Mysterium-X...

[Tim Whitcomb]

What was the original Mysterium-X specification? I can't remember, and the chart is down, but it did have some specification with respect to added dynamic range. I thought it was 1.5 stops, so, if that is true, they came in very close to what they originally said.

Stephen

In 13 more days, we should know a ton more about specs. But less noise and higher ISO sounds great to me in daylight or Tungsten.:thumbup1:

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

This chart?

 

[Jay Voutour]

This chart?

I think he means this dated (no longer applicable) info matrix/chart: LINK

If so, it appears the Stouffer test shows that the RED team has exceeded some of their initial goals for MX. Awesome!
________
Extreme q vaporizer efficiency

 

[David Battistella]

Stephen... people seems pretty happy with RED ONE tungsten after Build 20. M-X is significantly better still. M-X's "less noise" carries throughout the color temperature range. While daylight is still cleaner than tungsten, both are significantly improved.

Jim

The R1 pretty excellent in tungsten with build 20+ but it still benifits from some "daylight" to kick on the blue channel.

I love that M-X will be faster and cleaner.

Can you confirm that the m-x will only go to 4.5 in the R1 because of existing hardware limitations?

The M-x is 5K in an Epic?

thanks,
david

 

[Jannard]

The R1 pretty excellent in tungsten with build 20+ but it still benifits from some "daylight" to kick on the blue channel.

I love that M-X will be faster and cleaner.

Can you confirm that the m-x will only go to 4.5 in the R1 because of existing hardware limitations?

The M-x is 5K in an Epic?

thanks,
david

Confirmed.

Jim

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

That was the chart I was looking for Jay.

Thanks.

Man, I wish there was a S35 Monstro. Those 13 stops sound utterly heavenly!

Alas. . .

Stephen

 

[Kevin Olsen]

Higher ISO performance means less concerns about the performance of the T2.4 lens for the fixed Scarlet, that is assuming that's still what it will be.

Being able to do 'fine tuning' to achieve higher ISO and better sensitivity on the chip with little to no hardware changes is downright incredible. This means we can use lighter, smaller lenses and achieve a better overall better price/performance ratio since wide aspect and aperture lenses are exponentially more expensive.


RED, please, tune the shit out of those babies...

KO

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

Correct ( for the most part )

I still like Jim's explanation best... but your adaptation is a good way to look at it. Personally, shooting high ISO's to protect for highlights historically has seemed backwards but when you combine the advantages of the new sensor and the power of REDCODE it definitely is a good way to protect those higher ranges if you properly process in post.

Why backwards? What do you mean?

 

[jimhare]

Because your instinct would be to shoot bright days with a lower ASA, not higher. The reason to shoot higher is it forces you to stop the lens down, which physically protects the highlights.

That's my take anyway.

Jim

 

[Antony M]

Because your instinct would be to shoot bright days with a lower ASA, not higher. The reason to shoot higher is it forces you to stop the lens down, which physically protects the highlights.

Yes, I have just made a request on another board that Red should move the Sensitivity submenu away from the Sensor menu, and put it in the Video->Video menu.

This should help clarify that it does NOT alter the sensor in any way.

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

Because your instinct would be to shoot bright days with a lower ASA, not higher. The reason to shoot higher is it forces you to stop the lens down, which physically protects the highlights.

That's my take anyway.

Jim

I know the drill, but it's better described as counter-intuitive than backwards...

Or perhaps that's what he meant as backwards and it got lost in translation for me.

 

[Stuart English]

Sensitivity

Sensitivity

The reason to shoot (ISO) higher is it forces you to stop the lens down, which physically protects the highlights.

Yes, that's correct.

Sliding it above / below ISO 320 biases your exposure compensation towards additional highlight protection / shadow protection.

As an operator you make that choice based on what's more important in the scene. Or in many situations you can just leave it alone.

The availability of a sensor with a significantly lower noise floor means you get even more exposure headroom to work with.

 

[Stuart English]

ISO location

ISO location

.. Red should move the Sensitivity ... away from the Sensor menu, and put it in the Video->Video menu.

This should help clarify that it does NOT alter the sensor in any way.

That sounds logical, but the light captured by a camera is not JUST due to the sensitivity of its sensor.

There is significant operator interaction too, so therefore a camera is better thought of as a system.

For the camera operator, the ISO setting is a tool to help manage exposure, as outlined above.

 

[Tim Sutherland]

Hi Tim,

Ideally without any filters, not a fan of unnecessary uncoated glass in front of the lens. Your speculating that an 80C will produce the best results, it may require more or less correction that that, I would rather not speculate.

Stephen

I'm not saying an 80C will produce the best result, I'm saying that in the very worst case scenario where you'd have to use an 80C, you still have 400ISO in tungsten. I also said in my post that I highly doubt this would be necessary. I was just trying to ease people's fears that the camera would not react well in high sensitivity under tungsten since RED/Jim had not commented on tungsten at that point. If 400ISO is your worst case scenario for tungsten, although it is ideal, it is not a bad situation to be in.

 

[Jarred Land]

I know the drill, but it's better described as counter-intuitive than backwards...

Or perhaps that's what he meant as backwards and it got lost in translation for me.

lol.. yes you are correct... counter-intuitive is a much better way to describe it, thanks!

 

[David Walls II]

19 is the new 30 lol

 

[I Bloom]

Correct ( for the most part )

Where'd I go wrong?

 

[Antony M]

That sounds logical, but the light captured by a camera is not JUST due to the sensitivity of its sensor.

Absolutely. And I never suggested it was.

There is significant operator interaction too, so therefore a camera is better thought of as a system.

Eh??? There is significant operator interaction with all my other cameras too. And my car. What does this have to do with whether or not the Sensitivity menu setting ACTUALLY alters the sensitivity of the sensor or not???

For the camera operator, the ISO setting is a tool to help manage exposure, as outlined above.

Exactly. It is a tool, just as all the other options on the Video menu are.

It is NOT something which actually affects the sensor (unless I have been repeatedly misinformed on this board, which is always possible).

 

[Michael Neborak]

1.5 stops of dynamic range and a native ISO of 800 are certainly vast improvements over the already amazing r1... On a side note... I am hoping there will be some options for trading a red one for a high end scarlet... but even if there isn't I guess I'll just have to save up for an epic of the same kind.

 

[Jannard]

There continues to be a misunderstand of "native" ISO.

Jim