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.
Agreed. But this is pretty sweet to hear. I am just thinking how this already will lighten our load when we will be shooting in CUBA.

Just to know I can drink every last ounce of what those breathtaking sun sets in Havana can provide, all the way through dusk and into moonlight perhaps. ;)
 
4,000 ASA????!!?!!?!?!??!?!????!!??!?????!??!!!!??!!?? ? !

Dean Semler and Panavision eat your heart out, damn!

Now imagine some Zeiss Master primes at T1.3 with an ISO of 4,000!

The possibilities are, mind boggling!

That's some beautiful news Jim, thank you!
 
Jannard said:
We have successfully done testing at ISO (ASA) 4000. It is noisy but very useable. You might even be able to squeek out ISO 8000. The Mysterium® sensor is so clean that it is amazing.

Jim
Click to expand...

UNBELIEVABLE!
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
Number6, ISO/ASA is a measure of sensitivity or the "speed" of a film stock or the speed at which a sensor can acquire an image. ISO/ASA 4000 thousand is like really really hyper-sensitive. Fast or sensitive ISO numbers (big numbers) are good for shooting in low light. It's going to make you happy because you can shoot raccoons humping in the bushes by moonlight. Finner is trying to save you... I'm trying to help you achieve your dream of torching your house. Let me know when that's going to happen! I'll have my RED on hand for that and I'll bring the marshmallows, dude.
Click to expand...


Let's invite Vittorio Storaro to test RED in a dark room shooting.

APOCALYPSE_NOW-BRANDO.jpg

Marlon Brando in "Apocalypse Now" shot by Storaro.
 
SF Geek said:
The tests will tell all.
Click to expand...

Implicit in Jim's post is that the fact that the "usable" image was created in color correction, either in Redcine or some other ap, or with a crazy LUT. The RAW image (without gain) coming out of the camera will appear very dark and flat - but the low SNR allows for aggressive color correction to salvage a nice image without hitting the noise floor. But this kind of color grading is atypical and can be screwed up if the colorist is not careful. Specifically, secondary color correction can create additional noise (and a lot of it) and many color aps may not be optimized to pull clean keys from such dark source images (4 stops under?)

I hope the LART team takes this into account and has lined up a good colorist. I recommend staying away from any secondary color correction for a true test of Red's ISO. Having said that I don't think Redcine has any secondaries anyway so it shouldn't be a problem. Still I'm often amazed at how often good neg is screwed up by lazy (or bold) colorists. Many do not even bother lifting their gamma to check the quality of their blacks as they notch a reel. For important FX shots I usually ask for a flat pass (dMIN / dMAX) as a backup.
 
Forget sunsets, at ISO 4000 with a fast lens you can probably shoot a night sky full of stars! Or at least catch twilight stars...

Jim, does the noise lessen considerably if you downsample and do your post in 2k?
 
Oh also... it is a good idea to use a high quality filter when down resezing. A low quality filter (or default, often) will produce zinging which can increase noise. I wonder if RED and /or REDCINE will have filter options for resizing, or if they will just use a high quality default? Greame is a master at this so I wouldn't worry.
 
SF Geek said:
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.
Click to expand...

Moving picture tend to average out the noise of individual frames to some extent. When you look at only one frame of a video it will LOOK noisier than the video played back. So even if the still picture is too noise for you from the Mark III, it would look better as part of a moving picture.
 
Boothba said:
Less noise = more dymanic range. back in November Graeme had this to say:

"Also, remember dynamic range is the inverse of signal to noise ratio. With a digital system, nothing stops you clipping off the top, but you can just keep going down until you hit the noise floor."
Click to expand...

Question is - how much down is acceptable? - how much noise is acceptable? Its subjective.

I think that this test showed that 4 stops down is pretty acceptable noise.
Interesting will be more specific dynamic range tests.
 
Boothba said:
I wonder if RED and /or REDCINE will have filter options for resizing, or if they will just use a high quality default?
Click to expand...

I remember at NAB during Mike Curtis' REDCINE demo he showed that you could choose what filter was used for scaling.
 
Fix-ation

Fix-ation

I have heard good things about Shake and AE for scaling if you don't have the $$ for a high end hardware box (Teranex, etc.). Anybody done a head to head? Maybe can share a link? Will RedCine render (pardon the pun) this issue moot?

I was amazed at Jim's statement that the new design has no fixed pattern noise - Michael Bravin might be interested to hear that - or is he noting some other image flaw in Crossing The Line?

Random noise should be less noticeable, especially when there is a fair bit of motion in the frame. Will it look more "filmlike" since the nature of silver halide granular formation is inherently random?

I figured the search for FPN would be part of the "treasure hunt" at the LART, perhaps we will just have to try and find Finner's humor bone, perhaps it looks like a white disc...
 
Jannard said:
We have successfully done testing at ISO (ASA) 4000. It is noisy but very useable. You might even be able to squeek out ISO 8000. The Mysterium® sensor is so clean that it is amazing.

Jim
Click to expand...

WAAAA??? GTFOH... Holy Shit, Lets see it.

Method
 
Just what the Doctor ordered...

Just what the Doctor ordered...

A base rating ISO EV of 320 to 500 at 0 gain is pretty much what I had hoped it would turn out to be. Never expected more than that, all things considered. So, if I'm getting that, along with a "useable" spread of up to 4000... Man, that's gravy! Can you imagine?

Ahhh... the wonders of RAW image processing never cease to amaze me.
 
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...
Some people consider the noise that the HVX produces to be "useable" too, but I suppose this is subjective. :)

I don't know a professional photographer who would be caught dead shooting with their dSLR at ISO 3200 (even with a MKIII), but it is reassuring to know that the camera can at least be pushed that far and an image of recognizable sort be obtained. I think that if industry DPs are even able to shoot comfortably at ISO 800 with little noise, they're going to be pleased as punch. Adding even 6db of gain to the current crop of digital [video] cameras makes the image quite unsuitable to my tastes in all but the rarest of situations. I just hope people aren't getting crazy ideas that they don't need to light anymore because their camera is "useable" at ISO4000. Intensity is just one property of light - you still need shape, contrast, direction, color, quality!

Extremely good news is the declaration of no noticeable FPN, which was quite noticeable only three months ago in the Peter Jackson short. I only wish I could even begin to comprehend what it is that a "sensor engineer" has to do to make these things so perfect. I admit, I'm still floored that you guys seem to be the only company who are delivering on all of these miraculous promises, but then again I'm certainly not complaining. :)

Can't wait for the RED#8 test-a-thon... it's going to be one fun ride. :gun:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top