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 :)

I S O settings on MX

Costelloe Michael said:
Dude depends on your post route and who is looking at what you do. You shoot for yourself?
Click to expand...

RED?
For closing into 3 years.
Doing post on many type of projects...

And:
No, it doesn't depend on anything. That's some of the fun shooting RAW. You have to make distinctions between "preview" and "recorded".

Cheers
 
Pablo Villegas S. said:
Well, I've never used RC-X.

But if I move the iris the RAW image changes, at least the Histogram does. Is this correct?

So if I close or open the Iris based on what ISO I'm using to expose, the RAW image will change.
Click to expand...

Yes. That is not metadata but physichs. You change the amount of light hitting the sensor and that is changing exposure.

And that is an imprortant lesson to learn:
Metadata can change your exposure choices. That is not allways good.

If your metadata is set too far from the sensor-native, you may be inclined to do stuff the sensor doesn't really like that much...
 
I tend to take a simple route in regards to this.

I set it at ISO 800, set my intended T-Stop, ND my camera up accordingly, make sure the histogram is gonna kick between the goalposts then I shoot.

Occasionally in difficult shooting circumstances when it is very bright and shadowy, and there are a lot of peaking highlights I like to be a little paranoid and protect my highlights. So I will push ISO up a step or two.

Cheers
Ivan
 
Fun thing that metadata is not affected by exposure settings (shutter/t-stop/nd), but exposure settings can be affected by metadata settings.

@ Ivan
Sounds smart. Especially as long as you reclaim lost highlights in post.
 
@ Gunelik. Smart and practical always the best way to go, aren't they? When you got a stressed producer on one side and an eager client on the other, practicality makes life so much simpler.

BTW great sig, but you might want to add an addendum to include Epic there :)

Cheers,
Ivan
 
Gunleik, I'm not on the post side of things, but I like to have a firm grasp on post workflows so I can give the folks on that end the best possible footage for grading and such. With that said, I still don't have a clear understanding of how the process works with regards to ISO.

From what I understand, Raw will always be ISO 320 and when I look at my Raw preview on camera the histograms will reflect what I am actually recording. When I switch to Redcolor I am seeing a preview of what my image could look like if I keep the metadata the same in post. Histograms will change with changes to metadata like ISO and FLUT. So, if I expose using Redcolor at ISO 800 my recorded Raw image will be darker than I would like. This is not a bad thing, because later in post a color grader will apply a curve that will bring everything back up, and now I have extra highlight protection and noise free blacks. Is that right?

What if the project is not going to go through professional grading process and online?
What if I want to transcode and go directly to Final Cut Pro, then to Color, then be done with it? What settings should I set in RedCine X? I know this is not the best way to do things, but sometimes it is necessary.
What about proxies? What will they look like?

I have a million more questions, but this should keep me busy for a while. Thanks for your friendly advice Gunleik. I always find your posts useful even if it takes a few days for the info to sink in :)
 
Gunleik Groven said:
Yes. That is not metadata but physichs. You change the amount of light hitting the sensor and that is changing exposure.

And that is an imprortant lesson to learn:
Metadata can change your exposure choices. That is not allways good.

If your metadata is set too far from the sensor-native, you may be inclined to do stuff the sensor doesn't really like that much...
Click to expand...


Well, that's what I'm saying.

There is no point in changing the ISO, if you're not going to expose with it. And if you do expose with it, the the RAW image changes.

And is not a bad thing, that's the way sensors and films have been used for many years. You overexpose to gain more detail in the shadows, and underexpose to gain detail in the highlights, you just move your middle gray point up or down the curve.

However pushing the sensor(underexposing) with low levels of light is not usually done, unless you need the extra speed, and the image gets more noise.
At least that is what I've seen with film and other digital cameras.
And I'm sure that RED MX will get more noise by doing this as well, the question is, how much noise will be added?
 
Clint Lealos said:
Gunleik, I'm not on the post side of things, but I like to have a firm grasp on post workflows so I can give the folks on that end the best possible footage for grading and such. With that said, I still don't have a clear understanding of how the process works with regards to ISO.

From what I understand, Raw will always be ISO 320 and when I look at my Raw preview on camera the histograms will reflect what I am actually recording. When I switch to Redcolor I am seeing a preview of what my image could look like if I keep the metadata the same in post. Histograms will change with changes to metadata like ISO and FLUT. So, if I expose using Redcolor at ISO 800 my recorded Raw image will be darker than I would like. This is not a bad thing, because later in post a color grader will apply a curve that will bring everything back up, and now I have extra highlight protection and noise free blacks. Is that right?

What if the project is not going to go through professional grading process and online?
What if I want to transcode and go directly to Final Cut Pro, then to Color, then be done with it? What settings should I set in RedCine X? I know this is not the best way to do things, but sometimes it is necessary.
What about proxies? What will they look like?

I have a million more questions, but this should keep me busy for a while. Thanks for your friendly advice Gunleik. I always find your posts useful even if it takes a few days for the info to sink in :)
Click to expand...

If you expose using Redcolor, then your proxies will be well exposed. And Apple Color can be a professional grading tool.

And you are correct, the RAW will be uderexposed if you use ISO 800, and expose accordingly. But that way you gain more latitude at the top of the curve.
 
@ Ivan: Shoot 800 covers you for most situations - thus easy.
Easy = good.
I like

There's a small catch, though - you won't enjoy your extra hughlight latitude without reclaiming overexposure in post. Thus going redcolor @ 800 in post ONLY means you've lost 1.4 stops of sensor latitude. Then you'd probably been better off shooting 320 to start with... I like the 800 on set-approach, though, as it has enough headroom for the tungsten balancing of the sensor.
(If you don't understand why I am saing this, just shoot 800... -:) )

@ Clint...

RAW isn't really any iso and iso on raw is confusing. You can define ISO for raw, saying stuff like "when you're middle gray is exactly in the middle of your sensor latitude, you have found the sensors native ISO" - which works well, but already depends on so many subjective variables that it is far from precises. To start off: this statement depends on your noise tolerance and the curves applied to the image...

That said, redlogFilm does an incredible jog @ recovering highlights at any ISO setting, but if you want it ALL back, it looks like you have to go 320 for post - to me.

I think that my general advice will be redlogFilm at he ISO you shot.

As I said: Easy = Good.

It will not allways be the best route, but it will be far from bad...

Redcolor is actually full gammut @ 320.
Problem is that if you go to something like prores, that is no longer "practically" true.
Then it behaves more like a "standard" rec 709 - thus pushing out stops in both ends.

I like redgamma a lot for quick finnishes, though. It just doesn't have the same flexibility as redlog or redlogFilm.

Working with redlog is technically probably the best way, but it needs a bit more of manual followup when you transcode your files, and for grading, it can be good to create a bit of extra headroom in the top. RedlogFilm comes with that, and also allows for "stupid high" ISO and strange kelvin settings without disassembling and falling apart.

Thus:
RedlogFilm = easy

Easy = good.

BTW
If you want to see an approximation of how the sensor "sees" the image, check the "linear light" option at 5000k/320 ISO in RC-X

This can also be a good way to check what info is actually in the highlights, if you're in doubt.
 
Thanks Pablo. That answers the proxy question. Maybe I should have phrased the question differently. Don't get me wrong, Apple Color is a fantastic tool and a professional color grader can do wonders with it. That isn't the scenario I am describing though. I am referring to the times when we need to get a commercial out the door ASAP and there is no time or money to go back to the R3Ds and do a proper online and color grade. The editor will sometimes (if he/she knows what they are doing) do a quick color pass in Apple Color and be done. There is no time or money for traditional color grading and onlining like we normally do in big advertisement campaigns. Usually this is the case for viral campaigns and internet content.

In this scenario, does that mean I will be effectively throwing away the advantages of MX by not reclaiming (in post) the latitude gained by shooting at ISO 800? How much does the M sensor and MX sensor differ in this scenario? What if I shoot at ISO 320? My understanding is that will create more noise in the blacks. Is that right? Thanks for the input.
 
You should do this little test to se how ISO affects noise on the MX/current software.

Expose an image at 3200 iso. To make it hard on the sensor: Do it in candlelight/tungsten.
That's more than 4 stops under...

In post, make a dpx with the 3200 iso setting @ redlogFilm
Make another @ 320

Bring those two frames into phtoshop and bring the 320 up with a curve.

Look at the blue chanel in both.

My guess is that if you know what to look for, you'll be quite impressed...
 
Clint Lealos said:
Thanks Pablo. That answers the proxy question. Maybe I should have phrased the question differently. Don't get me wrong, Apple Color is a fantastic tool and a professional color grader can do wonders with it. That isn't the scenario I am describing though. I am referring to the times when we need to get a commercial out the door ASAP and there is no time or money to go back to the R3Ds and do a proper online and color grade. The editor will sometimes (if he/she knows what they are doing) do a quick color pass in Apple Color and be done. There is no time or money for traditional color grading and onlining like we normally do in big advertisement campaigns. Usually this is the case for viral campaigns and internet content.

In this scenario, does that mean I will be effectively throwing away the advantages of MX by not reclaiming (in post) the latitude gained by shooting at ISO 800? How much does the M sensor and MX sensor differ in this scenario? What if I shoot at ISO 320? My understanding is that will create more noise in the blacks. Is that right? Thanks for the input.
Click to expand...

If you're using proxies in FCP, and send it to color, Color will use the r3d files for grading. Then in the primary room you will have a RED tab, in this tab you have the metadata you used to monitor, and you can change it all, or even disregard it. If you exposed using that metadata and don't have time, using that will be a good starting point to start grading.

And no using ISO 320 won't increase noise. That is "supposed" to be thr native ISO, going above that will add noise, and below that will lower it.
 
Wow! Thanks Gunleik. You even answered some of my questions from the future:)

It seems that for projects with more money, knowledge, and talent would benefit from a workflow like: shoot ISO 800, edit offline (proxies), online and color using Raw files (R3Ds) and RedlogFilm (ISO 320) gamma.

For projects with less money, time, and personal would benefit from a workflow like: shoot ISO 800, transcode using Redcolor (ISO 800), edit and color in FCP. Personally, I don't like this option, but sometimes there simply is no choice.

Of course, this is only a FCP workflow also. As they say, there is more than one way to skin a cat. Around here we skin with FCP...for now:)

Hey, thanks again Gunleik. I really appreciate it.
 
Gunleik Groven said:
You should do this little test to se how ISO affects noise on the MX/current software.

Expose an image at 3200 iso. To make it hard on the sensor: Do it in candlelight/tungsten.
That's more than 4 stops under...

In post, make a dpx with the 3200 iso setting @ redlogFilm
Make another @ 320

Bring those two frames into phtoshop and bring the 320 up with a curve.

Look at the blue chanel in both.

My guess is that if you know what to look for, you'll be quite impressed...
Click to expand...

Thanks, I don't own the camera, so I don't get to test it that often, but I will do some tests next week. I'm starting an episodic TV series, and I will like to use as much available light as possible and some practicals. The night exteriors will have the Sodium Vapor look, and that is why I'm worried about underexposing in that situation.
 
Gunleik Groven said:
You should do this little test to se how ISO affects noise on the MX/current software.

Expose an image at 3200 iso. To make it hard on the sensor: Do it in candlelight/tungsten.
That's more than 4 stops under...

In post, make a dpx with the 3200 iso setting @ redlogFilm
Make another @ 320

Bring those two frames into phtoshop and bring the 320 up with a curve.

Look at the blue chanel in both.

My guess is that if you know what to look for, you'll be quite impressed...
Click to expand...

I can do this test all the up till the "bring the 320 up with a curve" part. I'll have to have a friend help me with that part:) I'm not exactly sure what I will be looking for in the blue channel, but I'm terribly interested now. Thanks Gunleik!
 
@Clint If you are grading the r3d file, then you're grading the RAW file, so even if you start grading from Redgamna, all the information is there, it just can't represent it on that gamma, but you have all the info of the RAW, so you can choose to recover the highlights or the shadows, etc... I usually grade in Redgamna if it is for TV broadcast.
 
Pablo Villegas S. said:
@Clint If you are grading the r3d file, then you're grading the RAW file, so even if you start grading from Redgamna, all the information is there, it just can't represent it on that gamma, but you have all the info of the RAW, so you can choose to recover the highlights or the shadows, etc... I usually grade in Redgamna if it is for TV broadcast.
Click to expand...

Okay, thanks Pablo. What if I transcode to Pro Res though? I won't be grading a R3D file, right? How can Color be looking at an R3D file if I'm finishing in Pro Res? Again, this isn't the normal workflow...just a time/money sensitive workflow. Am I missing something?

I don't quite understand the entire process, but I guess that is due to my lack of knowledge in the software mentioned. I'm never involved in the post side of things, but I get a lot of questions from folks here in Turkey that don't understand this stuff either. Just trying to wrap my head around it. I think I need to play with the software more in order to fully grasp these details.

Thanks for all the time you are spending responding to my silly questions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top