DSMC is not going to happen...

[Dan Kanes]

@ Josh - the Raw Bayer Data from the sensor is capable of being interpreted at various ISO ratings because it is a Raw capture. Testing and calibration has determined that the Optimal (and thus Native) rating of the MX sensor is 800asa.

The MX sensor has a very good Signal to Noise Ratio, and its handling of shadow information is excellent. "Sensitivity" is really about high quality image from a given sensor's Signal to Noise Ratio. You can have a high sensitivity with poor noise performance, which then gets preprocessed in some cameras with noise reduction (AKA detail destruction) The cool thing about Red is that YOU have the power to choose how the sensor information is interpreted to a certain degree in order to obtain the optimal results you want. That could mean noise reduction with your own parameters later, or not!

 

[Sam Eilertsen]

Ahhh . . . thank you for that. Still a non-techie wondering if the Epic is 3 stops more light sensitive than a common DSLR or if it is just a gain issue whereby the Epic is pre-gained to 800 where the DSLR is not. There are no dumb questions . . . remember that before yelling at me REDusers. ; )

Well, its not just that its "pre-gained" to 800, the MX sensor is certainly more sensitive than the sensor in a DSLR. Thus a DSLR will have a lot more noise at ISO800 than the Epic will.

 

[Steven Hammer]

I have the same question as Josh, which still hasn't been answered, really. That being, Jarred's post is implying that the Epic sensor would have the same "sensitivity" at ISO 800 as a stills camera at ISO 100. The way I was reading that (and I could be completely wrong) is that one could light and shoot a scene with Epic at a set aperature and shutter speed at ISO 800 (i.e. the "best" ISO for minimizing noise and maximizing sensitivity) that, if shot with a stills camera in video mode would require that the stills camera be set at ISO 800, which would clearly NOT be the best ISO for minimizing noise and maximizing sensitivity. Meaning, that you could shoot with far less light (3 stops) but get good clean images of the same quality you'd get out of the DSLR at ISO 100 with 3 stops more light. That's how I read it, but I might be misinterpreting it.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Back with the M-X Red One I did some tests against my Canon 1DmkIII (in stills, it doesn't do video), and found lower noise on the RED for the same ISO (and more DR on the RED, especially at higher ISOs). ISO is ISO so ISO800 on one camera should be very similar to ISO800 on another camera. With stills cameras, generally they have a base ISO of 100 or so, and we on Epic and M-X have a base ISO of 800. We can go a bit lower on the ISO (generally don't recommend dropping below 320) so it's probably fair to say the REDs are more sensitive.

Hope that helps clarify,

Graeme

 

[Zeb B]

Well, its not just that its "pre-gained" to 800, the MX sensor is certainly more sensitive than the sensor in a DSLR. Thus a DSLR will have a lot more noise at ISO800 than the Epic will.

Is there a thread that tests the MX sensor against a DSLR showing at a given noise level the sensor is ____ stops more sensitive? Dummy here: I understand that a lens rated at F1.8 has higher light transmission than an F4 lens. Saying that a digital circuit will make a F4 lens as good as a F1.8 is a different conversation.

 

[Zeb B]

Back with the M-X Red One I did some tests against my Canon 1DmkIII (in stills, it doesn't do video), and found lower noise on the RED for the same ISO (and more DR on the RED, especially at higher ISOs). ISO is ISO so ISO800 on one camera should be very similar to ISO800 on another camera. With stills cameras, generally they have a base ISO of 100 or so, and we on Epic and M-X have a base ISO of 800. We can go a bit lower on the ISO (generally don't recommend dropping below 320) so it's probably fair to say the REDs are more sensitive.

Hope that helps clarify,

Graeme

Is there a thread on this with results somewhere?

 

[Dan Kanes]

Josh did you read about s/n ratio

 

[Zeb B]

Josh did you read about s/n ratio

Your prior post - yes. I was just checking to see if anyone knows of any side-by-side bench testing that was done comparing sensitivity at a given noise level. If it's: "Canon 5D has a 62DB S/N ratio at 100ISO where the Epic has a 62DB S/N ratio at 800ISO" then me simple mind can grasp that. I have seen the image from both Epic, Canon 5D, Panasonic AF100 etc. I know for a fact that the Epic image is superior in every way - no question there. Just trying to learn from the smart kids - disregard this line of questioning if it's too basic or I'm just too thick and not getting it.

BTW: I would love to buy an Epic today . . . if it shipped with a Canon mount in the box.

 

[Timur Civan]

The best way to determine this honestly, is to look.

If it looks good shoot with it. Don't waste time and get so entangled in numbers. If the camera looks good shoot it.

 

[Antony M]

... I was just checking to see if anyone knows of any side-by-side bench testing that was done comparing sensitivity at a given noise level.

As soon as my Epic arrives with its Canon mount (When??????) I will be doing exactly this.

Side by side comparisons with the Canon 5DII - for stills obviously. No point in comparing the video

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

Karim, if you open the images in new windows, where you can view them nearly full screen, I think you'll find that the MFDB shot is not much sharper than the Red one.

Ah! John 9:25. BTW IMO I prefer the MFD shot. Not because of higher res (you can't tell from the 1,000 line scaled versions) but because it's much smoother and more film-like. I found the RED shot too harsh (which I only noticed once I viewed the image in 1900x1039). I wonder, does anyone agree?