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 :)

Low light...

G

Gary Blake

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I didnt realize I had resized my first test.
Here's the normal sized version (5dII image resized a little larger and cropped to fit the RED aspect ratio)

fullsizei.jpg
 
Last edited:
Gary,

You can't do a valid comparo with these two images really.
...and above all, Jim's image is on the cool side, almost blueish.
He "pushed" the white balance down to show the low noise capacity under very very cool temp.
This is not the case at all with the other image coming from the DSLR.
It's on the very warm side. :)

Antoine
 
Antoine Fabi said:
Gary,

You can't do a valid comparo with these two images really.
...and above all, Jim's image is on the cool side, almost blueish.
He "pushed" the white balance down to show the low noise capacity under very very cool temp.
This is not the case at all with the other image coming from the DSLR.
It's on the very warm side. :)

Antoine
Click to expand...

I know I know. :embarassed:
I already said that this test isn't scientific at all.

And in response to ralph's PM:
The original comparison was a photo taken by the mkII
50mm 1.8 lens

Here is the video still:
videostill.jpg


Again, I'm not trying to make any judgements.
Just trying to put a comparison out there.
I wish I had the Canon 1DIV to compare that, too.
 
Last edited:
I think I was at 2.5 or 2.8 on the video
On the still it was 1.8 1/100

Not sure it would make a difference, to be honest. I'd just adjust shutter speed to get comparable brightness.
 
Gary Blake said:
Not sure it would make a difference, to be honest. I'd just adjust shutter speed to get comparable brightness.
Click to expand...

My point is that that's not really an apples apples comparison. f/2.8 motion with a 1/48 shutter would be the most accurate comparison.
 
Deanan said:
That's primarily because we aren't throwing out the highlight range as you push the iso up.
Click to expand...

I'd love for you to tell the Canon and Nikon guys how to do the same. I hate combining exposures to get a more realistic dynamic range.

It seems like pro-quality video cams have always had insane range.
As a photographer I get jealous when I go to the movie and see well exposed shadows and sky.
 
Gary Blake said:
The difference would be negligible for a high iso noise comparison.
Click to expand...

But it's also about light sensitivity, which isn't negligible. Sorry to be a bit niggling, it just seems that you've got the 5d2 on hand and in hand, and I'd honestly like to see the most accurate comparison you can manage at this point, if it's not too much trouble.
 
ISO, Aperture, and Shutter Speed are standards to which RED and Canon are both adhering.

A candlelit scene is going to look just as bright on both at like settings.
A stop down on aperture and a stop up in shutter speed isn't going to change this comparison at all.

I'm sure there's another 5DII owner around who would be willing to do the futile added comparison.
 
Low light...

This is where the M-X and Canon comparisons go...

Jim
 
Pietro Impagliazzo said:
How would it not change?

An image at T2.8 ISO 800 will be a stop brighter at T4 ISO 800, same for shutter differences.

To determine the sensitivity one has to know everything affecting exposure.

Well... I'm curious. Let's wait for RED Day.
Click to expand...


Stops are changes in relative exposure.
A shot at 2.8 1/30 is going to look about as exposed as a shot at 2.5 1/40.

stops.jpg
 
Are these images posted at actual capture size and resolution?
 
If Iso 4000 on the canon 5d or 7d was much better then mx at Iso 4000, would you guys shoot your movie on the canon?

Just wondering what these comparisons are for, pls don't take this the wrong way, I'm honestly wondering, maybe just interesting comparison?
 
Troy-
The comparison is to see how the RED M-X high iso compares to the competition.
Everybody was saying "This blows every DSLR out of the water" and I wanted to see if that was true or not.

It looks to be about on par with the 5D Mark II which is amazing since it was the best at noise control until the Canon 1D mark IV came out. (I can't recall the names, but Nikon has cameras doing about what Canon is doing in the high iso category).

We have to note that the M-X isn't done yet and will likely improve.
 
I see, I understand, I didn't read all the posts.

Regards
Troy
 
I'm sorry Blake, I know your intentions are good, but this test is just plain bad. You have zoomed into the canon shot so much that the entire sensor is filled with light. Even if it is just a crop, you haven't shown any of the darker areas of the Canon image. I have a Canon 5D Mark II, which I love, and I would say from what I am observing so far, M-X wins hands down at ISO 4000.

I know everyone is excited, I am about to come out of my skin with anticipation for Scarlet. But before comparisons are going to reveal any truth, we need to have cameras to compare.

Same glass
Same F-stop
Same framing
Same Frame Rate
Same light source
Output to same codec

Then a comparison will be worthwhile. All it does at this point is confuse people and start rumors don't you think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top