Exposing + Native ISO

[Arthur Woo]

Hi all,

As I'm preparing for the upgrade, I'm wondering about the exposure and ISO settings. I'm not sure how many of you in your early days of shooting Red have experienced shooting lower ISOs (320) in daylight and not being able to bring back much, if any, of the highlights if they were overexposed (the dreaded magenta cast in the highlights), vs 800 where there's a bit more latitude to bring back a little more. It's just got me thinking about how I am going to adjust if I'm staying at the native 2000 ISO.

So my question is, are you Dragon users leaving your ISO at 2000, and just using ND/higher f-stops, or are you lowering the ISO, with the possibility of less recoverable highlights? I'm speaking mostly for outdoor daylight shots. Thanks!!

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

So my question is, are you Dragon users leaving your ISO at 2000, and just using ND/higher f-stops, or are you lowering the ISO, with the possibility of less recoverable highlights? I'm speaking mostly for outdoor daylight shots. Thanks!!

You should lower the ISO to allow more light into the sensor. More light = cleaner image. I like 640-800 as a "base" ISO on Dragon for interiors, etc. - 1280 for night ext. - 320 for bright daylight - really depends on what you are trying to do. Shooting 320 on Dragon is TOTALLY different than shooting 320 on MX.

 

[Arthur Woo]

You should lower the ISO to allow more light into the sensor. More light = cleaner image. I like 640-800 as a "base" ISO on Dragon for interiors, etc. - 1280 for night ext. - 320 for bright daylight - really depends on what you are trying to do. Shooting 320 on Dragon is TOTALLY different than shooting 320 on MX.

Thanks! I do editorial/doc work every now and then so I don't always have time to ensure every setting is exact from shot to shot, but it sounds like it's not as big of an issue with the new sensor

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Thanks! I do editorial/doc work every now and then so I don't always have time to ensure every setting is exact from shot to shot, but it sounds like it's not as big of an issue with the new sensor

You have a lot more room to play for sure.

 

[David Battistella]

From Evan's test's here.

reduser link

It appears at 800 ISO the dragon matches metered light. This is nice to know in the sense that if you RATE at 800 ISO and STAY at 800 ISO then you will get very consistent results. I've always left the MX at 320ISO and 5000 kelvin (simulating RAW) , shot charts in different lighting setups and then white balanced and try to leave things at 320 in post to keep the noise down. There are situations I have rated at 800ISO and then if I want to reduce the noise bring that down to 640 or 500 in post. IT all depends. seems like we can be a bit looser in our selections now with Dragon.

When I get my hands on one, I'll do some of my own testing.

What seems to be happening with Dragon is much more accurate sensor/iso reading when it comes to metered light.

That does not mean you are going to throw away all of the great exposure tools built into the RED OS, but it nice to location scout with a meter and then not have any surprises.

Battistella

 

[David Battistella]

You should lower the ISO to allow more light into the sensor. More light = cleaner image.

This is true, more light = cleaner image, but when capturing with RED the ISO has no bearing. The only way to allow more light onto the sensor is:

1. Add more lighting
2. Open the iris or use faster lenses.

Lowering the ISO does not allow more light to hit the sensor. Lowering the ISO and opening up the aperture/removing ND, etc does.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

This is true, but when capturing with RED the ISO has no bearing. The only way to allow more light onto the sensor is:

1. Add more lighting
2. Open the iris or use faster lenses.

Lowering the ISO does not allow more light to hit the sensor. Lowering the ISO and opening up the aperture/removing ND, etc does.

WHich of course is fully true.
Lowering ISO darkens the image, and most photofraphers gut-reaction to that, is to open up, though...

Like most DOP reacts to other metadata changes...

 

[David Battistella]

Yes, of course and I know mark knows that.

But UNLIKE Alexa, the ISO is meta data is non destructive, this is not true for the ALEXA, where the ISO is baked in (unless you shoot 2K ARRIRAW) in which case we could start talking about the all advantages and brilliance of REDCODE. (now 6K RAW and much more compact)

So, it's just important to distinguish for clarity.

Battistella

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Yes, of course and I know mark knows that.

But UNLIKE Alexa, the ISO is meta data is non destructive, this is not true for the ALEXA, where the ISO is baked in (unless you shoot 2K ARRIRAW) in which case we could start talking about the all advantages and brilliance of REDCODE. (now 6K RAW and much more compact)

So, it's just important to distinguish for clarity.

Battistella

Sure - but I was responding to the posters specific question - "are you Dragon users leaving your ISO at 2000, and just using ND/higher f-stops" - which - UNLESS you are trying to get a shallow depth of field and shoot more wide open as a CREATIVE choice or go for more noise as a creative choice - would NOT be the best way to expose.

the thing about ISO being "only meta data" is a topic I spend a good deal of time talking about in Reducation - because, like Gunleik said - most DPs will react to meta-settings - destructive or not - so what I always try to drive home is -

ISO (on RED) doesn't matter EXCEPT:

#1: It effects your monitor path. And like it or not, not matter what you tell people - they will react to the monitor. Period. It is not the dumbest thing in the world to have your on set monitors dialed down a bit. Encourage those monitor luv'n folks to open up a bit.

#2: Choice of ISO may, or may not be, critical to DPs process for choosing exposure - which is rather important. So ... to say ISO is "not important" just because you can "change it later" - is a very flawed comment IMO - and I hear it often. Mostly from people who have ever used a light meter

 

[David Battistella]

Totally get this reasoning. i'm not suggesting it's "not important", I think it is really important for people (DP's) to understand this stuff.

It's true that ISO is really a monitoring path. My point is not that it is not important, but that when it comes to exposure choices, its the shutter, aperture and filtration that matter the most (all of the things in the optical path). Is there leway later because ISO is meta data? Sure. Is that the best way to go about things? of course not.

Maybe the bigger point is that it seems that with Dragon, DP's with make a couple of ISO decisions (based on situations) and things will run more like it did with film, where you have a fixed ISO film stock in the camera. The nice part is that the system is so much more flexible now and people will rate at 1600 or 2000 if that is what they are going for.

Battistella

Sure - but I was responding to the posters specific question - "are you Dragon users leaving your ISO at 2000, and just using ND/higher f-stops" - which - UNLESS you are trying to get a shallow depth of field and shoot more wide open as a CREATIVE choice or go for more noise as a creative choice - would NOT be the best way to expose.

the thing about ISO being "only meta data" is a topic I spend a good deal of time talking about in Reducation - because, like Gunleik said - most DPs will react to meta-settings - destructive or not - so what I always try to drive home is -

ISO (on RED) doesn't matter EXCEPT:

#1: It effects your monitor path. And like it or not, not matter what you tell people - they will react to the monitor. Period. It is not the dumbest thing in the world to have your on set monitors dialed down a bit. Encourage those monitor luv'n folks to open up a bit.

#2: Choice of ISO may, or may not be, critical to DPs process for choosing exposure - which is rather important. So ... to say ISO is "not important" just because you can "change it later" - is a very flawed comment IMO - and I hear it often. Mostly from people who have ever used a light meter

 

[Eric Haase]

Rating MX at 320 really compromises the range in highlights as the majority of the range will be under key. If your scene has a lot of values that you intend to place under key then that's great. But typically in sunny day exteriors this is not the case. You often have and want values over key so rating 800 more evenly distributes highlights and shadows. Still, at 800 on MX you have more stops under key than over. ISO in Dragon works the same way but you have more range overall with the sensor. By most accounts 1.5 stops over key and 2 under.

But the same logic applies. If you rate low on Dragon you'll have less range over key than if you rate high. Might not be as critical since with Dragon you have more range in highlights and overall range as well. But do know that by rating at 320 you are shifting where on the dynamic range you place key exposure and compromising how many stops over key exposure can be handled.

Evaluate your scene and decide where you want to place the values and then make an educated decision on which ISO to use to accommodate all the values in the scene, keeping in mind your acceptable levels for noise and how much you want to push the image in post. Testing the sensor and plotting the DR at various ISOs will show you where values fall above and below key at each ISO and how much range above and below key you have at each ISO.

 

[Doug Beatty]

If there were a way to sacrifice dynamic range for light sensitivity in camera (basically a reverse HDRx) it would silence a lot of the low light performance haters. Imagine having the ability to switch from dynamic mode to night mode and pick up an extra 3 stops in the shadows- it would be like having a better C500 built into Dragon!

A lot of what I see from Dragon is that ISO 2000 at 6K scales down favorably up against MX 5K @ ISO 800. If I were to crop a 6K Dragon file properly exposed at ISO 2000 to 5K and compare it to MX 5K properly exposed at 800, I'm not so sure that Dragon would look as clean or cleaner.

I realize that the color science isn't dialed in yet, but this is what worries me about Scarlet Dragon. Yes, we get more dynamic range, but at the cost of low light performance. So, those betting on Scarlet Dragon vs. Epic MX upgrades may have backed the wrong horse if they were hoping for improved low light performance in addition to increased dynamic range.

There are quite a few tests but nobody has posted a 5K Dragon vs. 5K MX test yet, and I'd love to taste that proof pudding.

 

[Elsie N]

Rating MX at 320 really compromises the range in highlights as the majority of the range will be under key. If your scene has a lot of values that you intend to place under key then that's great. But typically in sunny day exteriors this is not the case. You often have and want values over key so rating 800 more evenly distributes highlights and shadows. Still, at 800 on MX you have more stops under key than over. ISO in Dragon works the same way but you have more range overall with the sensor. By most accounts 1.5 stops over key and 2 under.

But the same logic applies. If you rate low on Dragon you'll have less range over key than if you rate high. Might not be as critical since with Dragon you have more range in highlights and overall range as well. But do know that by rating at 320 you are shifting where on the dynamic range you place key exposure and compromising how many stops over key exposure can be handled.

Evaluate your scene and decide where you want to place the values and then make an educated decision on which ISO to use to accommodate all the values in the scene, keeping in mind your acceptable levels for noise and how much you want to push the image in post. Testing the sensor and plotting the DR at various ISOs will show you where values fall above and below key at each ISO and how much range above and below key you have at each ISO.

My intentions have been to shoot the default Dragon ISO 800 (default on current build 5.1.35) for every situation... the KISS method. But the last paragraph in your post resonates... so I will copy and paste into my notes.

Thanks Eric.

 

[Evin Grant]

I guess I'm just going to have to keep repeating this...

C300/500/F55 etc. have on board noise rediction that kills detail!
The Dragon is cleaner in it's RAW path and resolves more detail at higher EIs.
The noise character is also considerably more granular/organic.
All of this means truly beautiful 4000-6400 EI footage when exposed properly and processed full debayer and treated to a proper post noise reduction treatment. I will try to post an example tonight.

 

[Evin Grant]

To the OP I like EI 500 for day exterior if it's standard contrast range and 1000 for backlit or high contrast scenes where I need to see more into shadows but hold highlights.

 

[Eric Haase]

To the OP I like EI 500 for day exterior if it's standard contrast range and 1000 for backlit or high contrast scenes where I need to see more into shadows but hold highlights.

This is what I'm talking about! Would I shoot a moody, wintery overcast day exterior scene at 800? Probably not. Would I shoot backlit or crosslit sunny shots with white buildings being hit by the sun at 320? Probably not. Tailor the ISO to the values in the scene if you can. Sure, sometimes you may be forced to shoot a dark looking night exterior at 1000 but if a lot of the values are below key and you can shoot at 400 you'll probably achieve better results. Having said this, I've shot a lot of 800 and 1000 ISO night exteriors and taken through a DI and projected in theaters and it looks super clean. For some reason, large projection looks cleaner that looking at it on a large computer monitor. But still 800 and 1000 even with tungsten look totally acceptable. Certainly less noisy than Vision3 500T.

 

[David Battistella]

Just for clarity.

i use aperture and shutter to control these things rather than the ISO setting. If I'm in a hard backlit or sunny situation like you describe, I close the iris 1 1/2 half stops and then I'm essentially rating at at ISO 800. This is where I just use the histogram over moving the ISO around. I just like to leave the ISO at 320 and only move it to 800 as a way to see more of the image. ISO 800 gives you highlight protection because you'll tend to stop down.

of course there are many factors, DOF, etc, as to why you might use ND over aperture, but I use my epic like a 320 daylight stock and expose according to whatever situation. If I set it to 800 and close down, I'm essentially doing the same thing. But I one light everything, so sometimes I choose 800 in post if the situation calls for it.

In the dragon r3ds everything is more elastic, so more freedom without penalty (hard clipping)

Battistella

 

[Eric Haase]

Just for clarity.

i use aperture and shutter to control these things rather than the ISO setting. If I'm in a hard backlit or sunny situation like you describe, I close the iris 1 1/2 half stops and then I'm essentially rating at at ISO 800. This is where I just use the histogram over moving the ISO around. I just like to leave the ISO at 320 and only move it to 800 as a way to see more of the image. ISO 800 gives you highlight protection because you'll tend to stop down.

of course there are many factors, DOF, etc, as to why you might use ND over aperture, but I use my epic like a 320 daylight stock and expose according to whatever situation. If I set it to 800 and close down, I'm essentially doing the same thing. But I one light everything, so sometimes I choose 800 in post if the situation calls for it.

In the dragon r3ds everything is more elastic, so more freedom without penalty (hard clipping)

Battistella

Yeah I get it, just seems a hard way to work as things will look dark on monitors. I'd get too many squawks from village if I didn't adjust the ISO to give a full image, or something close to looking properly exposed with then intended look.

 

[David Battistella]

Yeah I get it, just seems a hard way to work as things will look dark on monitors. I'd get too many squawks from village if I didn't adjust the ISO to give a full image, or something close to looking properly exposed with then intended look.

Totally agree. In those situations it's always at 800 for the monitoring path, lots of things to balance. On my own, I leave it alone.

battistella

 

[Björn Benckert]

I like to see iso as nothing else than a slider for color grading and a way to quickly preview how the picture looks darkened or brightened in camera. The exposure will be what it is no matter what and ISO has nothing to do with it.