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 30... the Crossover build.

Jannard said:
You can still shoot the M-X sensor at ISO/ASA 320... you will have the same highlight protection as you do with the M sensor. But consider that the IRLP filter is so much better on the new M-X sensor, using NDs is not the issue it was with M.

Jim
Click to expand...

I've never had issues at all with the M... I've probably grasped RED's potential better than most.

What I meant was to get F-stops of 1.3 - 2 etc at 320 asa I had to put so many filters in front of the lens to do so, at 800 iso even more filters would have to be applied to get low f-stop's.. So was only checking to see if I could stay at 320 without compromise... sounds like we can so thats awesome.
But if you say the chip is at its best at 800.... then... should I use that as my base. or not worry.

Thanks Jim.
 
Mark Toia said:
I've never had issues at all with the M... I've probably grasped RED's potential better than most.

What I meant was to get F-stops of 1.3 - 2 etc at 320 asa I had to put so many filters in front of the lens to do so, at 800 iso even more filters would have to be applied to get low f-stop's.. So was only checking to see if I could stay at 320 without compromise... sounds like we can so thats awesome.
But if you say the chip is at its best at 800.... then... should I use that as my base. or not worry.

Thanks Jim.
Click to expand...

Mark,

Been wrapping my head around this for a few weeks now with the MX sensor and also David Mullen's excellent thread here
http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=41015

The native (sorry Jim!) EI/IO/ASA of the MX is 320 or there about, but due to the incredible noise free characteristics of MX you can shoot happily at 800 (and beyond) without any fear of noise in your blacks and have a bit of wiggle room in your highlights. What (I think) Red are saying if you can shoot anywhere between 320 & 1600 why call it 320?

As you have pointed out if shooting 800 @ 1.3 it's hello 1.2 and 1.8 ND's.
As David Mullen has pointed out a happy compromise for Daylight would be 400/500.

Given your experience and results with the Red One Mysterium you could shoot at 320 with the MX as you have enough experience to use the tools given to gauge when you are heading to clipsville.

Jim's reference to problems with the M and stacked ND was the IR pollution requiring the addition of a Hot IR or ND Combo. As part of the MX upgrade the OLPF has been replaced meaning the IR filter in the matte box isn't a requirement.
 
Mark Toia said:
I've never had issues at all with the M... I've probably grasped RED's potential better than most.

What I meant was to get F-stops of 1.3 - 2 etc at 320 asa I had to put so many filters in front of the lens to do so, at 800 iso even more filters would have to be applied to get low f-stop's.. So was only checking to see if I could stay at 320 without compromise... sounds like we can so thats awesome.
But if you say the chip is at its best at 800.... then... should I use that as my base. or not worry.

Thanks Jim.
Click to expand...

What Scott said.

And test. Whatever results you had with M will only be better with M-X at 320. The fact that 800 on M-X is as clean as 320 (maybe 250) on the M just says you have more options to protect the highlights. Your choise.

Jim
 
Alexander Alexandrov said:
If I'm monitoring in RAW, am i correct in saying that it corresponds to 320 for M and 800 for M-X?
Click to expand...

No... because it sounds like you are talking sensitivity. That is still the same for both sensors.

320 is the same for M and M-X. So is 800. M-X is just less noisy.

Someone post a link to David Mullen's post on this.

You can push M-X further than M in ISO because it is a cleaner image. And there are advantages to pushing when you can... like highlight protection.

Jim
 
Recap.

Both M and M-X have the same pixel size and the same sensitivity.

High ISOs are "native sensitivity" (can't believe I used that term) plus a curve.

The higher the ISO, the more you push that curve and induce noise.

The less noisy the pixel, the more you can push that curve without consequence.

There are advantages to pushing the curve/higher ISO (highlight protection)... right up to the point where you get too much noise (for your taste).

You can push the M-X sensor more than M because it is less noisy.

Hope that makes it easier to understand.

BTW... dynamic range is defined as signal/noise. This is why the M-X sensor has more DR than M.

Jim
 
Jannard said:
No... because it sounds like you are talking sensitivity. That is still the same for both sensors.

320 is the same for M and M-X. So is 800. M-X is just less noisy.

Someone post a link to David Mullen's post on this.

You can push M-X further than M in ISO because it is a cleaner image. And there are advantages to pushing when you can... like highlight protection.

Jim
Click to expand...

I think he was asking what ISO/exposure he sees on his monitor when monitoring in RAW. And I think the answer would be 'whatever you're shooting at' ?
 
so RAW monitoring is (using that term) "native sensitivity", which is same for both M & M-X sensors and it's technically around the number "320", correct?

then outside of RAW, the rest is Curve pushing from there (which will perform differently depending on sensor).
 
Jim and everyone,

Just another voice to say "thank you" for these updates. It really is like getting a new camera all over again. Long way from build 15, which is what my camera had when it arrived. So much has changed, great times.
 
Scott Webster said:
Mark,

Been wrapping my head around this for a few weeks now with the MX sensor and also David Mullen's excellent thread here
http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=41015

The native (sorry Jim!) EI/IO/ASA of the MX is 320 or there about, but due to the incredible noise free characteristics of MX you can shoot happily at 800 (and beyond) without any fear of noise in your blacks and have a bit of wiggle room in your highlights. What (I think) Red are saying if you can shoot anywhere between 320 & 1600 why call it 320?

As you have pointed out if shooting 800 @ 1.3 it's hello 1.2 and 1.8 ND's.
As David Mullen has pointed out a happy compromise for Daylight would be 400/500.

Given your experience and results with the Red One Mysterium you could shoot at 320 with the MX as you have enough experience to use the tools given to gauge when you are heading to clipsville.

Jim's reference to problems with the M and stacked ND was the IR pollution requiring the addition of a Hot IR or ND Combo. As part of the MX upgrade the OLPF has been replaced meaning the IR filter in the matte box isn't a requirement.
Click to expand...


Thanks guys... Completely understand now... :thumbup1:
We will do our in house testing as usual, seems the best way to be sure.

Man I can't wait for that FF35 Epic to come out.
My life will be complete.

cheers
 
Jannard said:
There are advantages to pushing the curve/higher ISO (highlight protection)...
Click to expand...

I don't get this. Effective dynamic range decreases at higher rated ISOs, doesn't it? And yet highlights are protected? Is that because of the steepness of the curve when rating for those ISOs?

-Rob
 
Robert Jackson said:
I don't get this. Effective dynamic range decreases at higher rated ISOs, doesn't it? And yet highlights are protected? Is that because of the steepness of the curve when rating for those ISOs?

-Rob
Click to expand...

The sensor behaves the same, all the time. Same DR. Noise floor is constant. The light require to cause a pixel to be blown is constant. If you use the camera at a 'higher ISO' all you are doing is setting the mid point of your curve lower on the curve between these two. Which means you have more DR above your midpoint to deal with highlights, but are making correspondingly higher use of the noisier section of the curve.
 
Christopher Polis said:
The sensor behaves the same, all the time. Same DR. Noise floor is constant. The light require to cause a pixel to be blown is constant. If you use the camera at a 'higher ISO' all you are doing is setting the mid point of your curve lower on the curve between these two. Which means you have more DR above your midpoint to deal with highlights, but are making correspondingly higher use of the noisier section of the curve.
Click to expand...

Ah! So when you rate at higher ISO the noise floor isn't changing, it's your distance from it that's changing. But you've got more highlight range. Right? Well, then that's pretty sweet.

So really it's not even a matter of, "Well, they're both good rated at 125." The quieter sensor will offer obvious and useful advantages at any ISO.

Thank you!
 
Robert Jackson said:
Ah! So when you rate at higher ISO the noise floor isn't changing, it's your distance from it that's changing. But you've got more highlight range. Right? Well, then that's pretty sweet.

So really it's not even a matter of, "Well, they're both good rated at 125." The quieter sensor will offer obvious and useful advantages at any ISO.

Thank you!
Click to expand...

We do NOT recommend rating either sensor at ISO 125.

Jim
 
So Jim, you'd never rate your camera at ISO 100, right? For R1 with M sensor, keep it at 320 and just add ND's to get to the desired T stop.
Should we still be wary of IR pollution on the M sensor cameras even with the new builds?
Is there a time when IR is more a problem with the M sensor than other times? Like when you have a ND1.2 and a pola?
Seriously, when do you sleep? My excuse is my wife snores...what's yours?
 
Jay Silver said:
So Jim, you'd never rate your camera at ISO 100, right? For R1 with M sensor, keep it at 320 and just add ND's to get to the desired T stop.
Should we still be wary of IR pollution on the M sensor cameras even with the new builds?
Is there a time when IR is more a problem with the M sensor than other times? Like when you have a ND1.2 and a pola?
Seriously, when do you sleep? My excuse is my wife snores...what's yours?
Click to expand...

I would never rate either sensor at ISO 100 (or under), 125, 160 or 200.

M sensors seems to have issues with standard ND's over 1.2 but the community can comment on this from their experience along with their solutions.

I'm too excited to sleep.

Jim
 
Richard Darge said:
Hey Jim, what would be the advantage of shooting below 200 ISO ?
Click to expand...

Absolutely none...

Rate either sensor from 250 to whatever noise you can handle.

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