Mysterium-X...

[Bruce William Harper]

I know you Hollywood pros have access to excellent lighting and Key Grips who know how to maximize it, but for us, lighting with the large soft boxes we have isn't even an option in certain situations (museums, galleries, hotels, churches, etc.).

Hey Tom, Shooting in large places, like museums, galleries, hotels and churches sound like the ideal places to build large soft boxes. Maybe I'm not following you on this statement, but for me it's small little locations that are always harder to light.

 

[Lee Saxon]

I set my DSLR to ISO800 1/24th and walked outside. It's a moderately sunny day. I couldn't expose direct sunlight properly because the lens only goes to f/22. Even in the shade the meter was telling me f/18 which means giving up any control over depth of field (to say nothing of going well outside the ideal f/5.6-f/8 sharpness range and moving well into the territory of diffraction limitation).

I say that to say this : If "native/ideal" ISO is 800, my Scarlet would spend 98% of its time 2+ stops off ideal. You've said in the past that this would noticeably impact dynamic range and color fidelity. Has this problem been reduced in the new sensors?

 

[Lee Saxon]

The new Nikon D3S has some incredible low light capabilities...

The thing about that camera is that "normal" mode is ISO200-ISO48,600, and only ISO100 and ISO104,xxx are "boost" modes. Presumably that means that (in their opinion) there is a quite wide range where dynamic range isn't compromised.

Much as I love them, my suspicion is that they just have a looser definition of "not compromised" than you do.

just that the sensor is slow (frame rate).

Let's be fair, it's not like it's a 0.8fps Phase One back or anything. 9fps at 12.1mp, 11fps at 5.1mp.

 

[Jannard]

I set my DSLR to ISO800 1/24th and walked outside. It's a moderately sunny day. I couldn't expose direct sunlight properly because the lens only goes to f/22. Even in the shade the meter was telling me f/18 which means giving up any control over depth of field (to say nothing of going well outside the ideal f/5.6-f/8 sharpness range and moving well into the territory of diffraction limitation).

I say that to say this : If "native/ideal" ISO is 800, my Scarlet would spend 98% of its time 2+ stops off ideal. You've said in the past that this would noticeably impact dynamic range and color fidelity. Has this problem been reduced in the new sensors?



The thing about that camera is that "normal" mode is ISO200-ISO12,800, and only ISO100 and ISO102,400 are "boost" modes. I assume that means that (according to Nikon) only below 200 or above 12,800 are dynamic range or color fidelity compromised.

As much as I love Nikon my suspicion is that Nikon defines "not compromised" more loosely than Red. Total faith in you, man.

Let's try this again. Native sensitivity and useable sensitivity are two different things. Wouldn't it be nice if you had exactly the same quality image on any ISO you set between 50 and 64,000? Would it matter what the native sensitivity was then? We have said the you need to think of ISO in terms of a useful range... not just what is native. While we aren't there yet (50-64,000), that is the direction sensors are moving. Less penalty for "pushing".

In the old film days (and early digital days)... there was a tremendous price to pay for "pushing" the ISO (ASA) from "native". That is no longer the case. With Mysterium-X you can shoot ISO 250 or ISO 800 and get incredible, wicked low noise images. What does it matter what "native" is?

Jim

 

[Jason Murphy]

I set my DSLR to ISO800 1/24th and walked outside. It's a moderately sunny day. I couldn't expose direct sunlight properly because the lens only goes to f/22. Even in the shade the meter was telling me f/18 which means giving up any control over depth of field (to say nothing of going well outside the ideal f/5.6-f/8 sharpness range and moving well into the territory of diffraction limitation).

I say that to say this : If "native/ideal" ISO is 800, my Scarlet would spend 98% of its time 2+ stops off ideal. You've said in the past that this would noticeably impact dynamic range and color fidelity. Has this problem been reduced in the new sensors?

You should be at 1/48, not 1/24. Still doesn't invalidate your concerns, though. That said, the real issue here is that anyone shooting RED for motion work NEEDS a full complement of ND filters for exposure and depth of field control in any situation where the light isn't either controlled or low. No other way around it.

EDIT: And Jim beat me to it. Nevermind.

 

[Lee Saxon]

...Less penalty for "pushing"....With Mysterium-X you can shoot ISO 250 or ISO 800 and get incredible, wicked low noise images. What does it matter what "native" is?

Jim

Great news! Thanks for responding to my whining!

 

[ron johnson]

file:///Users/ronaldjohnson/Pictures/red/Slide1.jpg

 

[ron johnson]

 

[Mark Andersen]

ISO 800 huh, looks like I'm gonna need some more ND filters. Sweet.

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

With Mysterium-X you can shoot ISO 250 or ISO 800 and get incredible, wicked low noise images. What does it matter what "native" is?

Jim

wow,

well, Id guess what matters now is that the "natives" are gonna be even more restless for the EPIC-X!

 

[Tim Sutherland]

...

In the old film days (and early digital days)... there was a tremendous price to pay for "pushing" the ISO (ASA) from "native". That is no longer the case. With Mysterium-X you can shoot ISO 250 or ISO 800 and get incredible, wicked low noise images. What does it matter what "native" is?

Jim

Well, doesn't it matter because it dictates where the middle gray falls in the dynamic range?

In the current Red ONE where changing ISO does nothing analog (and I would guess that Epic, Scarlet) stay the same) then we try to shoot at about 320 if possible to put 18% gray right about in the middle of the DR.

However, on a sunny day where you want to keep the skies blue, then you might set ASA (and your meter) to 500. That means you're basically under-exposing by 2/3 stop, which is a great compromise (although you may need a bit more bounce fill for the shadows) in the situation because you can easily deal with skintones 2/3 stop under, and you have 2/3 stop more highlight protection for your skies.

Conversely, if you expose (and meter for) 160 ASA, you're reducing the highlight protection by 1 stop and giving one extra stop exposure to the image, basically sliding the 18% gray to the right of the histogram. This might work out great on an overcast day.

So, what we're learning here, is that in high DR situations, especially where the highlights are much higher than skintones, then you would actually want to speed up the camera and use NDs.

So, does the same apply to the new sensor, or is the lack of noise so great that we gain enough DR to play with the ISO within a certain range without paying much of a highlight protection penalty?

If I am wrong somewhere here please let me know. This is not meant to be a criticism, just trying to understand how the new sensor might behave in some bright, high DR situations.

Tim

 

[Jannard]

...


Well, doesn't it matter because it dictates where the middle gray falls in the dynamic range?

In the current Red ONE where changing ISO does nothing analog (and I would guess that Epic, Scarlet) stay the same) then we try to shoot at about 320 if possible to put 18% gray right about in the middle of the DR.

However, on a sunny day where you want to keep the skies blue, then you might set ASA (and your meter) to 500. That means you're basically under-exposing by 2/3 stop, which is a great compromise (although you may need a bit more bounce fill for the shadows) in the situation because you can easily deal with skintones 2/3 stop under, and you have 2/3 stop more highlight protection for your skies.

Conversely, if you expose (and meter for) 160 ASA, you're reducing the highlight protection by 1 stop and giving one extra stop exposure to the image, basically sliding the 18% gray to the right of the histogram. This might work out great on an overcast day.

So, what we're learning here, is that in high DR situations, especially where the highlights are much higher than skintones, then you would actually want to speed up the camera and use NDs.

So, does the same apply to the new sensor, or is the lack of noise so great that we gain enough DR to play with the ISO within a certain range without paying much of a highlight protection penalty?

If I am wrong somewhere here please let me know. This is not meant to be a criticism, just trying to understand how the new sensor might behave in some bright, high DR situations.

Tim

Tim... you are right (mostly), although less noise and increased dynamic range of M-X reduces the penalty measurably (no penalty compared to RED ONE). Even though the range of useful ISO is expanding, there are still limits to the range, both in terms of noise and highlight protection. Your observation is accurate and still needs to be considered in the decision making. The punchline is that the penalty is less and the range is bigger.

I'll post Graeme's Stouffer of the M-X in another thread.

Jim

 

[Tim Sutherland]

Thanks for the response, Jim.

So now we just need to figure out at what ASA does 18% gray fall at about 40-45 IRE (more or less, depends on where you want the top edge of a macbeth/step chart to fall.) and that's your 'basic' ASA, with equal DR on top or on bottom. Then, if you deviate from that, you know what you're giving up. And from the chart you posted, it doesn't look like it will be that much.

Looking forward to testing the new cameras and sensors.

Tim

 

[Jannard]

Thanks for the response, Jim.

So now we just need to figure out at what ASA does 18% gray fall at about 40-45 IRE (more or less, depends on where you want the top edge of a macbeth/step chart to fall.) and that's your 'basic' ASA, with equal DR on top or on bottom. Then, if you deviate from that, you know what you're giving up. And from the chart you posted, it doesn't look like it will be that much.

Looking forward to testing the new cameras and sensors.

Tim

Tim... I've always liked you. "Basic" is a great term to use instead of "native". While both terms are really OK, native gives one the false impression that it is all downhill on either side of the "magic spot". Basic implies a baseline, reference point, or starting point in a range... which is a much more accurate way of looking at it as sensors improve.

I've probably beaten this one to death... not sure why.

Jim

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

holy crap.. if this camera rates at 800 im buying my optimo shortys! and shooting night exteriors with it

 

[Graeme Nattress]

The only "native" sensor ISO is one where no processing is done - ie linear light. ISO is very low, headroom practically non-existant. So although native, it makes very little sense.

Every digital image is developed on a curve. That curve remaps the linear light data into something we can see as a reasonable image. Each and every curve would lead to a different value for ISO.

What RED does is recommend a ISO that we know works, gives great images without excessive intrusion of noise and with reasonably useful headroom. And that's probably the best a single number can do when faced with the complex exposure situations that the real world represents.

Graeme

 

[Dustin Bowlin]

The Graeme has spoken.

The Graeme has spoken.

The only "native" sensor ISO is one where no processing is done - ie linear light. ISO is very low, headroom practically non-existant. So although native, it makes very little sense.

Every digital image is developed on a curve. That curve remaps the linear light data into something we can see as a reasonable image. Each and every curve would lead to a different value for ISO.

What RED does is recommend a ISO that we know works, gives great images without excessive intrusion of noise and with reasonably useful headroom. And that's probably the best a single number can do when faced with the complex exposure situations that the real world represents.

Graeme

To make a bad metaphor, a lightbulb just went off. This is by far the most fair explanation of how these ratios work.

Thanks for that.

D

 

[Joe G.]

Not to be completely off track -- but Jim, can you tell us anything at all about the lens on the 2/3" fixed?

 

[Jannard]

Not to be completely off track -- but Jim, can you tell us anything at all about the lens on the 2/3" fixed?

It should cost twice what the camera does.

Jim

 

[Meryem Ersoz]

I set my DSLR to ISO800 1/24th and walked outside. It's a moderately sunny day. I couldn't expose direct sunlight properly because the lens only goes to f/22. Even in the shade the meter was telling me f/18 which means giving up any control over depth of field (to say nothing of going well outside the ideal f/5.6-f/8 sharpness range and moving well into the territory of diffraction limitation).

I say that to say this : If "native/ideal" ISO is 800, my Scarlet would spend 98% of its time 2+ stops off ideal. You've said in the past that this would noticeably impact dynamic range and color fidelity. Has this problem been reduced in the new sensors?

I wouldn't get caught up in the pseudo-science of things. Or the science of things, for that matter, though that is a bit more fun. Everyone who shoots RED ONE knows that this is a very light-hungry camera and moving from a 320 to 800 will be a huge boon, not only for lowlight situations but for bright sunny days as well - I can use my slower lenses with impunity in the great outdoors. My densest ND is a 1.8, and the only time that I have used it is in reflected snow in thin high-altitude air on a T2.8 lens, so I don't think we have to hand-wring over a better sensor. So relax and trust RED to be improving upon the work that they have already done.

This sounds amazing.