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 :)

ISO 4000...

High ISOs, I love you

High ISOs, I love you

Not to get too far off topic or assume that ISO 1600+ will be clean enough for all situations, BUT:

1) Can I get a 1st AC who likes the idea of T4 instead of a T2/2.8 split :coolgleamA:

2) How about lighting with smaller heads and smaller gennys? I still believe that artful lighting is the key to great images but if you can get the same results with less amps...

Just sayin'

Cheers - #19
 
I'm really looking forward to when we can start seeing some of these easter eggs coming off the 2/3" sensor.

It's also refreshing to see that you appear to be anxious, impatient, but also very excited about what is taking place behind the scenes. Much like the many impatient, very excited potential future customers :) . It's cool to see RED seemingly get "giddy" in a way that many of us do over it all as well.
 
This could be a silly question, but can anyone out there give an estimate as to the 2/3" fixed scarlet's highest usable iso at 3k?

Just trying to get a better understanding thanks.

Hope you all have a wonderful New Year's Eve!
:cheers2:
 
Joe G. said:
Can we see this in something OTHER than the latest Quicktime format?

It won't play for me.
Click to expand...

Oddly, I've been playing all these fine on a new pc with quicktime pro. No extra plug-ins or codecs and such installed that I am aware. quicktime pro 7.6.5

Later,
Jason
 
Blair S. Paulsen said:
Not to get too far off topic or assume that ISO 1600+ will be clean enough for all situations, BUT:

1) Can I get a 1st AC who likes the idea of T4 instead of a T2/2.8 split :coolgleamA:

2) How about lighting with smaller heads and smaller gennys? I still believe that artful lighting is the key to great images but if you can get the same results with less amps...

Just sayin'

Cheers - #19
Click to expand...

I know a couple of AC's who would appreciate that, and some budget minded producers as well. :)
 
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.

Jim
 
Jannard said:
High ISO gives you good options when there were none, but it is not a substitute for doing things the best way.

Jim
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.

Jim
Click to expand...

Clean images at higher ISOs will give us more options in terms of lenses and lighting. As it is, in many situations it's currently a struggle to light the R1 and achieve a "fat neg" at even a 2.8 or anything above. Most high quality cinema zoom lenses are a 2.8 or more, not to mention anamorphic zooms at T4 or more. I usually try to roll with the Angenieux 17-80 T2.2 since it's considered fast for a zoom lens. Another stop or 2 (hopefully 2) to achieve similar quality images in terms of noise opens up new possibilities for lenses and lighting scenarios.

If I can get clean images at 1 or 2 stops more sensitivity then I can have more lens choices, more choices about selective focus, and more choices about light quality. Maybe I'll soften that key light a little more because I'm no longer struggling to just achieve the level I need. For me, it's not about less lights, it's about more choices.
 
Blair S. Paulsen said:
Not to get too far off topic or assume that ISO 1600+ will be clean enough for all situations, BUT:


2) How about lighting with smaller heads and smaller gennys? I still believe that artful lighting is the key to great images but if you can get the same results with less amps...

Just sayin'

Cheers - #19
Click to expand...

Blair, I firmly believe that in order to write with light, you don't need a tone of it, you just need in off to what the Sensor requirements are in order to create Noise free high quality images, and if High ISO allows for less, then even better, just not less as in less lights positioned to crete the scene in to your creative likings, but less as instead of having 4 4000w HMI"s now you can have 4 575w HMI's, or even just 4 LED lights, like we did for Garbo teaser shoot.

BUt more ISO capable Imager to me means exactly that, been able to shoot High quality images at Fast Apertures with less light, and or shoot Stopped down to T4, T8 shots with the same lighting that before you need to be at T2 for it.
 
But what Jim is trying to say is that it is always better to use a bigger G&E package and set up more lights, than to crank up the ISO and move quickly or save on G&E rentals and crew. I am sure if we made cameras we would hope not to see too many shows pushing the noise limit. Maybe I'd be worried about a crowd mentality induced feeding frenzy somehow establishing a higher noise level as the new generally accepted standard. That would suck.

Hehe... Jim: "Hey here is a better camera for a fraction of a fraction of the cost." Someone: "Yay, let's go shoot ISO1024000 f/8 under moonlight, or whatever it ISO it would take for that, probably need to crank up the ISO a bit higher... mhhh... It don't matter, I read a post that said this makes it so that the lens performs at its best! I am on my way to immortality baby! BTW, do you know how to get more hits on YT?" I'm just being silly. :)

In the end your work only reflects on yourself, and Jim already has blockbusters filmed on Red One... I can't wait to see how many more Red Two will gets in the bag. Those will speak much louder than first time camera buyers shooting for youtube.
 
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
 
Hope we'll be "safe" to use from ISO 800 to ISO 3200 with M-X.

Beyond that it would be a matter of noise/grain acceptance...

but also that works in a certain situation...
 
Thanks Jim.

Roberto, we, that know how to use the cameras, any camera, know well that exposure is King, and first, but if we do get a camera that offers a high ISO images with great quality, then we will Expose at that ISO with adequate lighting, but the less lighting is needed the better is for every one, both for cost and for time of set up as well as for simple logistics, yet I will never shoot with out the possibility to play with my lighting, I think that makes me more a DP then a Director I guess, but as in Garbo, Blair can tell you we shot with 4 LED fixtures TWO of which were filtered by Soft Boxes and ONe reflected, I LOVE LIGHTS, I write and Paint with them Literally, but again less some times it truly can be better, and for this I welcome every successful attempt to getting HIGH ISO that will deliver CRISP NOISE FREE Images.

For me no lights to control and position, means that I can't give character and Depth and separation to my subjects, and that will never happen in my projects.

Especially so now with shooting S3D.


EDIT: To add, Roberto I get you, that all requests must stay reasonable, fortunately for me, I have none, I just wait and see what Santa delivers, OH OH OH.
 
One thing - I know that higher ASA means lights "spread" more over a bigger area (for example in a night exterior) and that's amazing (props to the gang at Red)

....but there will always be "relative" contrast - ie: daylight exterior where the filler/key light must compete with daylight and for that you are always going to need 18ks etc - high ISO will only answer part of that equation.

This might seem like nit picking until you consider shooting a sunny daylight job where the sun gives way to cloud in the afternoon. To maintain continuity you now need your lights to compete with a T16-22 of bright but dull/directionless daylight - no problem if you can come back tomorrow (because your sisters acting in it) but when money/ cast availability/etc are on the line having a big gun in the truck is still going to be something of a requirement for certain standards of image making.
 
Yea. I keep salivating with this image going round and round in my head:
A snow blanketed night exterior, snow laden bare trees and evergreens which happen to be spread out enough to give you endless composition choices, a vast frozen lake fading into shadows (a winter thriller), the shore lit with a/pair of big lift/s crammed with big HMIs, shot "at" high ISO, with an RPP 18mm T1.8, or Superspeed MkIII 18mm T1.3, or even a day/week rental of a MP 14mm T1.3, along with a few more for the rest of the coverage.

Indie budget with a little extra rental cost for a few days or a week = "blockbuster night look" attainable!?!!

I ain't no DP but this is :willy_nilly:
 
Jannard said:
Let's get something clear... ISO 500 is better than ISO 1640, which is better than ISO 4000. ... High ISO gives you good options when there were none, but it is not a substitute for doing things the best way.

Jim
Click to expand...

This really translates into dynamic range in every practical sense. I'm seeing cleaner blacks than I ever hoped for and more detail preserved in light sources as well. I'm not going to stop using the right lighting because of this (any more than I did when 500 iso film stock got really good). But I am going to know that I can make shots work that never would have before.
 
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.

Jim
Click to expand...

It's not just low light or less light.

I think this ISO rating will be important when shooting at very high speeds on the EPIC.

At 120fps or with any overcranking on the R1 or the EPIC, the ISO setting might be a nice way to compensate.

David
 
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.

Jim
Click to expand...

Exactly, and I think with all of the Canon cameras people forget that they don't have to shoot at ISO 10,000 but that's what Canon wants to market because its a capability that's not seen a lot.

That said though, I am totally excited about the low light capabilities with Scarlet. It gives way more options for the non-cinematic and live show type work out there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top