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 :)

Mysterium-X...

Hi Jim,

Let me put it another way, what ISO would you use in a high-contrast day exterier scene to get the greatest DR?

I was rounding up, 11.3 + 1.5.

Best,

Stephen

Jannard said:
I don't think I understand your definition nor did anyone say 13 stops. Maybe you should read Graeme's comment about native ISO?

Jim
Click to expand...
 
Hi Sidney,

Give me a camera and I will test it!

Stephen
 
Sidney said:
you guys think too much:)

test test test. shoot scenes at different stops- post it. and judge the results.
Click to expand...

What he said. This is all so much easier than everyone is making it.
 
Jannard said:
There continues to be a misunderstand of "native" ISO.

Jim
Click to expand...

Seems like you're not very fond of this native ISO idea...

But it also seems that you're a little avant-garde in that matter, people are used to knowing what ISO the sensor is and getting a rough idea of how much light, how strong NDs are going to be used, rough f-stop estimations bla bla.

We're all really missing the point on this.. Or speaking in different terms.

Or we shall see 10 days from now.

Shawn Nelson said:
Just got back from 4 days of using Red in the nether regions of Oregon, just read through the thread and see my question from page 4 never got cracked at, let me re-phrase it. Since you're saying M-X 800 is to Red's 320 (whilst firmly denying the existance of a native iso), I'm confused. I'm trying to practically understand if it will be harder for me to expose broad daylight situations. Red is such a double-edged sword for me, on one end I'm trying desperately to get it to be more low-light capable (when i'm deep underground with only torches) but then in the high desert I'm at a f11 with a ND1.2 in!! Will I need even more ND on M-X to get the same highlight protection in the same seen as Red currently is at? Also, will I be able to turn down the ISO without penalty? It's been said repeatedly that there is a penalty for going below 320 on Red, hopefully that's not the case on an even more sensitive M-X, because I really need to be able to tone down the electronic sensitivity of that sensor...or go buy extra matte box stages and a whole new range of ND
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't know how M-X would magically solve the issue of too much light hitting the sensor and superexposing highlights.
 
Shawn Nelson said:
Will I need even more ND on M-X to get the same highlight protection in the same seen as Red currently is at? Also, will I be able to turn down the ISO without penalty?
Click to expand...

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.

IBloom
 
Are there any sideeffects in using deeper NDs? Can they make them with the same optical quality as lighter NDs?

I know, compared with film, where you would simply choose a 'better' stock with lower sensivity and even get obvious image improvement with it, it sounds odd being forced to artificially reduce the sensors high sensivity by screwing on darkened glas...
At least the wish for some kind of analog amp/attentuation is understandable, but then I have not enough insight into Mysterium or CMOS sensor technology to judge wether that would turn out to be a real improvement over the current handling.


- Carsten
 
Thanks for the explanation I Bloom. I know lower iso give you lover noise but didnt not about the highlights. Thanks!
 
Pietro Impagliazzo said:
Yeah, I don't know how M-X would magically solve the issue of too much light hitting the sensor and superexposing highlights.
Click to expand...

There are no rules or standards as to how manufacturers configure the A/D stage.

Last I heard Mysterium has a 14bit A/D to play with and although the A/D stage does not affect a photosite becoming saturated, more bits in the A/D do allow better separation of tones across the board, in general this is an aid to extracting a little more detail from the shadows.

I don't shoot high key very often, so for me the money is in the middle grey and the shadows and how a manufacturer sets up their A/D affects the tonality of these areas.

Exposure latitude tests do not directly address this aspect.



Mike Brennan
 
I Bloom said:
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.

IBloom
Click to expand...

Well said...

Jim
 
Jannard said:
Well said...
Click to expand...

So right now in bright sunlight I find ND1.2 usually gets me F/2.8-4 or so. Is Mysterium-X actually more light sensitive so I truly NEED to rate the camera at 800 and therefore require another stop of ND over Mysterium?

Or is it mostly cleaner into the shadows so I could rate the camera at 320 in bright daylight and still be safe?
 
Joel Kaye said:
So right now in bright sunlight I find ND1.2 usually gets me F/2.8-4 or so. Is Mysterium-X actually more light sensitive so I truly NEED to rate the camera at 800 and therefore require another stop of ND over Mysterium?

Or is it mostly cleaner into the shadows so I could rate the camera at 320 in bright daylight and still be safe?
Click to expand...

You can rate M-X at 250 in the sunlight if you want or at 800. What Bloom has said still holds true. But the M-X has more DR than M. so the M-X image will be better at both ISOs than M.

Jim
 
Mr. Bloom,

Thanks for taking the time to share your knowledge - it is very helpful and much appreciated!

All the best,
Benjamin Rowland
 
Hans von Sonntag said:
Carl, this is an infra red attack. CMOS sensors like the RedOne are very sensitive to red and infra red. A ND filter does not filter the infra red part of the spectrum. By a given amount of infra red (IR) the IR part will increase dramtically the more ND you stack in front of the lens. Interestingly the amount of IR pollution is changing from hardly any to severe. Only in rare events it becomes so drastic like in your case. There are Hot Mirrors available which stop the IR. A combination filter of ND9 plus Hot Mirror is a meaningful, basic filter for the RedOne.

Hans
Click to expand...

Yepp, thats what I ment :)
IR not UV...
The DoP that got this problem said that D21 (or maybe F35) doesn't suffer from this problem, cus it has a "built in Hot Morror" on the sensor to block the IR.
Any ideas of doing this on the M-X?

/carl
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top