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 :)

Does anyone have Scarlet vs Mark II or III low light footage? Or just low light alone

D

Devon Music

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I also want to see how the depth of field compares to a t2i for example
 
For lowlight the 5D MKII has a native ISO of 160. It shoots clean at 320, usable at 640. For me, unusable at 1280.


The MX sensor is native 800 ISO. And seemingly can be pushed to 1600 w/ no problem. So that's at least a stop and half extra light.

Don't know about MKIII. We shot once on it, and from our chatter with the crew, it's seems to shoot clean even at 1280!


But all this is a moot point. None of this matters because Dragon is due to come out later this year. RED is promising new levels of DR and lowlight, so that's where the focus should be.

Why focus on the past when the future is knocking at our doorstep?
 
Nick Morrison said:
For lowlight the 5D MKII has a native ISO of 160. It shoots clean at 320, usable at 640. For me, unusable at 1280.


The MX sensor is native 800 ISO. And seemingly can be pushed to 1600 w/ no problem. So that's at least a stop and half extra light.

Don't know about MKIII. We shot once on it, and from our chatter with the crew, it's seems to shoot clean even at 1280!


But all this is a moot point. None of this matters because Dragon is due to come out later this year. RED is promising new levels of DR and lowlight, so that's where the focus should be.

Why focus on the past when the future is knocking at our doorstep?
Click to expand...
I'll shoot my Scarlet at 800 and it'll look like a completely different camera at 2000 ISO sometimes haha. I've found using different RED's has sometimes given me different results.
 
Nick Morrison said:
The MX sensor is native 800 ISO. And seemingly can be pushed to 1600 w/ no problem. So that's at least a stop and half extra light.
Click to expand...


MX sensor "native" ISO is 320.... you're shooting at 800 to protect highlights.

When you switch to raw preview, you're seeing what the sensor sees and that's 320 ISO. Try it out.
 
Trevor Meeks said:
MX sensor "native" ISO is 320.... you're shooting at 800 to protect highlights.

When you switch to raw preview, you're seeing what the sensor sees and that's 320 ISO. Try it out.
Click to expand...

Ditto. I find myself at 500 or 640 ISO most of the time. It's easier to pull up/down from there than 320 or 800 in my opinion...
 
Joseph Hutson said:
Ditto. I find myself at 500 or 640 ISO most of the time. It's easier to pull up/down from there than 320 or 800 in my opinion...
Click to expand...

Cool, thanks guys. I always like adding new tools to the shed. This all sounds totally reasonable.
 
Hector Berrebi said:
here is a small freestyle comparison test of low light conditions we ran on our Scarlet and a C300

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD71BOhgjaI

and c300

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_xd78hfwW8&feature=plcp

hope this helps
Click to expand...

Nice.

I read the overview on the youtube vids and agree that the Scarlet looks way more cinematic. I would hazard a guess that the c300 was a lot easier to use and set up... As a Scarlet user I can testify that it's not a "plug and play" instrument. It's nothing like as tactically challenging as shooting on actual film but it is a natural bridge between celluloid and digital.

I have been shooting quite a lot in low/natural light and will try to upload some clips on this thread.
 
At the end of the week I will post a fashion piece shot entirely with only available light at ISO 800.
I'm very impressed with Scarlet's low light after some grading. Very little noise.
And the small amout of noise in the image is the kind of texture I actually like.
 
Very low and difficult light clip here. I threw this together for this thread and it was rendered out of vegas and the youtube conversion is certainly not what it looks like but you can see how the light handles. This was shot with the camera iso set at 600 and I tweaked the hallway shot in redcinex for effect. All the rest of it is untouched apart from the million layers of destructive compression. You can still see the light and feel of it well enough.

WARNING: CONTAINS NUDITY IN A NON SEXUAL BUT VERY FRANK CONTEXT. DO NOT WATCH THIS IF YOU AREN'T OK WITH NATURAL MALE AND FEMALE NUDITY.

A scene of a couple getting up in the morning after there is a knock on on the door.

http://youtu.be/vUoO83Rnq-s
 
Last edited:
Nick Morrison said:
For lowlight the 5D MKII has a native ISO of 160. It shoots clean at 320, usable at 640. For me, unusable at 1280.


The MX sensor is native 800 ISO. And seemingly can be pushed to 1600 w/ no problem. So that's at least a stop and half extra light.

Don't know about MKIII. We shot once on it, and from our chatter with the crew, it's seems to shoot clean even at 1280!


But all this is a moot point. None of this matters because Dragon is due to come out later this year. RED is promising new levels of DR and lowlight, so that's where the focus should be.

Why focus on the past when the future is knocking at our doorstep?
Click to expand...

Very much doubt that Nick :) MX native ISO to me feels like around 650 at max comparing to 1600 (at least) for Canon 5D MKIII. 52mk3 Canon perform really good in low light in case of signal/noise rate. If you push up ISO of R3D files to 1200-1600 it is going to be ok but most likely some post production de-noise has to be done after that. Low light performance is the only significant improvement for 5DMKIII.
 
Last edited:
Leo. C. Rogers said:
Nice.

I read the overview on the youtube vids and agree that the Scarlet looks way more cinematic. I would hazard a guess that the c300 was a lot easier to use and set up... As a Scarlet user I can testify that it's not a "plug and play" instrument. It's nothing like as tactically challenging as shooting on actual film but it is a natural bridge between celluloid and digital..
Click to expand...

actually

I hated operating the C300.

people may say what they will. but that camera is a ugly looking, nasty piece of plastic covered in buttons, and I dislike the Canon menu system.
and as file are very far from being valid competition in quality AND are not RAW... you got to get it perfect when shooting.

I find RED simpler. I rather deal with exposure, focus and shutter all night long then white balance, gain, iso, and all the video compression hell...
at least if the results were worth it image-wise, and the look would genuinely convince me in its cinematic qualities... just not worth the trouble.

there are advantages in having a battery you never have to switch, and 2 cards you will never fill (I could potentially get my SCARLET there with a 512GB and a V mount but that would cost) and the very clear high ISO is nice and neat (i HATE the unnatural night-vision qualities it can have sometimes). but nothing elegant, or simple about it... unless you are in the business of point, shoot and upload.

hector
 
I've shot ISO 2000 without a problem on the Scarlet.

The 'Noise' actually looks very cinematic and akin to film grain. See for yourself.

Right click the link and save it (80mb file):
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/51913995/DesktopA001_C009_09129L.mov

Lit with an LED panel and lensed with a Rokinon 85mm at F1.4.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top