How about comparing Fast RED with Fast film?

[cinemano]

Anyone compared 500 asa 35mm Film with 500 asa RED?

How about 1600 asa 35mm to 1600 asa RED?

 

[cinemano]

wow 335 views but no comments must be a hard one

 

[Joe G.]

as I understand it...

as I understand it...

There IS no 500 asa Red.

There IS no 1600 asa Red.

It is always asa 320. Everything else is just how you view the data.

 

[Ramesh Jai]

wow 335 views but no comments must be a hard one

LOL!!!!

 

[David Mullen ASC]

It would be interesting though to test 500 ASA film against the RED rated at 500 ASA in terms of grain versus noise, and then again at 1000 ASA.

I'll be testing RED in low-light on Monday for my next feature, but I'm not testing it in comparison to 35mm 500T stock. I have some low-light night exterior work where I calculate I will have to shoot at 800 ASA with a T/1.3 Master Prime, with perhaps at 1/32nd shutter, just to get enough exposure.

 

[Evin Grant]

I've found 1/32 exposure to be quite acceptable as long as there isn't too much high energy motion (Think Apocolypto).

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Not really.... ISO defines a sensitivity in that a certain amount of input light produces a certain amount of output level in the image. In a digital system it's all therefore about at what level in the raw data you encode mid grey at, which also defines how many stops above mid grey you can record. Similarly with film, ISO is a guide at what to expose it at, but no more than that. The concept of "native ISO" is almost a useful fiction... There are definitions of ISO, but they set a clip point at 107% or something uselessly low like that (placing mid grey code value way too high in the raw data) that might be ok for a consumer camera, but as Kodak point out in their paper on the subject, a much higher clip value is more useful for more professional cameras.

It's not just how you view the data, it's how you expose into that data.

Graeme