Mysterium-X...

[C_Skaff]

if you claim that changing the ISO "forces" you to change the aperture or put more ND on would be a reason for having it part of "Sensor"-menu... then you could say that other stuff like Contrast should also be there...

If I take Contrast up to max, then I would trick myself into maybe protecting the highlights with a ND and put a lot more fill-light...

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Red's ISO setting never confused me because it's exactly the same as my film camera.

I have an ISO setting on my film camera. It does nothing to the image but tells my light meter where middle gray is. If I want to rate my 200 as 100 I just spin the dial to 100 and if I expose based on the light meter everything will be overexposed a stop.

Maybe you just need to change the menu title from: ISO to 'Rated ISO".

 

[Morning Glory]

Maybe you just need to change the menu title from: ISO to 'Rated ISO".

I LIKE that idea.

 

[Jannard]

I LIKE that idea.

Me, too.

Jim

 

[Jesper Sichlau]

800 is the new 320... only better.

Does this mean that the amount of noise there used to be at ISO 320 (on the Red One) you now have to go all the way up to ISO 800 to get the same amount? And does ISO have the same light sensibility on all cameras?

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Maybe you just need to change the menu title from: ISO to 'Rated ISO".

I 3rd that

The same would be smart with the whiteballance. Rated K

When one rate the cam too far off from the sensor-native settings one risk the exact opposite effect of what one usually wants to be recorded.

Rating the cam at say 2300k multiplies the risk of overexposing red and underexposing blue, and people tend to expand that disparity with their lighting choices, which is the exact opposite effect of what they wish for with such a setting.

The Kelvin settings, too limits the effective DR and signal to noise performance (even after build 20...) - if you expose by eye and in-camera metering tools...

 

[Stuart English]

ISO rating

ISO rating

Does this mean that the amount of noise there used to be at ISO 320 (on the Red One) you now have to go all the way up to ISO 800 to get the same amount?

Yes that's what it means.. and so you can shoot the same scene with less light.

 

[Mark Pugh]

Maybe you just need to change the menu title from: ISO to 'Rated ISO".

I think a few weeks ago I suggested calling it something like "Post Gain"
Which i reckon explains what the control does pretty clearly.
Maybe it wouldn't be scaled in ISO numbers, but in plus or minus zero, zero being the rated "Normal" of the camera (the old 320 for Mysterium, or 800 for the Mysterium X).

 

[Ken Waller]

...so you can shoot the same scene with less light.

Groovy!

 

[Kyle Connolly]

I think a few weeks ago I suggested calling it something like "Post Gain"
Which i reckon explains what the control does pretty clearly.
Maybe it wouldn't be scaled in ISO numbers, but in plus or minus zero, zero being the rated "Normal" of the camera (the old 320 for Mysterium, or 800 for the Mysterium X).

Is there that much confusion about what this function does? My RED is on the way, and after doing my homework, I'm in no way confused about the fact that any changes I make to the ISO are in metadata only. Plus, I like the fact that the ISO ratings on the RED closely match film ratings. Most of the work that I'll be doing will be 'film' work, not 'video' work, where Gain dB would be the norm.

Also, I think adding the word 'post' would add confusion, as changing the 'Post Gain' value still affects how your camera meters light while you shoot. This means the consequences of 'Post Gain' are felt immediately -- You're really changing your exposure values BEFORE going to post.

'ISO Rating' lets us all think of it as intended while shooting: Film sensitivity. The same way you would expose your scene differently for new film stock, the camera will meter for your current 'ISO Rating' value.

 

[Nik Skjøth]

Short answer, no. More ND will give you more highlight protection. Same clipping penalty for turning down the ISO.

When we put a curve on an image, we are deciding where the image will appear dark and where it will appear bright. Just think of changing the ISO as a decision between more shadows or more highlights.

Lower ISO = More of you image signal devoted to shadows. Less of your image signal devoted to highlights. Less noise, easier to clip.

Higher ISO = More of your image signal devoted to highlights. Less of your image signal devoted to shadows. More noise, harder to clip.

The image signal isn't changing, unless you change the actual amount of light hitting the sensor and it will still clip at the exact same place (roughly).

Since M-X has less noise overall, than the decision to use a higher ISO is more likely. In bright situations you will need more ND so that you have that choice.

All you have to do to get that highlight detail is stop down. A sensor is more sensitive because it has better information about less light. More sensitive sensors don't really collect more light, they just do a better job of measuring the light that is there.

IBloom

Here is what dosn't make logical sense. Or I simply don't understand it.

You are saying that there is a difference between stopping down a lens, and applying a ND filter?

I thought that a ND filter would do EXACTLY the same as stopping down (only considering DR). So that in effect a ND filter is not only a highlight protection, but a linear darkening of the light hitting the sensor. (You limit the shadow details aswell)

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Stopping down a lens or adding ND are similar in terms of total light transmission. But they have different physical properties that effect the image, such as increasing your DOF by making the aperture smaller. Many lenses begin to show problems related to diffraction when stopped down close to F11 or more.

Adding ND filters to block the light allows you to keep your aperture open to the desired stop for its related image properties. Sometimes a lens can't be stopped-down enough to get the proper exposure without using ND filters.

 

[Danno Anderson]

<<<< And as deep as it gets would be the most preferred. >>>> You asked for it, lol.

In digital camera systems, an arbitrary relationship between exposure and sensor data values can be achieved by setting the signal gain of the sensor. The relationship between the sensor data values and the lightness of the finished image is also arbitrary, depending on the parameters chosen for the interpretation of the sensor data into an image color space such as sRGB.
For digital photo cameras ("digital still cameras"), an exposure index (EI) rating—commonly called ISO setting—is specified by the manufacturer such that the sRGB image files produced by the camera will have a lightness similar to what would be obtained with film of the same EI rating at the same exposure. The usual design is that the camera's parameters for interpreting the sensor data values into sRGB values are fixed, and a number of different EI choices are accommodated by varying the sensor's signal gain in the analog realm, prior to conversion to digital. Some camera designs provide at least some EI choices by adjusting the sensor's signal gain in the digital realm. A few camera designs also provide EI adjustment through a choice of lightness parameters for the interpretation of sensor data values into sRGB; this variation allows different tradeoffs between the range of highlights that can be captured and the amount of noise introduced into the shadow areas of the photo.
[edit]The ISO 12232:2006 standard
The ISO standard 12232:2006[11] gives digital still camera manufacturers a choice of five different techniques for determining the exposure index rating at each sensitivity setting provided by a particular camera model. Three of the techniques in ISO 12232:2006 are carried over from the 1998 version of the standard, while two new techniques allowing for measurement of JPEG output files are introduced from CIPA DC-004.[12] Depending on the technique selected, the exposure index rating can depend on the sensor sensitivity, the sensor noise, and the appearance of the resulting image. The standard specifies the measurement of light sensitivity of the entire digital camera system and not of individual components such as digital sensors, although Kodak has reported[13] using a variation to characterize the sensitivity of two of their sensors in 2001.
The Recommended Exposure Index (REI) technique, new in the 2006 version of the standard, allows the manufacturer to specify a camera model’s EI choices arbitrarily. The choices are based solely on the manufacturer’s opinion of what EI values produce well-exposed sRGB images at the various sensor sensitivity settings. This is the only technique available under the standard for output formats that are not in the sRGB color space. This is also the only technique available under the standard when multi-zone metering (also called pattern metering) is used.
The Standard Output Specification (SOS) technique, also new in the 2006 version of the standard, effectively specifies that the average level in the sRGB image must be 18% gray plus or minus 1/3 stop when exposed per the EI with no exposure compensation. Because the output level is measured in the sRGB output from the camera, it is only applicable to sRGB images—typically JPEG—and not to output files in raw image format. It is not applicable when multi-zone metering is used.
The CIPA DC-004 standard requires that Japanese manufacturers of digital still cameras use either the REI or SOS techniques. Consequently, the three EI techniques carried over from ISO 12232:1998 are not widely used in recent camera models (approximately 2007 and later). As those earlier techniques did not allow for measurement from images produced with lossy compression, they cannot be used at all on cameras that produce images only in JPEG format.
The saturation-based technique is closely related to the SOS technique, with the sRGB output level being measured at 100% white rather than 18% gray. The saturation-based value is effectively 0.704 times the SOS value.[14] Because the output level is measured in the sRGB output from the camera, it is only applicable to sRGB images—typically TIFF—and not to output files in raw image format. It is not applicable when multi-zone metering is used.
The two noise-based techniques have rarely been used for consumer digital still cameras. These techniques specify the highest EI that can be used while still providing either an “excellent” picture or a “usable” picture depending on the technique chosen.
[edit]Measurements and calculations

This section needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2009)
ISO speed ratings of a digital camera are based on the properties of the sensor and the image processing done in the camera, and are expressed in terms of the luminous exposure H (in lux seconds) arriving at the sensor. For a typical camera lens with an effective focal length f that is much smaller than the distance between the camera and the photographed scene, H is given by

where L is the luminance of the scene (in candela per m²), t is the exposure time (in seconds), N is the aperture f-number, and

is a factor depending on the transmittance T of the lens, the vignetting factor v(θ), and the angle θ relative to the axis of the lens. A typical value is q = 0.65, based on θ = 10°, T = 0.9, and v = 0.98.[citation needed]
The saturation-based speed is defined as

where Hsat is the maximum possible exposure that does not lead to a clipped or bloomed camera output. Typically, the lower limit of the saturation speed is determined by the sensor itself, but with the gain of the amplifier between the sensor and the A/D-converter, the saturation speed can be increased. The factor 78 is chosen such that exposure settings based on a standard light meter and an 18-percent reflective surface will result in an image with a grey level of 18%/√2 = 12.7% of saturation. The factor √2 indicates that there is half a stop of headroom to deal with specular reflections that would appear brighter than a 100% reflecting white surface.[citation needed]
The noise-based speed is defined as the exposure that will lead to a given signal-to-noise ratio on individual pixels. Two ratios are used, the 40:1 ("excellent image quality") and the 10:1 ("acceptable image quality") ratio. These ratios have been subjectively determined based on a resolution of 70 pixels per cm (180 DPI) when viewed at 25 cm (10 inch) distance. The signal-to-noise ratio is defined as the standard deviation of a weighted average of the luminance (overall brightness) and color of individual pixels. The noise-based speed is mostly determined by the properties of the sensor and somewhat affected by the noise in the electronic gain and AD converter.[citation needed]
In addition to the above speed ratings, the standard also defines the standard output sensitivity (SOS), how the exposure is related to the digital pixel values in the output image. It is defined as

where Hsos is the exposure that will lead to values of 118 in 8-bit pixels, which is 18 percent of the saturation value in images encoded as sRGB or with gamma = 2.2.[citation needed]
The standard specifies how speed ratings should be reported by the camera. If the noise-based speed (40:1) is higher than the saturation-based speed, the noise-based speed should be reported, rounded downwards to a standard value (e.g. 200, 250, 320, or 400). The rationale is that exposure according to the lower saturation-based speed would not result in a visibly better image. In addition, an exposure latitude can be specified, ranging from the saturation-based speed to the 10:1 noise-based speed. If the noise-based speed (40:1) is lower than the saturation-based speed, or undefined because of high noise, the saturation-based speed is specified, rounded upwards to a standard value, because using the noise-based speed would lead to overexposed images. The camera may also report the SOS-based speed (explicitly as being an SOS speed), rounded to the nearest standard speed rating.[citation needed]
For example, a camera sensor may have the following properties: S40:1 = 107, S10:1 = 1688, and Ssat = 49. According to the standard, the camera should report its sensitivity as
ISO 100 (daylight)
ISO speed latitude 50–1600
ISO 100 (SOS, daylight).
The SOS rating could be user controlled. For a different camera with a noisier sensor, the properties might be S40:1 = 40, S10:1 = 800, and Ssat = 200. In this case, the camera should report
ISO 200 (daylight),
as well as a user-adjustable SOS value. In all cases, the camera should indicate for the white balance setting for which the speed rating applies, such as daylight or tungsten (incandescent light).[citation needed]
Despite these detailed standard definitions, cameras typically do not clearly indicate whether the user "ISO" setting refers to the noise-based speed, saturation-based speed, or the specified output sensitivity, or even some made-up number for marketing purposes. Because the 1998 version of ISO 12232 did not permit measurement of camera output that had lossy compression, it was not possible to correctly apply any of those measurements to cameras that did not produce sRGB files in an uncompressed format such as TIFF. Following the publication of CIPA DC-004 in 2006, Japanese manufacturers of digital still cameras are required to specify whether a sensitivity rating is REI or SOS.[citation needed]
As should be clear from the above, a greater SOS setting for a given sensor comes with some loss of image quality, just like with analog film. However, this loss is visible as image noise rather than grain. Current (April 2009) APS and 35mm sized digital image sensors, both CMOS and CCD based, do not produce significant noise until about ISO 800.[citation needed]

 

[Priit Poldmaa]

May be to call this: "Push processing" or "uprating/downrating".
Wikipedia here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_processing

Isn't it really the same as film development.
And it really doesn't change the loaded film stock sensitivity.
Just the way the film is processed afterwards.

Priit

 

[Nik Skjøth]

Stopping down a lens or adding ND are similar in terms of total light transmission. But they have different physical properties that effect the image, such as increasing your DOF by making the aperture smaller. Many lenses begin to show problems related to diffraction when stopped down close to F11 or more.

Adding ND filters to block the light allows you to keep your aperture open to the desired stop for its related image properties. Sometimes a lens can't be stopped-down enough to get the proper exposure without using ND filters.

Not relevant to my question

I am asking how a ND filter can give a DR penalty if stopping down the aperture does not... They should both give the same result (reducing light) According to BLOOM, there is a difference.. Which dosn't make logical sense to me..

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

ND's can effect DR because of how they block light, they are not truly linear. They block the total amount of light that reaches your lens and lower intensity sources more so than higher intensity ones. Stopping down a lens reduces the aperture size, effectively reducing the light-gathering area of your optics, but does not add any filtering or blocking to the light that is able to pass through the aperture opening as an ND filter would.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I think a few weeks ago I suggested calling it something like "Post Gain"
Which i reckon explains what the control does pretty clearly.
Maybe it wouldn't be scaled in ISO numbers, but in plus or minus zero, zero being the rated "Normal" of the camera (the old 320 for Mysterium, or 800 for the Mysterium X).

The one advantage of ISO though is that you can punch that number straight into your light meter without doing any mental gymnastics.

EDIT: But... no reason you can't do both. Example:


Rated ISO: 600 (+1 Gain)
Rated ISO: 150 (-1 Gain)

etc..

 

[Tyler Black]

I don't mean to be an ass Danno, but technically that's plagiarism. Either cite a source you directly quote or just post a link to it.

I honestly don't get the confusion. By stating that RED has a native ISO of 320 is the same as saying "You've got a can of 320 ISO film stock. Expose it however you want to." Nothing is any different than shooting film, other than with a film camera you can actually load a roll of Vision 500T and you actually get a stock that's 1/2 stop more sensitive. With digital cameras you're forced into using whatever the camera's rated at. You can shoot it at whatever the hell you want, but the image won't be optimal. It's been this way for over a hundred years! Why is it suddenly being debated now? Does an Arri 435 have a setting whereby you tell it that it's got a load of ISO 50 in it? I don't think so. The DP has to be intelligent enough to either know that's what he/she is shooting and meter appropriately or put a piece of tape on the magazine telling him/her that it's ISO 50 (If his memory is like mine . By RED saying they've increased the sensitivity on Mysterium X to 800, they're basically saying they've lengthened the straight portion of the characteristic curve in the toe. Am I right? Film people get that, right? Or am I completely insane?

 

[Jannard]

We are saying that 800 looks as good noise-wise as the old 320. M-X is significantly more pushable than M. We are not saying that "native" (whatever you want that to mean) is ISO 800.

Jim

 

[Joseph Hutson]

We are saying that 800 looks as good noise-wise as the old 320. M-X is significantly more pushable than M. We are not saying that "native" (whatever you want that to mean) is ISO 800.

Jim

very nice!