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 :)

lowlight tests ISO 1250

Ryan Hamblin

Ryan Hamblin

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
840
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
43
Location
Nashville TN
Website
www.alrrp.com
All these were shot ISO 1250 with RED 17-50 @ T2.9

a slight curved added in redcine x and white balance set. some alchemy and a bit of grain

A007_C006_01201Y.jpg

A007_C011_012030S.jpg

A007_C011_01203S.jpg

A007_C009_01202Q.jpg


hope you enjoy
 
well to be honest I dont really remember... I know for a fact the first one had grain added. As for the rest im not totally sure. Ill check the r3ds in the morning and past back about it. What I do know is I was very surprised to get this great of results at 1250 out of the camera... I think it could be pushed a bit farther without having to look towards third party noise reduction.
 
Too bad you added some grain : impossible to see if it's noise or grain.

Can you upload full resolution screenshots in .PNG or .R3D ?
 
I'd also be curious to see the same shots at 2000 iso.
 
Thanks for the lowlight test. Camera looks great at these higher ISOs.
 
Like the other thread wherein images were posted, I think I must mis-interpreting the results. Other posters say how amazing it looks but to me it looks worse than my point and shoot. Am I comparing apples and oranges. Should these images not be truly amazing?
 
I wasn't aware point and shoot can shoot 4K now. Please post your footage. I'm very curious.

Arnold F. said:
Like the other thread wherein images were posted, I think I must mis-interpreting the results. Other posters say how amazing it looks but to me it looks worse than my point and shoot. Am I comparing apples and oranges. Should these images not be truly amazing?
Click to expand...
 
Arnold F. said:
Like the other thread wherein images were posted, I think I must mis-interpreting the results. Other posters say how amazing it looks but to me it looks worse than my point and shoot. Am I comparing apples and oranges. Should these images not be truly amazing?
Click to expand...

You should describe how your are interpreting the results if you want us to help you figure out whether you are mis-interpreting them. It is important to note that Scarlet's strength compared to its competition is probably NOT shooting low noise footage in low light environments. Considering that, these images are fairly promising, though it is a bit hard to tell in these 1K downscaled pictures. They do not appear to be noise free, but they do seem to handle highlights very well in these particular images, as would be expected since higher ISO settings on Scarlet offer greater highlight compression. It is also notable that T2.9 is not the fastest of lenses to be shooting at night with.

If your feel whichever point and shoot you own performs better than a Scarlet would for your purposes, I definitely recommend that you test that and use whichever you prefer. Most likely, if your image capture requirements are met by a point-and-shoot camera, you will not want to use a Scarlet. However, it seems unlikely that a point-and-shoot would out-perform Scarlet in any way at all for digital cinema motion picture acquisition purposes, which is the primary design purpose of RED's Scarlet-X.
 
Clearly, I'm not looking at these samples the way I'm supposed to and attempts to ask questions about it result in getting Philip Bloomed (shall we call it blooming?). I'm getting trained on what is politically acceptable here and I do apologize for the faux pas.

Thank you for posting these samples. The quality is astonishing is clearly jaw-dropping. Thanks Jim and team!
 
Arnold, to put it bluntly, no you are not comparing apples to apples. In that case, your point and shoot will most likely be bested in motion capture. If you are talking strictly about Scarlet as a still cam vs your point and shoot, I think we need to wait a little bit on that until all of the still features are available on Scarlet/Epic. So, to compare you need to take your point and shoot, capture video, then pull stills from it and then post your results. Then we can have a discussion.

Now, without bringing the point and shoot into the equation, you can certainly state your opinion that you are not impressed with these. Maybe even ask for the R3Ds so you can see them in a more precise environment. That to me would be a decent approach, don't you think? Everyone should be able to provide an opinion. The more you can explain it, the better it will be received.
 
I will say the R3Ds are more impressive. There is also the case of me grading these to my liking... very quickly... so not totally to my liking. I will have my colorist fool around with it. Now as far as comparing to a t2i... I used to own one and can say these tests are very comparable to the t2i around the same iso. That camera is very noisey at 800 even. Great little camera though not nocking it... its just not everything every one screams about with it.
 
Could also be an issue with the computers calibration you are monitoring these images on, which would make more sense than everyone else in this thread blindly loving the images because it comes from a red camera. Though you could be just pickier with what you consider quality images, or all our monitor are set improperly hard to tell but on my end they look great far from the realm of a point and shoot at night shooting video at t2.9 but that is just my opinion.

I could see comparing any professional camera to a point and shoot in such a way as you did to be insulting no matter what forum you post it on. This blooming you speak of goes both ways you could prevent it by being more tactful in your response, but it's up to you how you present yourself on the internet so proceed how you see fit.

thanks for the images as has been said considering most of us weren't expecting to be able to see in the dark with the scarlet it is nice to see these kinds of examples and get a feeling for what it's capable of in real world tests.

Play nice!

p.s. is it just me or is there a huge difference between a "point and shoot" and a DSLR? I don't consider even the t2i a point and shoot but perhaps I'm wrong.
 
Your T2i may not shoot video at 4k, but you can do a series of RAW stills by holding down the release button in continuous mode.
This will give you a nice little 10 frame 'shot' that can be processed in Adobe Camera Raw for noise comparison purposes.
Those with Canon mount Scarlet can use the same lens,same aperture, ISO,exposure time to get an excellent baseline for a fair comparison.

I used a $250 Craigs list Canon XTi body. 10Mpixel, almost same pixel pitch, so a 1:1 sized comparison is valid. I own two Scarlets, Canon mounts.

No, you can't use the Canon for a motion picture camera this way ( unless you are doing stop motion) . But you can access the possible image quality you should get out of a sensor used at similar gain.





Aaron Fronk said:
+1 on this. My T2i doesn't shoot 4K, but maybe there's a secret setting to unlock that Arnold knows about!
Click to expand...
 
Arnold F. said:
Like the other thread wherein images were posted, I think I must mis-interpreting the results. Other posters say how amazing it looks but to me it looks worse than my point and shoot. Am I comparing apples and oranges. Should these images not be truly amazing?
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying. It seems RED images often underwhelm when seen scaled down. Blown up on a 40 foot screen is where you quickly begin to appreciate the works under the hood. Granted it begets the question whether the camera is a wise investment for those intending to use it for vimeo/youtube distribution...but there's no denying the durability of the image on the grand scale.
 
Arnold F. said:
Clearly, I'm not looking at these samples the way I'm supposed to and attempts to ask questions about it result in getting Philip Bloomed (shall we call it blooming?). I'm getting trained on what is politically acceptable here and I do apologize for the faux pas.

Thank you for posting these samples. The quality is astonishing is clearly jaw-dropping. Thanks Jim and team!
Click to expand...

Clearly not. The question you asked was "Should these images not be truly amazing?" which sounds like a rhetorical question especially given the statements it follows. If it was not rhetorical, I apologize for misinterpreting it that way. Why would you ever approach images from this camera test expecting images to be 'truly amazing'? What would 'truly amazing' images be to you? If you have specific questions rather than ones primarily pertaining your own seemingly impossible and very vague expectations people on these forums will be better equipped to help you with those questions.

As for your comment about Philip Bloom, I really do not see any parallels between your situation and his. What is not acceptable is trolling, which some may have taken your comments as since their negative, vague and hyperbolic content may to some indicate that is your intention. I prefer to assume that is not your intention, but you will probably get more cooperation from others on this forum if you are ask real questions and do not accuse people of 'blooming' you.
 
Ryan, would you have those 2000 iso grabs in 4k without too much jpeg compression. I'm curious to see full res.
 
Something to keep in mind is that point and shoots by nature do a lot of automated processing in camera over which the operator has little or no control, including noise reduction. Red does no in camera noise reduction or processing, leaving that for the post environment. The point and shoot may look superficially better out of the camera depending on how the Red footage is graded.
OP states no noise reduction has been applied to these images.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top