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 :)

EPIC Native ISO

Please Correct me if I am wrong here, but my understanding of the difference between 800 and 320 on the MX sensor is wear in your dynamic range you want to place middle grey.

So say your range is 14 stops(13.5 whatever I just wanted a round number) at 320 you have maybe 8 stops in your highlights and 6 in your shadows. With 800 you are placed in the center of your range with 7 stops in the highlights and 7 stops in your shadows. This isn't a red only issue all digital cameras and film stocks have this characteristic.

I honestly go for 320 mostly because I like to shot for the raw. If i shoot with a 800 iso I think of it like I'm rating a film stock with a 320 asa as 800 because i need equal range in the highlights and shadows.

Stephen Wheeler
Daufenbach Camera
Specializing in RED, Digital Cinema, & 3D
www.daufenbachcamera.com
 
while I usually set the asa to 640-800

I have found it to be the truest to raw at 320-400..

id say 800 is a safe place to be.. but not necessarily the true asa for the sensor..

these are my findings.. they may differ from people to people.. but yah.. my 2 cents
 
Stephen Wheeler said:
Please Correct me if I am wrong here, but my understanding of the difference between 800 and 320 on the MX sensor is wear in your dynamic range you want to place middle grey.

So say your range is 14 stops(13.5 whatever I just wanted a round number) at 320 you have maybe 8 stops in your highlights and 6 in your shadows. With 800 you are placed in the center of your range with 7 stops in the highlights and 7 stops in your shadows. This isn't a red only issue all digital cameras and film stocks have this characteristic.

I honestly go for 320 mostly because I like to shot for the raw. If i shoot with a 800 iso I think of it like I'm rating a film stock with a 320 asa as 800 because i need equal range in the highlights and shadows.

Stephen Wheeler
Daufenbach Camera
Specializing in RED, Digital Cinema, & 3D
www.daufenbachcamera.com
Click to expand...

You have it backwards. At 320 (which may be closer to the sensors "native" sensitivity- or the point where the raw matches the redcolor as far as middle grey) you have much less range in the highlights. By rating 800, you are underexposing the sensor a bit and protecting the highlights. The applied gamma curve places values back where you would expect them to be so that your meter matches the camera's rating as far as where middle grey falls. Again, 320 gives you more range in the shadows and 800 gives you more in the highlights. Because the distribution is wildly lopsided toward the shadows at 320, I think most people choose 800. To get a true even distribution of values in shadow and highght on the MX you have to rate 1280 or 1600.
 
I have only shot with The Epic once - but after a day of shooting at 800ISO (and we were doing some moody lighting) I was not pleased with the noise I saw in the dark areas. They had to be crushed out to not see it. So for the consecutive days I rated at 500. And I would have gone for 320 (and just kept an eye on highlights) if I could have ordered more lights. As a side note - I now do the same with the Alexa. 500 ISO.
 
Eric Haase said:
You have it backwards. At 320 (which may be closer to the sensors "native" sensitivity- or the point where the raw matches the redcolor as far as middle grey) you have much less range in the highlights. By rating 800, you are underexposing the sensor a bit and protecting the highlights. The applied gamma curve places values back where you would expect them to be so that your meter matches the camera's rating as far as where middle grey falls. Again, 320 gives you more range in the shadows and 800 gives you more in the highlights. Because the distribution is wildly lopsided toward the shadows at 320, I think most people choose 800. To get a true even distribution of values in shadow and highght on the MX you have to rate 1280 or 1600.
Click to expand...

Thank you, your right, I'm not sure why i switched thoughs.
 
Scenario:


Rate at ISO 800 with a metered exposure of F11 1/2

Rate at ISO 320 with a metered exposure of F8

You want the scene at F4


Do you rate at 320 and use less ND?
or
do you rate at 800 and use more ND? (risking IR polution)

My ulitmate point is that this is a flexible thing.


David
 
I am also in the 800 crowd. I like that it leaves room for error. I am almost always shooting in fast situations and need the flexibility without worrying. I always view RAW as well.

Phil
 
I see ISO "only" as an interpretation (LUT) of sensor reading.

I dont think we can say that a sensor has a "native" unique ISO.

As long as you have sufficient sensitivity for a scene, it's OK.

...and, also, as long as the noise level is low enough, then again it's OK.

I'd say "recommended ISO" over "native ISO"

...bur i may be totally off track :)



Antoine
 
Joseph Hutson said:
+1 to what Brook has to say.

I'm sticking to 800 ISO as my base, and like Mike, I'm never pushing it further than 2000 ISO in extreme low light...
Click to expand...

If you are at Iso 2000 then you lens is wide open. This means that you never push your monitoring past iso2000? Or your Processing past iso2000? Because once you are wide open no more actual light it hitting the sensor, you are just increasing the gain. You could wind it up to the highest iso to "see" but it techically means nothing.

David
 
David Battistella said:
If you are at Iso 2000 then you lens is wide open. This means that you never push your monitoring past iso2000? Or your Processing past iso2000? Because once you are wide open no more actual light it hitting the sensor, you are just increasing the gain. You could wind it up to the highest iso to "see" but it techically means nothing.

David
Click to expand...

Yeah, once you are wide open it doesn't matter. At that point it is just metadata. You could just as well monitor at 4000 ISO if that was the only way you could see anything on the screen.
 
On the original RED I always shot 320...on the MX, 800...it seems to work well for me ilke this...If there is too much light, ND's...and Hot mirror if needed....I just use ND's to get the stop I want, or light accordingly...
 
David Battistella said:
That's a pretty sweet backhanded slap. Thanks Jim!
Click to expand...

Meant no disrespect to anyone David.

Brook is here is Sydney working on Gatsby, Toia shoots incredible stuff that makes me drool. One swears by 800 and the other by 320 so in my book both are completely viable depending on the situation.

If my post was taken in any other way I sincerely apologize as it was unintended.
 
Joseph and I were shooting together the other week in a recording studio with not a whole lot of light. My plans for additional lighting fell through due to budget and power available in the room itself so we used what was there. We shot at 1280 ( I think ) and while it was "moody", it looks cool. I have given it a bit of a gamma push over all and it comes up perfect for the intended end product, and the band really dig it. I would love to have had enough time and light to get it between 320 and 800 but it wasn't to be. But we still got some cool stuff at the end of the day.

The feel of what we shot is, in this case, more important to me than perfect ISO. But I'm not working at the level most of you guys are!
 
When Ted was showing the Epic in Sydney he had it at 3600 and it was still quite usable, though compromised. The best thing about the Epic is its flexibility when you need to make a shot work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top