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...

IF we can shoot super clean under tungsten for the big screen at 500 ISO, and shoot ISO 1000 for 1080 (HDTV) with very low noise there are going to be a lot of happy campers.

IF we can shoot ISO 4000 in a pinch and finesse the noise in post, docco and guerrilla shooting will be a different world than the current RedOne which I consider a max 800 ISO camera unless you are cool with a grittier look.

David's point about higher ISO being your friend for overcranking is well taken. If you've ever left a Phantom shoot with what feels like sunburn you know what I mean :arf:

Cheers - #19
 
Jannard said:
I'm with you guys... high ISO gives you options you didn't have. As long as no one is confused about the final image of ISO 500 vs. ISO 4000.

Jim
Click to expand...

I'm not expecting super clean images at ISO4000. It would be great to have comparison images at different ISOs to show the difference. One light illuminating a test chart or a face. Metered and exposed for the meter at 500, 800, 1000, etc and processed with the same ISO with whatever curve necessary to bring the image to a normal exposure. Noted stop, tungsten, daylight, etc. I don't expect you guys to do this but it's going to be a good test that some reduser that gets an early MX sensor will do! I'll gladly volunteer! Ha!
 
Ryan E. Walters said:
Yep- but If I can light using a smaller lighting package and do it well, then why not? If I can use a 1.2k HMI instead of a 4k HMI to get the same results- then that seems to be the smart choice. What excites me most about these ISO 4000 results is not the clip itself, but the implication of what the lower ISO's will yield - 320 - 500 - 640, and maybe even 800.
Click to expand...

Of course we'd all love to be able to bust out the big guns for a night exterior but sometimes the budget just won't stretch to a big(ish) genny + driver + big lights etc etc [it all mounts up!]...so instead we have to make painful compromises. The possibility that we can potentially "get more" out of say a 2.5 kW HMI using mains (if available locally), or a small genny, is quite exciting to me :thumbup1:.
 
Jannard said:
Let's get something clear... ISO 500 is better than ISO 1640, which is better than ISO 4000. Why light differently just because you can "get away with it"? Most people who can light do so to get the best image they can with whatever lighting they have...

High ISO gives you good options when there were none, but it is not a substitute for doing things the best way.
Click to expand...

This may be the most important thing Jim has ever said regarding ISO. Read it. Cut and paste it. Put it on your iPhone.

Getting away with obscenely low levels of light is NOT the same as proper lighting. Perhaps you can get that super low budget shot you never would have attempted otherwise, but somehow people have made films for 100 years without ISO 4000. Sure, some things look fantastic with natural light, but many things do not.

Yes, it's a great tool in some circumstances, but this doesn't mean films don't need to be lit anymore. Just like 500 ISO film didn't, just like T1.3 lenses didn't, just like HD cameras didn't.
 
I totally agree with Brent.
Is one thinking as a Director of Photography or as a video operator two extremely different disciplines.
As a very famous old DoP said when asked the difference his retort was " about $2000 per day"
 
But then again, define "best way". We're talking about means of "artistic" interpretations, and if higher ISO's allow one to better interpret many scenarios then that is the "best way". This is, of course, a no brainer, but let's not forget that very delicate balance between right and wrong perfection. No one is saying one doesn't need to light, or be skilled at it just because higher ISO's are showing up- has anyone even hinted at this? I can't see where. Who is Brent referring to with the cut and paste to iphone remark? And you might also have noticed, Brent, "people" have also made films for 100 years without digital acquisition. So what?
"Video operator" or "DOP", we now have more choices to discover what we seek. Couldn't be simpler.
 
Scarlet/Epic's High ISO, low-light capabilities is going to be AWESOME for those of us that like to shoot nature - especially underwater.

Anything deeper than 30 feet is essentially low-light and even the best underwater lights have very limited range.

Not everyone gets to light their shots! :)
 
There are some suggestions in this thread that with high ISO you could throw out the lights.

You know, I don't even let that stuff get to me. To imagine that you would create a film without lighting (natural daylight or otherwise) seems so ridiculous that it wasn't worth a comment.

But we should welcome the higher cleaner ISO from the M-X the same way we welcome sharp high speed glass that lets more light to the sensor or the film plane.

Saying "here comes the high ISO, let's throw out the lights" is like saying, "bring in more light and let's shoot all of this at F11" or "I wan to shoot this whole film at F16"

Both statements are so ridiculous it would not be worth a comment or any aggravation and it tends to clutter an otherwise pretty decent thread.

Then again, either of those methods might even lead to a style of fiilm that we have never seen. What would be the big problem with that? You can't force anyone into any specific way to use a tool. It's just a frigging tool.

An opinions, well...they're jsut opnions...

David
 
David Battistella said:
There are some suggestions in this thread that with high ISO you could throw out the lights.

You know, I don't even let that stuff get to me. To imagine that you would create a film without lighting (natural daylight or otherwise) seems so ridiculous that it wasn't worth a comment.

But we should welcome the higher cleaner ISO from the M-X the same way we welcome sharp high speed glass that lets more light to the sensor or the film plane.

Saying "here comes the high ISO, let's throw out the lights" is like saying, "bring in more light and let's shoot all of this at F11" or "I wan to shoot this whole film at F16"

Both statements are so ridiculous it would not be worth a comment or any aggravation and it tends to clutter an otherwise pretty decent thread.

Then again, either of those methods might even lead to a style of fiilm that we have never seen. What would be the big problem with that? You can't force anyone into any specific way to use a tool. It's just a frigging tool.

An opinions, well...they're jsut opnions...

David
Click to expand...

What about this interview with Soderberg:

How was using the RED camera different this time than when you worked with it on Che? It was more sensitive than when we used it on Che. You know, I shot The Informant [with the Red] last spring, but I wasn’t really in a situation where sensitivity was as much of an issue as it was on GFE. So for me that [heightened sensitivity to light] was a big plus because we were shooting anamorphic and I was kind of restricted to shooting stuff at 2.8. Basically I can’t go much wider than that, stop-wise, and so I really needed that extra sensitivity. It meant I could go out on the street or be in a car, still be able to shoot available light and be really pleased with what we were getting. So, [the Red] just keeps getting better.

What about your approach to lighting? There are only two shots in the film where I pulled out a light.

Wow. Literally. And frankly I wish I hadn’t. They’re my two least favorite shots.

Can I ask what they are? There is the one scene in the restaurant where she meets with this manager that her accountant wants her to talk to, and there’s one shot near the end, after she’s come home from the weekend. She goes across the street and there’s a quick shot of her having a drink in a bar across the street. In both situations I added a little sort of red fill light, and I look at the movie now and I hate it. Literally, everything else was available light.

Lim
 
I've read that interview and it is very cool.

The point is that his use or non use of lights is a creative choice. Period. In the NYtimes you get the sense that it is a decision to make the film in that way to enhance the story and because he likes that aesthetic. He' still uses light (just not a "traditional" way).

Should every film be made this way? It comes down to a creative choice. He is known as a film maker who likes a natural look and who takes chances, maybe a higher, cleaner ISO allows for more of that. Great.

but it doesn't mean we should all stop lighting because how you light and photograph a scene part of the creative process.

The advancement of one tool can only inform the other.

david
 
David Battistella said:
The point is that his use or non use of lights is a creative choice. Period.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I've seen some pretty ugly Soderberg shots. I still ugly natural light all the time. I see pretty natural light too.

I like the idea of augmenting natural light. I often like edge lights on people. I like a catch light in their eyes. I like practicals in frame that look "right" to me.

I think ISO 500 - 800 will probably work well for me. I'm excited about increased options though. Love all the new camera stuff.
 
alex lemon said:
Scarlet/Epic's High ISO, low-light capabilities is going to be AWESOME for those of us that like to shoot nature - especially underwater.

Anything deeper than 30 feet is essentially low-light and even the best underwater lights have very limited range.

Not everyone gets to light their shots! :)
Click to expand...

AGREED ... and lets hope the secret sauce RED post software looks after the stressed Red channel also (not just the Blue channel ... we get plenty of that !) for us underwater folk ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top