Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

Iso 4000

Status
Not open for further replies.
We are struggling to assign an ISO rating to the camera. We now think it is 320. But a "trained professional" thinks it is closer to 400-500. Somewhere in there. I guess "officially" (for now) we are stating 320.

The image is very clean. We exposed for 4000 (without any sensor gain) which creates a massive under-exposure. Then we lifted up the image out of the dirt and were very surprised at the result. It seemed noisy (as expected), but about the same, or similar to, a Canon 1D Mk III (rated at 3200). Useable.

Jim
 
What a tool, no not Finner, the RedOne

What a tool, no not Finner, the RedOne

Thanks for the details and known reference point Jim. The sensitivity to noise ratio this promises will be huge for a lot of doco folks and broadens the range of suitable uses for the RedOne. I am at a loss to think of anything you can't do with it unless you need a lipstick form factor.

*Fanboy alert* - Thanks Jim and the Red Team, I tip my hat.
 
Jannard said:
The image is very clean. We exposed for 4000 (without any sensor gain) which creates a massive under-exposure. Then we lifted up the image out of the dirt and were very surprised at the result. Jim
Click to expand...

I remember digging into that sea of under-exposure 8 months ago - and being truly surprised by what was salvageable:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=78368

And things have only gotten better since then. Good stuff.

EDIT: see attached grading test.
 
janghos said:
In addition to what Jeff said, most digital cameras are rated at ISO 320, and
as the ISO number doubles up, you can achieve the same intensity of light
with half amount of light. Which means, you could achieve the same lighting
effect for ISO 320 with about a quarter amount of light if you were shooting
with ISO 4000.
Click to expand...

Thanks for a very fine point A to point B explanation... I hope this question doesn't offend, but do you use Nook as your first name, or is it Kim? My intuition tells me that Kim is your family name, but for my future reference, please clarify.
 
Jannard said:
We are struggling to assign an ISO rating to the camera. We now think it is 320. But a "trained professional" thinks it is closer to 400-500. Somewhere in there. I guess "officially" (for now) we are stating 320.

The image is very clean. We exposed for 4000 (without any sensor gain) which creates a massive under-exposure. Then we lifted up the image out of the dirt and were very surprised at the result. It seemed noisy (as expected), but about the same, or similar to, a Canon 1D Mk III (rated at 3200). Useable.

Jim
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info, Jim. BTW, Can you tell us what the test subject was that you exposed at 4000?
 
We have a comprehensive setup that includes several charts, including a Macbeth, a black hole, a shiny bell, and various other objects lit under controlled lighting so we can repeat and compare settings.

We test under both daylight and tungsten lighting.

Jim
 
Jannard said:
We are struggling to assign an ISO rating to the camera. We now think it is 320. But a "trained professional" thinks it is closer to 400-500. Somewhere in there. I guess "officially" (for now) we are stating 320.
Click to expand...

But as the test was successful at 4,000 ASA, would I be mistaken in assuming that "pushing" to 500 or 1,000 ASA wouldn't be something I'd have to shy away from? Man, having 320/400/500 as a home base [no gain] on a camera of this caliber will be a nice change...

Oo, I almost forgot... was there FPN on the 4,000 shot?
 
number6 said:
Thanks for a very fine point A to point B explanation... I hope this question doesn't offend, but do you use Nook as your first name, or is it Kim? My intuition tells me that Kim is your family name, but for my future reference, please clarify.
Click to expand...

I am a Korean, and my real name is Hwan-Wook Kim. When I found that most
people were having a hard time pronouncing and remembering my name after
I came to the US, I gave myself a nick name, which is Nook. You can call me
Nook. And you're very welcome. I learn so much online from industry
professionals, and I try to share my small knowledge whenever I can. I think
it's a lot more beneficial and brave to ask than pretending like you know
everything.

Regards,
 
There is no FPN. The noise at ISO 4000 is random. We have come a long way in 18 months.

Jim
 
Jannard said:
The image is very clean. We exposed for 4000 (without any sensor gain) which creates a massive under-exposure. Then we lifted up the image out of the dirt and were very surprised at the result.
Jim
Click to expand...

As I was researching prior to my current project, which I shot on a VariCam,
I read from CML that I could achieve very pleasing image by exposing the
skin at 30 IRE and lift it in grading. I tested it right away, and the image was
indeed very nice. I just had to keep my contrast ratio as what I wanted. I
ended up shooting half of the footage that way for the project, and I am pretty
happy with the result. I don't see why not Red One wouldn't be able to do the
same.
Also, I tend to give myself a bit of safety head room by rating the camera at
about a half stop faster in order to not blow out any highlights. If your
camera is officially rated at ISO 320, I will most likely be shooting at ISO
400. But who knows I will be shooting at ISO 1000.
 
Jannard said:
We have a comprehensive setup that includes several charts, including a Macbeth, a black hole, a shiny bell, and various other objects lit under controlled lighting so we can repeat and compare settings.

We test under both daylight and tungsten lighting.

Jim
Click to expand...

Thanks. Man, it's got to be pretty exciting there with nearly daily breakthroughs! ;)

Keep Rockin'
 
I know we all love to hear good news but I know that speaking for a lot of photographers that the 1Ds Mark II rated at anything above 1600 makes crap photos. Maybe the Mark III is that much better. I live with a photo editor and I know that she has never accepted photos that were as noisy as that. Obviously what's acceptable is an opinion. That's my point.

The real problem I have is that you're making this statement but not showing us any examples. There are too many "Fanboys", yes I said "Fanboys" because that's what a lot of members here are, that are going to make wild assumptions like that at 1200 or 1800 ISO there will be no visible noise or that lights are obsolete and the camera must be able to cure cancer.

I find it surprising how many people jumped on Finner for making a very valid non-aggressive point. Has it gotten that bad on this site that people get angry at anyone that even comes close to bursting their bubble? Remember that once people actually get the RED camera, make believe time will be over and some won't be happy.

That being said, just let me get my shield up. OK.
 
True That Geeky SF!

It would be really nice to see a photo. Although I have found Jim to be quite conservative when it comes to him saying something looks good. So we will have to see the images when posted and as far as noise goes I have found in the right look it can really be an advantage. I worked with a few battle star galatica camera crew and they shoot at either 9 or 18db for effect and that show looks great.

As far as me being jumped on well I have got use to it from a few on here. It was the first time I have been called the most ignorant person on here but oh well.
 
Camera limits is one of the biggest things myself and a few others on the test team are most excited to test. Over and under expose like crazy in some different lighting situations and see how it plays out. I assume it will be like video, better under expossed then over like film but right now this camera seems to be so different then anything else around who really knows.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top