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 :)

Build 15 vs 16 Side-By-Side 1000 ASA

C

cinemano

Banned
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
376
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hello

I finally had the courage to go for the big 16 today.. So i figured i'd do it in style and do a before and after of 1000 ASA on natural light with my cheap 4Fstop Nikon Lens..

Results attached in Jpeg. TIF is just too big (100mb)
(sorry i had to shrink it to max allowed size)

I expected the brightness to be equal but the grain to drop.. I guess it made the RED more low light capable :) Grain looks similar though.. i should put the 16 one at same darkness and compare? or put the 15 brighter to match the 16 then compare grain? Anyway.. here's the result for those interested :)

In terms of focus sharpness (not grain) I think its not a very very razor sharp image.. but i have a cheap lens so.. then again i get sharper with the same lens on my Nikon camera :D
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #2
Sorry guys.. for some reason it became a thumbnail instead of a downloadeable file.. how do i add a downloadable file?
 
cinemano said:
Hello

I finally had the courage to go for the big 16 today.. So i figured i'd do it in style and do a before and after of 1000 ASA on natural light with my cheap 4Fstop Nikon Lens..

Results attached in Jpeg. TIF is just too big (100mb)
(sorry i had to shrink it to max allowed size)

I expected the brightness to be equal but the grain to drop.. I guess it made the RED more low light capable :) Grain looks similar though.. i should put the 16 one at same darkness and compare? or put the 15 brighter to match the 16 then compare grain? Anyway.. here's the result for those interested :)


In terms of focus sharpness (not grain) I think its not a very very razor sharp image.. but i have a cheap lens so.. then again i get sharper with the same lens on my Nikon camera :D
Click to expand...

CINEMANO, I don't think your comparison is accurate. The images displayed have about 2 stops difference. Did you check your shutter speed to be the same?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #5
Hello.. well i didnt change anything between upgrades.. and i made SURE it was 1000 ASA both times..was the whole point of the test. Shutter speed was 50 on 15 and i just noticed was 48 on 16. At least last time i used my RED on build 15 was 50 shutter.. CRAP now i cant go back to redo the test :( any volunteer to do a perfect 15 vs 16 side-by-side with the same shot?
 
cinemano said:
Hello.. well i didnt change anything between upgrades.. and i made SURE it was 1000 ASA both times..was the whole point of the test.
Click to expand...

The ISO is essentially irrelevant since it's just metadata.

As long as your exposure for both shots really was the same then all you need to do is do the best color correction you can in RedCine or RedAlert for both files and compare the results. The correction you need to apply to 15 will probably be quite a bit different than the correction 16 will need.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #7
i did that just now.. made sure all the measurements were equal.. will upload it now..
 
The lighting is different. There's almost no light on the back of the laptop in the first picture while the second one shows a huge reflection.
 
The shots were made 30 minutes apart. PErhaps the sun outside moved. I honestly swear i didnt change anything. 1000 ASA on both. 4Fstop on both. Only thing i missed out was Shutter. !5 was 50 .. 16 was 48.
HOWEVER, REDspace changed them. So i leveled them to same values uploaded to thread 15 vs 16 version 2
 
Bear in mind it takes time to upgrade from 15 to 16.. involved 2 upgardes and black shading so the lights changed a little.
 
Build 15 was at 17h40 something and Build 16 was at 18h12 something..
 
The exposure at 1000 ASA should be the same in Build 15 and 16 because the sensitivity of the camera hasn't changed, only the noise level in the shadows.

So if you shot a subject in the SAME light levels, the Build 15 and 16 version should look the SAME brightness, only there should be less noise in the Build 16 version as you underexpose more (i.e. rate faster) and correct back to normal brightness.

So it seems that in the two tests, something wasn't done correctly. Either the ASA value wasn't set in one of the cameras as metadata or it wasn't opened up in the same settings in RED Alert.
 
i remember with my own eyes turning the knob to 1000 in both builds.. and i remember seing on the monitor that it was much brighter on the monitor than build 15.. Perhaps my shutter speed was too fast on build 15? I assumed it was on 50.. perhaps it wasnt.. well.. ill color correct them both and see.
 
If setting the camera to the same ASA rating in the same light level at the same shutter speed and frame rate didn't give you the same exposure... then the camera would be useless, wouldn't it? You could never trust a light meter reading after that.

That's the whole point of inputting an ASA value as metadata in the first place, so that the image looks correctly exposed when displayed. So 1000 ASA on one Build should yield the same results, brightness-wise, on any other build or else something is wrong.

Now remember this is all metadata, but the Build updates did not change the sensitivity of the sensor. You should just be seeing an improvement in noise at the bottom end.
 
I believe he said that shutter speed was 1/48 on one, and 1/50 on the other. That would make a little difference, but I don't think it should make THAT much differences. The lighting also seems to have changed from shot to shot. That WILL make a big difference. Also, what about Redspace making a difference? Were both graded in or out of Redspace? I'd say the two issues were the shutter speed and light changing.

Matthew
 
Opening a Build 15 clip in REC 709 will look very different than a Build 16 clip opened in REDspace (assuming same ISO). But if you open both in the same space, they will look very similar... just less noisy in B16.

Jim
 
I believe there is a new menu item in Build 16 that you can select the color space/gamma curve. We can choose between REC709, REDspace or RAW (I am not in front of the camera so am not 100% sure). Each one gives you very distinct brightness and color reproduction. I don't know what is the default setting in Build 15. But the different default settings in the two builds could have been the reason for your test results.

My 2¢.
 
Default for Build 15 is REC 709. Default for Build 16 is REDspace. But you can change either in post (RED Alert! or REDCINE).

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