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 :)

M-X at ISO 2000...

Not to be a brown nosing little weasel, but I wanted to say thank you to Mr. Mullen. I feel like I should be paying you after I read your posts. Very informative.
 
D Fuller said:
They's both clip (but not identically) and the M-X will see deeper into the shadows.

I asked Jim pretty much this exact question at the Red Day session. What he said was (you might want to read this a couple of times, because it is all I've been thinking about for the past two days as I've tried to understand how this can be) "There is no penalty at lower ISO's." He sad to Adam Wilt at Pro Video Coalition, "This sensor is EXACTLY like the original Mysterium sensor but with a much lower noise floor."

Based on those two bits of information, here's how I think the magic works. They haven't really produced a more sensitive camera, they've produced a cleaner camera. We all know that noise is the limiting factor for dynamic range, and what RED has done is to produce a sensor system with so much less noise that the footage can be processed using a much higher ISO ratings with very acceptable noise levels. That's what we saw in the DiCaprio shot.

At the other end of the spectrum, highlights don't clip any sooner than the current sensor, because the sensor is not "more sensitive," it's just cleaner. But there's another bit of magic at work here, and that's FLUT. Graeme's got algorithms in there that seem to me to be adjusting gamma in non-lenear, non-computer way that more closely resembles the curves of film, so the roll-off at the high end is softer and more film-like. Additionally, these curves seem to put the midrange of the response (18% gray) where a light meter says they should be.

I suppose this is more conjecture than I should be making based on the things that were actually said to me, but if I'm close to right, it's pretty damn sweet.
Click to expand...

Yes, blown highlights can look totally OK in film because they roll off nicely, they look like bold visual drama rather than technical errors. These lovely new FLUT curves seem to emulate that. As such, there is not only a dymamic range benefit at a numeric, tech level, but at an aesthetic one.
 
Has anyone else noticed that Jim seems to be a night owl? This is is the best time of day (night) to be reading Recon.

I can't get over these 3 pics. 2000 ISO. WHERE'S THE NOISE?!
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Eventually we'll have something like color negative film in terms of range, making exposing a lot more idiot-proof and problematic shots a lot more fixable in post.
Click to expand...

amen, then we can get back to the most important (and difficult) part of filmmaking... good story telling :)

edit: like the new Avatar pic Jim. it's nice to see you smile...

EDIT2: Are you effin serious? RED RAY (er 4K) has encode capability at 15mbps? YES!! (cant comment on that thread)

Sounds like a 100+ year old Distribution model is about to be disrupted... in a good way.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
So certainly low-light scenes are going to get easier to do, with less noise, but I don't see that causing fundamental lighting changes;
Click to expand...
I think where it will cause a change is that many filmmakers will be able to attempt a minimal-to-no lighting run & gun narrative style. Hell, a set of sticks, a Red camera, 5 or 6 caffeinated cast & crew, a few batts and memory sticks. Go to the park & film under a streetlight, sneak it into a bar, etc. Hopefully we'll see lots of experimental / artistic things a la the 70's.
 
Jannard said:
This was shot by David Fincher on a RED ONE with a Mysterium-X sensor at ISO 2000
Click to expand...

Does this mean that we can shoot all the time with ISO 2000 , close the iris down and have a very VERY deep DOF "Orson Welles style" with no need of lights?
 
Mike Brent said:
Does this mean that we can shoot all the time with ISO 2000 , close the iris down and have a very VERY deep DOF "Orson Welles style" with no need of lights?
Click to expand...

Maybe 2.5 stops is about what you gain over RED . That's a lot, but it's not F16 in the dark. It's maybe F4 instead of F1.4. Remember ISO 4000 is only 1 stop more than ISO 2000... which is one stop more than 1000.

But 1 stop of light actually is a significant deal since it's double the light.
 
Steve Dent said:
I think where it will cause a change is that many filmmakers will be able to attempt a minimal-to-no lighting run & gun narrative style. Hell, a set of sticks, a Red camera, 5 or 6 caffeinated cast & crew, a few batts and memory sticks. Go to the park & film under a streetlight, sneak it into a bar, etc. Hopefully we'll see lots of experimental / artistic things a la the 70's.
Click to expand...


This will create dreary, ugly images, as it did in the 1970s. Lighting is about SHAPING the image, "painting on the frames with beams", little of it has much to do with just getting enough exposure. This new sensor will alllow new lighting devices to be used with artistic intent, like the cigar lighter's flame. It is not an invitation to get cheap and lazy, and I'm quite sure Mr. Jannard would agree with me.
 
Rob Ruffo said:
It is not an invitation to get cheap and lazy, and I'm quite sure Mr. Jannard would agree with me.
Click to expand...

I was impressed with how much effort Fincher put into lighting behind Leo, even though the match was the key light... I certainly agree.

Jim
 
Jannard said:
I was impressed with how much effort Fincher put into lighting behind Leo, even though the match was the key light... I certainly agree.

Jim
Click to expand...

I had been thinking about that. Did they measure the mount of light created by the match first in order that the BG didn't drown out the show?
 
Jannard said:
I was impressed with how much effort Fincher put into lighting behind Leo, even though the match was the key light... I certainly agree.

Jim
Click to expand...

To be honest that was what impressed me the most. The match itself was pretty amazing to be able to hold those highlights, but when the match went out, how much detail remained in the dark on Leo's shoulders and that subtle wrap around on his cheek and right arm. That was truly EPIC!
 
Steve Dent said:
I think where it will cause a change is that many filmmakers will be able to attempt a minimal-to-no lighting run & gun narrative style. Hell, a set of sticks, a Red camera, 5 or 6 caffeinated cast & crew, a few batts and memory sticks. Go to the park & film under a streetlight, sneak it into a bar, etc. Hopefully we'll see lots of experimental / artistic things a la the 70's.
Click to expand...

Somewhere in this thread David Mullen said: "...the next stylistic trend will be away from realism just because the style pendulum always starts to swing the other way at some point."

I cannot agree more. While more sensitivity extends the performance of a camera vastly it does not necessarily lead to better, more artistic films. Available light, low budget, etc... is no art per se.
I shot tons of commercials, music videos and whatnot with a "documentary, pulled-out-of-life" realistic style, oftentimes with a exaggerated realism (commercials) and must say: Shallow focus, Danish Dogma approach on photography and dialog is out. At least for me. The next projects will be unrealistic, hysterical, over the top and surely not desaturated.

Hans (all for MX) von Sonntag
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top