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 :)

Opinion POLL: EPIC native ISO = 800 or ISO = 320?

Opinion POLL: EPIC native ISO = 800 or ISO = 320?

  • Total voters
    159
Timothy Eaton said:
The concept of a thin negative doesn't really apply to digital imaging - it's apples and oranges. In any event, in terms of exposure, with digital cameras, it's essentially the opposite of color negative. The reason you want a fat negative with film (lowering ISO) is to hold as much detail in the shadows. With digital cameras like Epic, we're more worried about the highlights, which is why the inclination (and RED's advice) is to rate at 800.


Tim Eaton
Click to expand...


I disagree. The concept is the same. Stock and sensors just behave slightly differently to light: film stock is logarithmic in response to light, a digital sensor is linear. This difference is mostly observed at the high and low ends of the scale (shadows and highlights) where it is most pronounced.

It used to be true that one would "overexpose" film for a fat neg and "underexpose" digital to preserve highlight detail but this is not necessarily the case anymore. The ALEXA and Sony F65 have proven that digital is now up to the task of retaining important highlight detail in a "naturalistic way". The inclination to rate the EPIC at 800 ISO is the same as underexposing a 5D: they both clip highlight detail terribly.
 
Adrian Jebef said:
TE:

This is true. But as you've summarized each scene is different. And we don't necessarily have the ability to pre-test for every scene before we shoot it. Hence, understanding the EPIC and digital imaging as a whole is our best "testing process".
Click to expand...

No, understanding the Epic is a given, but not our best "testing process." Shooting tests is the best testing process. Shooting a proper test means designing it in such a way that it tells you very concrete things about the sensor. If you design and shoot the test properly, it will tell you how the sensor, or film stock, responds to light in ways that are applicable to most scenes. A test might include shooting in different color temperatures, but those tests are broadly applicable to shooting scenes where those color temperatures are present.

Tim
 
It does matter. It's good for everyone if the Epic is popular, agreed? Prices drop, more modules/accessories are made, more software support, more DRAGON sensor upgrades, popularity of rentals etc...

So someone rents an Epic, shoots 800 "native" ISO with 2k 300 fps settings and has has a bunch of noise in the blacks. The shoot is ruined, they spend their money, now they are going with Alexia.

So someone else rents an Epic, shoots 320 "native" ISO. They shoot a beautiful day at the beach and find in CC there highlights are trash, the sky is clipped, the sun looks terrible... now they are going with Alexia.

We need to make this camera accessible to those new to it.

It matters.

Bob Gundu said:
Does it really matter what the native ISO is? What matters is, how to achieve optimal results. I believe this comes with experimenting and experience. It eventually becomes instinctual as to how to expose using the tools within the camera, and what you get back at your desk when color correcting.
Click to expand...
 
Adrian Jebef said:
The inclination to rate the EPIC at 800 ISO is the same as underexposing a 5D: they both clip highlight detail terribly.
Click to expand...

How much have you shot with the Epic yourself, Adrian, as opposed to assisting or working as a DIT with other cinematographers' material? Have you ever conducted your own tests with Epic, or are you just repeated stuff you've heard cinematographers say, or material you've handled as a DIT that may have been improperly exposed in the first place. You've now suggested that Epic clips highlights like a 5D. It's very difficult to carry on a conversation with you because you are given to hyperbole about subjects that you may or may not know anything about.

Since you first showed up on Reduser, you've come on like an expert about Epic, but most of
 
Exactly. Like this guy. Shoots 2k 300fps on a sunny day, 800 ISO. The next day, same thing but get's a bunch of noise in the shot.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?85957-Slowmo-footage-very-noisy-all-of-a-sudden

People have idea how to help him reduced the noise, but no definitive answer as to why it happened. Same thing happened to me. I am guess it's underexposed in the blacks because he used 800 ISO.

Adrian Jebef said:
TE:

This is true. But as you've summarized each scene is different. And we don't necessarily have the ability to pre-test for every scene before we shoot it. Hence, understanding the EPIC and digital imaging as a whole is our best "testing process".
Click to expand...
 
(Finished version) How much have you shot with the Epic yourself, Adrian, as opposed to assisting or working as a DIT with other cinematographers' material? Have you ever conducted your own tests with Epic, or are you just repeating stuff you've heard cinematographers say, or material you've handled as a DIT that may have been improperly exposed in the first place. You've now suggested that Epic clips highlights like a 5D. It's very difficult to carry on a conversation with you because you are given to hyperbole about subjects that you may or may not know anything about.

Since you first showed up on Reduser, you've come on like an expert about Epic, but most of the time you've spent trashing the camera with the occasional disclaimer "I like Epic." I don't get it. I gave up on the last conversation with you for this reason. It's thread killing stuff.
 
Terry VerHaar said:
Also, I think is is wrong to talk about changing the ISO as introducing "gain." If I recall the discussion by Graeme and company, RED introduces NO analog gain into the system, ever. Any "gain" in post processing is introduced after the A/D conversion and therefore is not electrical gain in the traditional sense. If someone can point me to something that disputes that, please do. But, that is my understanding.
Click to expand...
The camera doesn't RECORD the "gain" introduced by changing the ISO, so you're technically correct. However increasing the ISO boosts the image on the LCD/EVF/SDI imaging chain as well as the histogram when viewing anything other than RAW check. Which most shooters are at least partially basing their exposures on. So I think it's fair to say that while the "gain" is not being recorded to the SSDs, the underexposed image based on the "gained" viewing LUT (for lack of a better term) is being baked in. Those images will need to processed at the "gained" ISO settings in order to look the same as they appeared on set.

So unless you are upping the ISO and also adding more light on set, I think the argument is largely one of semantics.
 
If you are judging your exposure by looking at your monitor, I am afraid I can't help you. :-(
 
I've seen some top name talent shoot 800 ISO Epic footage... that was super noisy. The problem with this conversation is that when they rate it at 800ISO people usually also protect their highlights still. So while they're monitoring at 800 they end up exposing for like 1600. And then it's tungsten and that's the equivalent of shooting at like 3200. And then they shoot on a bluescreen instead of a greenscreen and it's down to like 6400. People get so paranoid about protecting highlights on Epic that they end up with a noisy mess. Start at 320 and if you need it... reduce your exposure where necessary. 800 is in my opinion like walking around with a helmet on--it might help you every now and then but you look stupid and it ruins your hair.
 
The trouble with testing is you need an Epic, a opportunity which isn't available to many. I think we can do better for those renting for the first time, creating their own projects from scratch or looking to make their next camera purchase and I think we got it or at least a place to start.

There is no ISO that fits all situations.

For highlight protection use 800 ISO
For noise reduction use 320 ISO


Timothy Eaton said:
No, understanding the Epic is a given, but not our best "testing process." Shooting tests is the best testing process. Shooting a proper test means designing it in such a way that it tells you very concrete things about the sensor. If you design and shoot the test properly, it will tell you how the sensor, or film stock, responds to light in ways that are applicable to most scenes. A test might include shooting in different color temperatures, but those tests are broadly applicable to shooting scenes where those color temperatures are present.

Tim
Click to expand...
 
Timothy Eaton said:
How much have you shot with the Epic yourself, Adrian, as opposed to assisting or working as a DIT with other cinematographers' material? Have you ever conducted your own tests with Epic, or are you just repeated stuff you've heard cinematographers say, or material you've handled as a DIT that may have been improperly exposed in the first place. You've now suggested that Epic clips highlights like a 5D. It's very difficult to carry on a conversation with you because you are given to hyperbole about subjects that you may or may not know anything about.

Since you first showed up on Reduser, you've come on like an expert about Epic, but most of
Click to expand...


As my signature implies, I work as a DIT. I don't "shoot" but I probably go thru more EPIC and ALEXA and F65 and 5D and Phantom and etc. footage than most DP's since I usually work day in and day out.

Haters gonna hate, but I have no beef with the EPIC. The issue here is the issues. And the issue right now is base sensor sensitivity. Ha! :grouphug:

To be a "better shooter" one needs to first: better understand the underlaying tech AND gain experience in the field (shooting or testing). The real problem I find with shooting RED is the continually misunderstood technological process which invariably leads to real-world problems (read noisy footage when shooting at 300fps 2K). There really isn't THIS much discussion about other camera systems' "native sensor sensitivity". Why?

And, sorry, I've been around for a while but I usually don't have the time available to post. Though it seems like I'm on a roll...

And, and, I don't wanna kill the thread I just wanna get down to the bottom of it. The Thread you mention was the one about "Why People Don't Get the RED"

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?86185-People-not-getting-the-RED

I theorized that the reason could be because many individuals (myself included) find the EPIC counter-intuitive. Many posters on that thread disagreed with my conclusion but did not post any SPECIFIC things about the camera system that they found intuitive...
 
That's how Mark Toia does it. But I think he's good on help.

Terry VerHaar said:
If you are judging your exposure by looking at your monitor, I am afraid I can't help you. :-(
Click to expand...
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
800 is in my opinion like walking around with a helmet on--it might help you every now and then but you look stupid and it ruins your hair.
Click to expand...

hahahahaha
 
Adrian Jebef said:
No matter how it all actually works in the chain... ISO or ASA is (for all intents and purposes) Video Gain. It really doesn't matter if it happens during capture, processing, or Post it's still gaining up or down your image.
Click to expand...

It very much does matter. Video gain would imply electronic gain - i.e. before the A/D conversion which could introduce noise. Pushing the signal after digital conversion is a very different matter.
 
Terry VerHaar said:
It very much does matter. Video gain would imply electronic gain - i.e. before the A/D conversion which could introduce noise. Pushing the signal after digital conversion is a very different matter.
Click to expand...


Either way, and without getting too overly technical, you're still GAINING UP your image... and introducing noise.

Just saying.
 
Adrian Jebef said:
I theorized that the reason could be because many individuals (myself included) find the EPIC counter-intuitive. Many posters on that thread disagreed with my conclusion but did not post any SPECIFIC things about the camera system that they found intuitive...
Click to expand...

So much to respond to Adrian, but too little time. I'll just take this one quote. I gave up on that thread because you tend to exaggerate and in this case, you're asking the wrong question. Using a camera is not an inherently intuitive process in the same way that riding a bike is not. It's a learned process. Cameras are tools. Is an iPhone more intuitive than an Epic because I simply hold it up and press a button? No, it's just simpler, but it is also capable of far less than the Epic. The Epic is a camera capable of making remarkable images of great beauty, but it requires the cinematographer who is willing to learn to use it. On the "Why People Don't Get the RED" thread, you repeatedly claimed that the reason people misunderstand the camera (assuming they do) is the fault of RED for making a camera that is not intuitive. That's a pretty bold statement for someone who does not use the camera himself. With all due respect, that takes a lot of chutzpah.

When film was the medium of choice for anyone serious about making movies, there were many terrible looking films and many shooters who had no idea what they were doing. I don't think it ever occurred to anyone to blame the cameras or the film stocks as not being intuitive. Using film cameras and film is a learned process. Using digital cameras is a learned process. Some people (many people) simply don't want to spend the time and effort it takes to learn. Maybe they should stick to point and shoot.

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