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 :)

Noisy blacks

If you reset everything in RedcineX Pro to Default (Redcolor2, Redgamma2, ASA 800) this is what your histogram looks like:
Screen-shot-2012-02-19-at-7.32.50-PM.png


Everything is basically bunched up on the low end with the exception of the clipped microphone. Theres not really any separation between your highs and your lows.
 
Randall Brown said:
Yea. That's the way I like to do it. I rate and light for 320. Results are clean and low noise.
Click to expand...

I would recommend against this STRONGLY. Rate and light to 800 ASA. Just don't rate and light to 2500 ASA, as was the case here.

Rating the camera at 320 ASA will cause you to overexpose by 1 1/3 stops, costing you dynamic range in your highlights.
 
Last edited:
Is it fair to say that if you light and expose properly at 800 ISO on the MX sensor, you can achieve virtually noiseless results?
 
Matthew Scott said:
Is it fair to say that if you light and expose properly at 800 ISO on the MX sensor, you can achieve virtually noiseless results?
Click to expand...

Yes. Even at 1600 (without any other pushing). also, the texture of the noise is not nearly as bad as noise on many other cameras, so when it appears, it's not the end of the world.
 
Matthew Scott said:
Is it fair to say that if you light and expose properly at 800 ISO on the MX sensor, you can achieve virtually noiseless results?
Click to expand...

Yes, just make sure to throw as much light at it as possible. You can always bring levels down, but you can't bring up something that was underexposed to begin with without introducing noise.
 
Brook Willard said:
I would recommend against this STRONGLY. Rate and light to 800 ASA. Just don't rate and light to 2500 ASA, as was the case here.

Rating the camera at 320 ASA will cause you to overexpose by 1 1/3 stops, costing you dynamic range in your highlights.
Click to expand...

Brook:

When viewing the monitor in RAW mode, is it showing 800 ASA since that's the native of the sensor?
 
Chris McKechnie said:
Brook:

When viewing the monitor in RAW mode, is it showing 800 ASA since that's the native of the sensor?
Click to expand...

"RAW mode" is a holdover from the M sensor on the RED One and isn't really properly representative of anything on the Epic. It's a bit of a legacy feature.

False color exposure and general knowledge of exposing by the histogram is your best bet.
 
Chris McKechnie said:
What are your monitor LUT and curve settings? Want to try and get the best representation of what the sensor is capturing.
Click to expand...
Just my $.02
Keep them at default (RC2,RG2). Watch the histogram to see what your actually capturing on the sensor and false color to check DR. Dont rely on what the image looks like on the monitor, trust the histogram for exposure. Get your lows on the left of the histogram and highs on the right without crushing or clipping and your good to go.

Viewing at default will also let you see more into the blacks, just remember you'll be bringing them down to proper blacks in post.
 
I love threads like this on RU. Thanks very much to the established and seasoned professionals who take the time to post and give back.
I've been doing as recommended and I'm THRILLED with the images I'm getting. There seems to be two camps when it comes to the MX sensor - 800 and the 320.

Currently I'm exposing to 320 in bright exterior and well lit scenes. 800, otherwise. (usually exposing to the right) And as long as I pay attention to my histogram the results
seem, imho, to be fantastic from both. I have read on here several times, that 320, properly exposed will yield cleaner images than 800, but you have to be more careful because your forfeiting the extra highlight protection. However when people say "cleaner" I've assumed we are talking noise in the shadows? But is that all? 320 outdoors is also obviously easier to get shallow DOF - less ND etc. But I would love any additional insight as to other advantages of exposing to 320 if there are any and conversely advantages to 800 aside from highlight protection?

When shooting night/dark scenes, for every extra stop I push the ISO, I'm also concurrently introducing a stop more noise in the shadows yes? So if you don't have a truck of lights,
in general, how far are some of you guys willing to push your ISO's, knowing you'll then also crush your blacks a bit? Also what's the trade off in terms of trying to expose to the right you'd look for
in such an instance? Hope that makes sense.

I do appreciate much of this may just be horses for courses, but I love learning and knowing why I should be making certain choices, not just knowing I should be making them - or not be making them for that matter. So thanks for your time guys, makes a big difference.

Best

Lliam
 
If necessary I dont mind going up to ISO 6400 to get the shot. The vast majority of the time I'm shooting for ISO 800. Depends a lot though on a bazillion factors. Last shooting day for targeted depth of field I mixed ISO 320, 500, and 800 for all of the setups.
 
Lliam Worthington said:
I love threads like this on RU. Thanks very much to the established and seasoned professionals who take the time to post and give back.
I've been doing as recommended and I'm THRILLED with the images I'm getting. There seems to be two camps when it comes to the MX sensor - 800 and the 320.

Currently I'm exposing to 320 in bright exterior and well lit scenes. 800, otherwise. (usually exposing to the right) And as long as I pay attention to my histogram the results
seem, imho, to be fantastic from both. I have read on here several times, that 320, properly exposed will yield cleaner images than 800, but you have to be more careful because your forfeiting the extra highlight protection. However when people say "cleaner" I've assumed we are talking noise in the shadows? But is that all? 320 outdoors is also obviously easier to get shallow DOF - less ND etc. But I would love any additional insight as to other advantages of exposing to 320 if there are any and conversely advantages to 800 aside from highlight protection?

When shooting night/dark scenes, for every extra stop I push the ISO, I'm also concurrently introducing a stop more noise in the shadows yes? So if you don't have a truck of lights,
in general, how far are some of you guys willing to push your ISO's, knowing you'll then also crush your blacks a bit? Also what's the trade off in terms of trying to expose to the right you'd look for
in such an instance? Hope that makes sense.

I do appreciate much of this may just be horses for courses, but I love learning and knowing why I should be making certain choices, not just knowing I should be making them - or not be making them for that matter. So thanks for your time guys, makes a big difference.

Best

Lliam
Click to expand...

Personally I rate at 800 regardless of the situation. Its a good tradeoff to get the most out of the sensor. I've then boosted ASA up to 2000 with decent results especially with a bit of noise reduction. It also depends on your final delivery how much your willing to push. For web delivery, you can push quite a bit. TV and film needs to be more delicate especially if it ends up on the big screen. Noise gets much more visible the larger the deliverable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top