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 :)

bigapplefilms shoots lowlight test RED MX - MasterPrimes & Hawk Anamorphics

Thank you for sharing you just singlehandedly depressed the DP, Director and Gaffer here on set of a television show for not having the MX on our cameras.

Fantastic footage.
We were amazed and appreciate it.

Luis Flores
 
beautifully shot. I would also love to see side by side comparisons of an MX and non-MX camera, as I am not as familiar as others with R1's previous capabilities.
 
Wow... I am really liking the noise structure/look (whatever the appropriate name may be) at 3:00! Is that the look of underexposed 2k?
And does most of the noise magic come from the magnification from shooting 2k?

I guess the shutter was 5 degrees or 1/72, correct? So does the ISO1600 tag mean that it was shot using ISO1600 for monitoring but it was pushed higher in post?

Thank you for posting!
 
Roberto Lequeux said:
Wow... I am really liking the noise structure/look (whatever the appropriate name may be) at 3:00! Is that the look of underexposed 2k?
And does most of the noise magic come from the magnification from shooting 2k?
Click to expand...
Haha, let's call it grain... :laugh:
The cropping is for sure the major reason, that it shows up like this.

Roberto Lequeux said:
I guess the shutter was 5 degrees or 1/72, correct? So does the ISO1600 tag mean that it was shot using ISO1600 for monitoring but it was pushed higher in post?
Click to expand...
No, we didn't push the ISO up in post, just some basic corrections to color-temperature and curves.
 
It was good to see some 2k footage for comparison. The grain/noise becomes a bit coarser, as expected. Much like the difference between 16mm and 35mm film.
Nice shots throughout. Thanks for the effort.
 
Daniel Dacian said:
Haha, let's call it grain... :laugh:
Click to expand...

Honestly, looking at this sort of footage we might have to come up with a new term that doesn't carry the negative connotation "noise" does, or we'll end up talking about noise with as much love as we do "grain" in the not so distant future.

Daniel Dacian said:
No, we didn't push the ISO up in post, just some basic corrections to color-temperature and curves.
Click to expand...

Wow... that is bright. So, let me ask one more question to make sure I follow you correctly. Did you "develop" out of Cine-X at 1600ISO and then apply curves to that RGB?
 
Roberto Lequeux said:
Wow... that is bright. So, let me ask one more question to make sure I follow you correctly. Did you "develop" out of Cine-X at 1600ISO and then apply curves to that RGB?
Click to expand...

Yes Robert, it was shot and edited at ISO 1600, everything else that we did to the picture (colortemp, curves) was done in Redcine-X.
 
Curious to know the latitude difference between ISO 300-1600. No noise visible which is great. My question for day exteriors is if your going to have to stack even more NDs now or if the latitude is still there where the Mysterium was rated previously around 320 ISO to get the full range.
 
Lawrence Daufenbach said:
Curious to know the latitude difference between ISO 300-1600. No noise visible which is great. My question for day exteriors is if your going to have to stack even more NDs now or if the latitude is still there where the Mysterium was rated previously around 320 ISO to get the full range.
Click to expand...

Latitude does not change as the iso is metadata.
 
Your "usable" latitude does not particularly change either. The camera sees what it sees, all you are doing is deciding how much under-exposure v. over-exposure you want.
 
Lawrence Daufenbach said:
Curious to know the latitude difference between ISO 300-1600. No noise visible which is great. My question for day exteriors is if your going to have to stack even more NDs now or if the latitude is still there where the Mysterium was rated previously around 320 ISO to get the full range.
Click to expand...

Deanan said:
Latitude does not change as the iso is metadata.
Click to expand...

I thought this observation from David Mullen after his MX pilot shoot tests defined It pretty well.

In testing, I noticed that when I set the camera to 320 ASA, the brightness of the image in RedColor matched the brightness in RAW View -- the crossover point on an 11-step chart matched each other. At higher ASA ratings, there was more overexposure headroom added (obviously.) I don't know if this means that the "real" sensitivity of the MX sensor is 320 ASA, it all depends on whether you want some decent overexposure headroom.

But the noise is so low that I think 500 to 800 ASA is a good starting point because you get a more film-like response in the highlights.
Click to expand...
 
Both sensors are equally sensitive to light. But the new MX sensor has a much lower noise floor, so underexposing is less objectionable and one can be comfortable with a functionally higher ISO rating.
 
not just any 2700..... try to control your "zoom-envy" gentleman.... out the case, powered, and shooting you clowns......23 seconds.....it has its charms.
 
And might I add that the 2700 footage does not appear much darker than the RED MX footage...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top