in your samples/descriptions. That or we can just wait patiently to find out for ourselves.
 
HOLLYWOOD SCHMOLLYWOOD said:
Jim,

The noise in B16 definitely looks more organic and pleasing. Depending on what we were shooting we felt that 640 was the maximum ASA we could shoot provided there was some good exposure there. The stills of B16 look to expand this arbitrary "acceptable" range more.

Can you please please please post a B15/B16 comparison so we know what we are talking about here? Most of us here are familiar with the cameras current performance and this would help us understand more of what we are seeing in your samples/descriptions. That or we can just wait patiently to find out for ourselves.
Click to expand...

This was shot outside in daylight with an early Build 16 vs. current Build 15. It is the back/bottom of a tire.

It is a 3K, 200% crop, blue channel. Both shot ISO 400. Levels turned up to stress the image. A bigger difference will be seen in low light conditions.

Jim

9_15d16d.jpg
 
Wow !

Jim,

If it is a denoiser algorithm, or not..., does the image look as sharp as before ?
 
Antoine Fabi said:
Wow !

Jim,

If it is a denoiser algorithm, or not..., does the image look as sharp as before ?
Click to expand...

There are about 50 things we did inside the box to get here (which is why it took us so long to figure out). If was a simple as a de-noise algorithm, we would have done it in two days. No resolution loss.

Jim
 
There are actually more than 50 things we did inside the box, but I think we lost count around 50 :-) Seriously though, not a single one of those changes was simple. It's also been a massive team effort, with us all working on bringing it all together.

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