Mysterium-X...

[Antonio Forjaz]

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

Sounds great...:emote_happyhappy:

 

[Tyler Black]

We are not saying that "native" (whatever you want that to mean) is ISO 800.

Right. "native" was a poor choice of words. I should have said "optimized." But I meant the meaning to be the same. The camera is still rated at 320, yes? It's just less noisy at ISO 800. Or is it no longer correct to say it's rated at 320? After all, isn't a "rating" just a way of saying that up to a certain ISO, you will get "acceptable" noise? Wouldn't it follow, then, that the camera is now rated at ISO 800, and each time a sensor improvement or debayering improvement is made, the rating will continue to rise?

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

Maybe I object to this because I still want to know from the manufacturer that at a certain ISO level, I will stop achieving an industry-accepted amount of noise. By saying that every ISO is the "rated ISO," you're telling me that the camera has no noise limit. Since I don't have charts and scales and scopes to measure the amount of noise I'm getting in any given image, it can become very subjective. I think I personally need someone out there that does have all of that fancy testing equipment telling me when I'm reaching the threshold.

My Two Cents

 

[Meryem Ersoz]

Since I don't have charts and scales and scopes to measure the amount of noise I'm getting in any given image, it can become very subjective. I think I personally need someone out there that does have all of that fancy testing equipment telling me when I'm reaching the threshold.

You're making it sound harder than it is. Have you shot a RED ONE? The histograms and meters and zebras do a pretty good job of this. If your histogram looks weak, your footage will be noisy. Add light. If your histogram looks thick, you're in good shape. Use zebras and check your RAW space when you're uncertain. Use false color to look for noisy areas. Illuminate them.

Just spend a little time with the camera and learn its behaviors. It is the same with any camera you might rent or buy.

 

[Danno Anderson]

Tyler Black: <<<<but technically that's plagiarism. Either cite a source you directly quote >>>

FYI, in the section of the article the
<< [citation needed]
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) >>>>>

indicates it is a composite of many authors, none of which are claiming copyright, typically done by wikipedia. Have a nice day.

 

[Tyler Black]

Meryem,

I have been an owner/operator of the RED for over a year and generally rely heavily on the histograms and other in-camera sensors. But I do a lot of lighting with a meter as well, prior to the camera being up. And I know there are an awful lot of DP's that come from a film background that are more comfortable using a meter. I'm sure that will change over time as more and more cinematographers cut their teeth on digital cameras.

That being said, the quote you took from my statement was not about exposure levels and how to measure them, but noise levels. I'm sure when a company like RED or Sony, etc. sits down and determines where the "sweet spot" is in declaring the optimal ISO of their camera, they are taking into account a boatload of test data. My point is, I don't have the engineering background or tools to do those measurements. I need them to tell me what is the best practice. From there, I can make my own compensations. As the saying goes - you have to know the rules before you can break them.

Danno,
I don't want to get into a pissing match with you about publishing ethics. I'm just saying if you're not using your own words, tell us where you found the information. Maybe you're taking things out of context from what the original author intended... we don't know. Not to mention the fact that it makes you sound smarter than you are. Plus, what would happen if we started asking you a bunch of follow-up questions that you don't know the answers to? You'd look like a total idiot. You're not a total idiot are you?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Repeating information, as opposed to opinion or an original creative thought, does not generally fall under the category of plagiarism -- if I tell someone here the phone number of Kodak, or the stock number of Vision-3 500T, or the date of the Moon landing, or the history of Techniscope, whether I'm culling this information from research or from my memory based on old research (I wasn't born knowing all this stuff after all...), it's not plagiarism if I don't cite sources in an internet post (i.e. not for personal profit), though a citation may prove to be more useful to the person asking the question. As long as I'm not creating the illusion that the information was the result of my own scientific tests or something.

Now obviously information being used to prove an argument is more effective if it comes from a mutually respected third party, so there is an incentive to cite sources in that case.

Now in publishing for profit, or for academic reasons, obviously you have to cite outside sources.

 

[Danno Anderson]

David, if he actually wanted to know the source, he should have done a 3 minute google key word search, and if it's still on somebody server, he would have found it.

I keep a library of copy and pasted items on my hard drive that I use for reference, and I don't keep URL addresses. That's my source. I'm not the author. I was just trying to be helpful. I'm not going to respond anymore to such a mundane matter. Have a nice day.

 

[Martin Weiss]

Well, it is suffice with a 2.4 second google search. Source is indeed mr. Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed

Now, back to the subject matter....

 

[Tyler Black]

Main Entry: pla·gia·rize
Pronunciation: \ˈplā-jə-ˌrīz also -jē-ə-\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): pla·gia·rized; pla·gia·riz·ing
Etymology: plagiary
Date: 1716
transitive verb
: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source

Webster's Dictionary

OK. I probably could have worded my request that Danno cite his source of information a little more friendly instead of making it sound like a demand. Having only made a handful of prior posts on this message board, I suspected that this wasn't an original publication by Danno so I Googled(TM) his quote and found it was word-for-word taken from Wikipedia(TM). I'm sure he's a great guy and wasn't intentionally trying to pass it off as his own research. But how is that different from me finding a bit of footage from Evin laying around and putting it in my demo reel? -- He's clear out in LA and I'm in the midwest. I'm not gonna sell his footage... I'm only gonna use it to get a little work that he'd never see anyway.

NOTE: The trademark notations above are a joke. I'm not militant about it. :ack2:

 

[David Mullen ASC]

But how is that different from me finding a bit of footage from Evin laying around and putting it in my demo reel?

Jeez Tyler, it's extremely different, how can you not see the difference? If you put Evin's footage on your reel, you are explicitly taking credit for someone else's work and hoping to get work based on that. If you simply quote Wikipedia when answering someone's internet question and don't cite the source, that's just being sloppy, it's not taking credit for someone else's work for the sake of making money.

I've answered thousands of questions over the decade on the internet and I don't always cite sources unless asked.

Now if I copy and paste someone else's text, I do put it in quotes, italics, or a quote box, just to be clear it's not my own writing, but honestly, for a dry technical answer, it's not really that critical to do that -- for all you know, the Wikipedia quote was in itself cut and pasted from another source.

 

[Ace]

Tyler, you're borderline trolling here... be careful.

 

[Meryem Ersoz]

I need them to tell me what is the best practice.

They've told you the best practice for Mysterium, that the "sweet spot" is 320-500. It has been endlessly debated here, see MacGregor's (in)famous and interesting post on the topic. It's worth a look, if you haven't seen it. JJ's "Exposure 101" has some good insights about setting zebras at levels that help with noise control as well.

I just think you're acting like you haven't been given the proper information to control noise levels, and when you look around at all of the amazing footage shot on RED (I've shot a bit myself, if I do say so...), using the on-camera tools to judge noise levels, then I'm wondering what you're missing, after a year with the camera. Are we all missing proper information? Where is all this clean footage coming from? Is it fairy dust? Elves? Or just proper exposure, camera testing, and using the on-board tools?

I'm not trying to be a jerk - just...I feel like this information has been posted, discussed, massaged...and you don't need to be an engineer to properly gauge the behaviors of the camera and get clean footage.

Anyway, I'm not a film person, just another total idiot with an opinion and a set of practices that seem to be working, when properly implemented, so I'll take my leave...

 

[Eric Haase]

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

Understood. But, is the native or "basic" sensitivity of the MX greater than the M - that is, is the MX more sensitive to light? If so, by how much?

Thanks.

 

[Felix C]

It was pretty obvious from what Danno posted that it came from Wikipedia. I did not get the impression that he was trying to pass off the Wikipedia reference as his own.

 

[Tyler Black]

Meryem,

I just think you're acting like you haven't been given the proper information to control noise levels

I think you've lost the thread of my initial point. Back on page 27, Gavin wrote to the RED team

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

and there was some general agreement. This suggestion was made, to paraphrase, because the lines of a rated ISO are becoming blurred with better and better sensitivity of sensors. My point was simply that I still think it's useful for the camera manufacturer to publish an ISO that they feel the camera will perform at its best. I was pointing out that by saying "rated ISO" instead of "ISO," that it may be mis-interpreted by some users to mean that the camera can be used at any ISO without consequences. I can see future potential confusion and I'm merely offering my opinion for RED to consider before making a decision on such a change.

I don't have a problem with exposing my camera. I don't personally have noise issues.

 

[Meryem Ersoz]

actually, Tyler, I agree with your point. And I think they did that, using 320 as the sensor rating. I think it is the users' disputation of the printed ISO that is causing RED to change its thinking.

The part that I disagree with, is the way that you're characterizing the shift in thinking, though, as if this is a RED-driven initiative -- to create fuzzier thinking around ISO from "stated" to "rated." When, in fact, this is a response to user discussion and debate. I don't think that RED is trying to side-step the issue - I think this is what *users* have suggested as a more accurate representation...and the RED guys, probably a little weary from the endless round de round discussion of the issue, see this as a way to resolve it, not as a way to avoid commitment.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I think some of you are overcomplicating this issue.

With film, there is a recommended Exposure Index (E.I.) -- ASA and ISO are actually older designations -- but that doesn't stop you from using your own rating to place information higher or lower on the characteristic curve, nor alter that curve with pull or push processing.

All RED really has to do is tell everyone what they consider an optimal rating for the widest possible shooting conditions -- they'd probably say 320 ASA -- and then let people choose other ratings as they see fit, according to their needs, tastes, and exposure tendencies.

And I really don't need an extra word like "RATED" on a tiny LCD display next to "ASA". Keep the amount of text down to the minimum. If RED felt it would be helpful, perhaps a recommended range of ASA values when selected could be highlighted in a different manner, a different color font or an underline or something.

But picking the ASA to work at has got to be one of the most basic things to learn about the camera.

 

[Jerrod Cordell]

I think some of you are overcomplicating this issue.

With film, there is a recommended Exposure Index (E.I.) -- ASA and ISO are actually older designations -- but that doesn't stop you from using your own rating to place information higher or lower on the characteristic curve, nor alter that curve with pull or push processing.

All RED really has to do is tell everyone what they consider an optimal rating for the widest possible shooting conditions -- they'd probably say 320 ASA -- and then let people choose other ratings as they see fit, according to their needs, tastes, and exposure tendencies.

And I really don't need an extra word like "RATED" on a tiny LCD display next to "ASA". Keep the amount of text down to the minimum. If RED felt it would be helpful, perhaps a recommended range of ASA values when selected could be highlighted in a different manner, a different color font or an underline or something.

But picking the ASA to work at has got to be one of the most basic things to learn about the camera.

I agree, I think most of the people here are smart enough to where you don't need an extra word in front of ISO.

Instead of waiting for Jim to tell you what to rate your camera, play around with it first. Experiment and see where you personally like the amount of noise at and rate your camera at that ISO.

 

[Rick Burnett]

I'd certainly agree as well, that makes the most sense and conveys what is really going on. "At X ASA you have the maximum amount of DR available to you. Moving outside that range will limit your DR as you move around on the response curve."

My problem with rating a camera with film speed designations is that there is a lot of information NOT being conveyed that might be important to you so that making a decision on just the ASA rating is not always enough if you are just picking up a particular digital camera for the first time. It tells you how sensitive you are to light coming in, it has nothing to do with the noise floor of the camera. And the reason I don't think this has been solved is because acceptable noise is an opinion, not a fact.

I also don't see how the camera is actually more sensitive in terms of technology unless they actually were trying to make it more sensitive. The design of the sensor could be just as sensitive and they just reduced the noise which opens up the DR of the sensor, but the operation could be identical. You've have increased the dynamic range slightly, but you still are just as sensitive outside the toe of the curve as you were before because you are outside the noise. Overall, the sensitivity of the sensor is the same OUTSIDE the toe area.

This has and will be my problem with all digital cameras. There is no good designations when comparing specs to understand the sensitivity of the sensor at any speed rating with regards to noise (and especially with all the NR technology too).

So I say, understanding the native speed of the sensor is a really good thing to know. If you want the most out of the camera, it is best to work in that range as much as possible. But nothing is going to tell you how the camera responds until you actually play with it since so many systems are so different.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, there are noise ratings for cameras. But I don't see how a single value can really describe the sensitivity vs. noise vs. DR of the camera anyway. But then, the ASA rating of a film stock doesn't necessarily tell you how it LOOKS -- the color saturation, the graininess (though you can guess that faster stocks are grainier), the contrast (DR), the underexposure latitude, etc.

Just as several digital cameras all saying that they are "320 ASA" will not necessarily produce similar images with similar noise and DR, several color negative stocks labeled "500 ASA" are not necessarily going to produce the same results either.