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 :)

First night shoot with my scarlet.

Guys, the new MX sensor is a huge improvement over the original sensor and is supposed to see deep in the darks. Check out the interviews on Red.com and there's footage incorporated into those interviews with candle light like the "peter jackson interview"

....so i'm wondering, since the Scarlet X uses the same MX sensor as Epic, why are we seeing so much noise?

The fair analysis would be on a motion file
 
i like this
 

Attachments

  • shadows-fascination.jpg
    shadows-fascination.jpg
    42.3 KB · Views: 0
One other thing to consider. I shot this at f2.8 and it is pretty under-exposed :) Was just an example of one type of situation.
 
Will, thanks for posting, very nice of you.

To those talking about noise, err... old Nikon f/2.8... Bueller... Bueller... Try this with a new T1.3, T1.4, f/1.4L, or any other fast still or cine lens with new coatings and you'd get more than a whole stop of added exposure... Yes, other cameras are indeed better at low-light even after downscale, probably in large part thanks to de-noise in-camera, but to consider Epic/Scarlet noisy or bad at low-light is downright laughable.

Just sayin'
 
Roberto Lequeux said:
Will, for posting, very nice of you.

To those talking about noise, err... old Nikon f.2.8... Bueller... Bueller... Try this with a new T1.3, T1.4, f/1.4L, or any other fast still or cine lens with new coatings and you'd get more than a whole stop of added exposure... Yes, other cameras are indeed better at low-light even after downscale, probably since they de-noise in-camera as opposed to offering the RAW image, but to consider Epic/Scarlet noisy or bad at low-light is downright laughable.

Just sayin'
Click to expand...

Ok. Let's wait for 2 500 ISO clean R3D file nightshots. I can't wait to see ONE.
 
Does RED plan on adding noise reduction to the post-processes of RCX?

I was under the impression that Alchemy Group, Saturation, Film Look, and Unsharp Mask were all post rather than pre-processing in RCX. That'd be pretty rad, as it'd get rid of the need to do a noise-reduction pass if you're transcoding to something else for editing/post-prod, etc.
 
No one officially said "noisable" it would be unfair for anyone to say that until a proper, fair test is done at various settings.
 
Have any of you guys ever played with an Alexa?

Epic is so bloody lownoise that it is hard to wrap my head around compared to camparable cameras.... :)
 
compared to this little beast i must say that the lowlight capabilities of the MX aren't that incredible...
http://vimeo.com/31835141
you need to download the video to see it without the vimeo compression, it's really amazing.
I sense there will be alot of new ScarletX owners a little dissapointed because they didn't know that even a Scarlet has it's limits.
the right tools for the right job... that's why i'm keeping the FS100. because it's a killer in low-light.
 
I think people have some interesting/strange expectations for scarlet to live up to...
 
Daniel Kunz said:
compared to this little beast i must say that the lowlight capabilities of the MX aren't that incredible...
http://vimeo.com/31835141
you need to download the video to see it without the vimeo compression, it's really amazing.
I sense there will be alot of new ScarletX owners a little dissapointed because they didn't know that even a Scarlet has it's limits.
the right tools for the right job... that's why i'm keeping the FS100. because it's a killer in low-light.
Click to expand...




Agreed. That is cool.

Still... I am possibly all of a sudden very old school, but some of the fun for me with the Epic is how flexible it is to light for it. The nice way it handles over - and underexposure so that one can really light for it withoput hesitation.

It is NOT how I can avoid using lights...

But hey, that's the cinema idea for me... :)

I don't want a camera with nightsight, but one I can light for without fearing that the image breaks....
 
Gunleik Groven said:
Agreed. That is cool.

Still... I am possibly all of a sudden very old school, but some of the fun for me with the Epic is how flexible it is to light for it. The nice way it handles over - and underexposure so that one can really light for it withoput hesitation.

It is NOT how I can avoid using lights...

But hey, that's the cinema idea for me... :)

I don't want a camera with nightsight, but one I can light for without fearing that the image breaks....
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more with this!
 
Gunleik Groven said:
Agreed. That is cool.

Still... I am possibly all of a sudden very old school, but some of the fun for me with the Epic is how flexible it is to light for it. The nice way it handles over - and underexposure so that one can really light for it withoput hesitation.

It is NOT how I can avoid using lights...

But hey, that's the cinema idea for me... :)

I don't want a camera with nightsight, but one I can light for without fearing that the image breaks....
Click to expand...


Well said.
 
Gunleik Groven said:
I don't want a camera with nightsight, but one I can light for without fearing that the image breaks....
Click to expand...

Absolutely! It is about how the camera handles the light, e.g. the transitions between high lights and the shadows, variations in color temperature etc. etc. which is important in making a beautiful image, not the ability to shoot in a dark street with no light. Other lower end cameras might in theory be able to produce a brighter image in lower light, but brightness is only one parameter in a range which describe the quality and beauty of the resulting image. It is quite possible to have a brighter image in a given situation, but for that brighter image to be much less beautiful than that coming from a less sensitive camera which instead has maximized other attributes resulting in an overall much more beautiful rendition of the light and the scene as a whole.
 
@Gunleik
I respect your answer, any advice on how you would light the city night scene? ;-) you simply can't.
That's like alot of cinematographers that asked vincent laforet how he lit the bridge in the car scene in "reverie". He didn't. The camera was good enough in lowlight for the bridge to light up in the night.
And in 9 months, when Jim will be posting Frames of the Dragon Sensor, everybody will go "wow this is a new era in cinema... i love how i can light the foreground to match the wonderful nightscene in the background! Less light needed!! "
been there, done that. even the super cheap Sony Nex5N is better in lowlight than the MX sensor.

THERE IS NO PERFECT CAMERA That does everything right.. there will never be a gyro-stabilized Smartphone-sized, 16K Medium-Format-Sensor sized camera that shoots 8000fps for 24hours in pitch black with 40 Stops of DR with a Raw codec @5Mbps in Bullet-time-array with a PL/C/EOS/Nikon/Leica-M/E/A mount

But there are camera's for the right job.
 
I'd rather have noise in the shadows that I can clean up to some extent in post with the added benefit of RAW rather than blown highlights and details I can never get back in post. The web is full of examples of people who are content to routinely lose as much as 40% of a frame due to overexposure on HDSLRs (admittedly, less so on the FS100) but will nitpick a little noise in an image shot in the dark on a RED camera to death.

The Scarlet is clearly superior to the the FS100 on the bright end of the dynamic range...and I like the FS100.

So, all things considered, I say let the noise be the noise. It's there but it's not egregious or all that objectionable looking.
 
601764_1280x1024.jpg


Sorry for quoting myself.... :)

This is 1 3000 watt tungsten philips + 1x 650W arri tungsten Fresnell fired directly at the cam.

quizz_small.jpeg


This is a pich-black studio with only one 650W tungsten fresnell focused (no diffusion) directly on her face.
The flare is from MasterPrimes, BTW...

593912_1280x1024.jpg

This again is only lit with a 650W arri from behind.

It IS supposed to be exposed low. But look how beautifull her face paints, even at this low exposure...


tuva_0107.jpg

Look at how it rolls nicely into black

tuva_0308.jpg

Look at how beautifully it rolls into white without any magenta/yellow casts, even under tungsten...

All examples from this thread:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?59179-1st-24-hours-with-an-Epic

I know of no other camera with those virtues. I'll be testing the F65 and give it the benefit of doubt right now, but except from that I know NO other camera that handles over- and underexposure (relative to its own sensitivity) the same way...

To me, the way the light rolls into white and holds exposure all the way up (and down) is what makes the Epic.

Frankly, I'd rather have a built in ND9, than better lowlight sensitivity to controll daylight shooting...

Cheers!

G
 
there is no expectation for any camera to be "perfect". But shooting a wide alley/city/streets will come at some point and unless you got the budget for 15k and 20k watt lights then be worried that the shot will suck.

I'm still waiting for tonaci's night shoot review. What doesn't make sense is that there's evidence of the MX sensor performing amazingly in very low light shots, so either something is wrong here or a proper and fair test should be done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top