Mysterium-X...

[Mark Pugh]

Taking it out would lead to more confusion.
ISO is still valid for how it's used in this case which is both for a visual representation of how you're exposing the sensor and a tie in to the metering.

A lot of what's in the Video menu relates to how you're exposing the sensor as well. Colorspace selection, gain controls, brightness, contrast, curves... the ISO control in the Sensor Menu just appears to be a basic level of control to the adjustments available in the Video menu.

 

[Deanan]

How can it be differentiated then? Gain doesn't affect dynamic range aside from a probable higher noise floor at higher gain settings right? Gain does belong in a sensor menu. I wouldn't be confused if ISO were elsewhere, knowing that you can develop at a higher ISO is related to how you shoot on set, but it still not a "sensor setting" but more of a "negative property" or something.

Analog gain does affect dynamic range but digital gain does not.

 

[Ariana]

A lot of what's in the Video menu relates to how you're exposing the sensor as well. Colorspace selection, gain controls, brightness, contrast, curves... the ISO control in the Sensor Menu just appears to be a basic level of control to the adjustments available in the Video menu.

If someone doesn't know that the only thing that can change the raw recording is shutter speed, then they've probably missed the #1 thing they need to know about exposing for red one. I don't think changing the location of the menu would help that.

 

[Carsten Fenstermacher]

when you makes sensor menu only exposure related, then please move timelapse and varispeed to a separate "Framerate" menu under project.

 

[Lauri Kettunen]

Taking it out would lead to more confusion.
ISO is still valid for how it's used in this case which is both for a visual representation of how you're exposing the sensor and a tie in to the metering.

What about if it was emphasized that ISO is valid for visualization but not for metering the exposure. Of course, the ISO setting still tells implicitly about the amount of light, but it's rather stupid to set a high ISO and then to use smaller apertures or adopt faster shutter speeds unless one deliberately wants to increase the depth of field or stop the motion. But if so, one is typically well aware of the trade-off between noise and smaller apertures/shorter exposure time.

One friend of mine told me once that when he studied science in a college, during the first years they always dealt with linear problems and he was anxiously waiting for the time when they will start to deal with nonlinear problems. Then he added, that now 40 years later he is still stucken with linear problems. In the field of photography it seems to go the other way around; Many is used to live with nonlinear tone curves and ISO settings and consequently have difficulties to capture why linearly exposured data makes life much easier.

 

[Mark Andersen]

I'll take the high ISO and deal with the ND's. etc. I just got done shooting night ext. in NY with the RPP's and it worked out pretty good, but 800 ISO would have been perfect

 

[Errol Afed]

I've been shooting with a Red One for 1 year or so and before that with film, Varicam, HVX200 and a F950 here in the Philippines. Even during the first few months working with the Red camera was quite an experience and we've been shooting our TVCs using Red cameras more than film now. I'm excited to see what change Mysterium-X will bring about in the next couple of months.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

Analog gain does affect dynamic range but digital gain does not.

Thanks Deanan.

Is there any information that could be shared regarding the ETA and initial volume of the sensor upgrade to Mysterium-X for Red Ones? Or if we can expect that information on the Nov 30th update.

I could really use the information.

 

[Rick Burnett]

Can someone suggest some good reading material that talks about digital implementation of ISO? I understand the concepts generally, but I'd really like to see how these approximations are carried out on a technical level. Even more so, I'd love to understand the different ways that people use information from a CMOS sensor to operate at different ISO settings.

And as deep as it gets would be the most preferred.

I am not new to digital photography, but the usage of ISO for digital has always perplexed me. Not because I don't understand the need, as people know how to relate to ISO and what to expect, but digital doesn't work that way, so the approximations of course are not always a 1:1 in terms of what is going on.

Also, just curious, if the new sensors have a larger dynamic range, wouldn't this mean that you could take that extra range and use it to compress the top and bottom end a bit and get more film like exposure equivalence?

Rick

 

[Todd M.]

A lot of what's in the Video menu relates to how you're exposing the sensor as well. Colorspace selection, gain controls, brightness, contrast, curves... the ISO control in the Sensor Menu just appears to be a basic level of control to the adjustments available in the Video menu.

Film stock is the recording medium.

Mysterium is the recording medium.

Why is it not appropriate to place ISO in the sensor menu?

There is no analogue "setting" in the film world to contrast, gamma, color space, etc. These belong in a menu for their specific medium: video.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

ISO is in the video menu because on the RED it's a video/monitoring function. It has no effect on sensor operation or the data the sensor captures. It is for monitoring/operating purposes. How 'bout that?

 

[Peter Majtan]

Jeff, ISO does have a indirect effect on the RAW footage - it changes the way You expose Your shot - and that changes the RAW data. Either way, I don't really care where it is, I am already used to current setup...

:devil: peter

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Jeff, ISO does have a indirect effect on the RAW footage - it changes the way You expose Your shot

Of course it effects how you perceive what you shoot, therefore your exposure. So indirect as you say. It's so weird; I've become so used to RED that I think of the traditional ways of thinking of ISO as backwards. Haha

I still love that dumbfounded, deer in the headlights look I get when I'm helping someone shoot outdoors in bright sunlight and I tell them to not turn the ISO down, but to raise it up to 500.

Just saying that, at least to me, it actually makes more sense for the ISO setting to be in the video menu where it's at than in the sensor menu. Because just because you view something at ISO 500 when you shoot doesn't mean that it's baked in, we can manipulate the footage in post as ISO 250, 320, 1200, whatever.. ISO is just metadata. Seems to me that sensor menu items should only be things that directly affect the sensor or the way it records the light that actually hits it.

I know that you know all this, Peter. But we see these same questions asked almost daily around here.

And yeah, I don't really care where it's at either, just as long as I can find it when I need to change it, or that I can program it to a button I like.

 

[Rick Burnett]

Starting to make more sense, so basically, the ISO setting is really just changing what you are monitoring, but what is getting recorded is the raw output of the sensor.

So when you talk about the 'basic' ISO setting of the sensor, if you were to monitor at this ISO setting, are you just seeing the video straight through as close as possible with as direct a 1:1 mapping as possible? (outside of any mapping that might be required for different sensitivities to different spectrum due to limitations in the actual detector)?

It seems to me some other nomenclature would do the world a favor since it seems SO many people are getting confused as to what ISO really means in the digital world, especially with regard to RED cameras. I have learned SO MUCH from this thread about what's really going on and it makes so much sense now about a lot of the recommendations on how to setup what you are capturing.

The sensitivity of the sensor is ALWAYS the same on the RED, it's just how that data is manipulated after the fact. Do I understand this properly?

 

[Antony M]

Just saying that, at least to me, it actually makes more sense for the ISO setting to be in the video menu where it's at than in the sensor menu. Because just because you view something at ISO 500 when you shoot doesn't mean that it's baked in, we can manipulate the footage in post as ISO 250, 320, 1200, whatever.. ISO is just metadata. Seems to me that sensor menu items should only be things that directly affect the sensor or the way it records the light that actually hits it.
QUOTE]

I agree with you completely.

Except that currently it ISN'T in the Video menu.
We are ASKING for it to be put there :smile5:

 

[Stuart English]

ISO rating

ISO rating

Seems to me that sensor menu items should only be things that directly affect the sensor or the way it records the light that actually hits it.

Yes, and that's why we placed the ISO parameter in the SENSOR menu.

When you adjust the ISO rating of the camera, you start to make changes to the environment the sensor exists in.

For example adjusting the aperture or adding ND's... hence it does affect what is recorded, even though you can change it later.

 

[Frederick Giles]

I remember getting a little flustered when I used the Red for my last shoot and tried to find the ISO's settings in the sensor menu. I come from a film background and I would have to say I would prefer to have some of these rather important settings as a separate dial directly on the camera and not a menu option. Perhaps Epic and Scarlet will have this feature.

 

[Alex Mack]

I remember getting a little flustered when I used the Red for my last shoot and tried to find the ISO's settings in the sensor menu. I come from a film background and I would have to say I would prefer to have some of these rather important settings as a separate dial directly on the camera and not a menu option. Perhaps Epic and Scarlet will have this feature.

The reason Iso is where it is is because the Red One is one of the first cameras to really minimize the importance of 'iso.' In other words, the true 'iso' of the sensor is around 320. The 'iso' setting in camera is like a 'fake' curve that is placed on the sensor data after the fact. So on red (unlike non raw digital and film), ISO is now a post decision, and should be used as a guide for achieving the best dynamic range and exposure on site.

Therefore, switching from film to raw digital really is a big switch. Iso, or film speed, is not important anymore (and should ideally be kept at 320 to guide lighting set ups and proper exposure).

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

agree with you completely.

Except that currently it ISN'T in the Video menu.
We are ASKING for it to be put there :smile5:

Is it? My brain must be screwed up again... I guess that's what happens when I keep certain controls mapped to certain buttons and don't often dig through the menus. Heh. :biggrin:

 

[Frederick Giles]

I understand that the sensor is essentially ISO 320, but I had reasons to shoot at ISO 400 and 500. As far as I can tell all digital cameras have a base ISO that gives you the least amount of noise. But there are times you want to push films and sensors to get a proper exposure. With ground glass optics it doesn't matter what the camera ISO is and can see everything through the lens. But, once your faced with LCD's, EVF's and monitors you had better have good image to focus and look at and may have to adjust the ISO a little bit.

Maybe I'm getting off topic.