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
...
jimhare said:
Brook (Willard) is here is Sydney working on Gatsby, Toia shoots incredible stuff that makes me drool. One swears by 800 and the other by 320 so in my book both are completely viable depending on the situation.
Click to expand...
 
Timothy Eaton said:
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
Click to expand...


Hmmm. I did post that I do "shoot" with the EPIC. Quite a lot actually. These days I primarily work on national television commercials within the Los Angeles market. At this level: just because you are not labeled "DP" on the callsheet does not equate to zero involvement.

Tim, you seem to be making my point for me here. Using a camera is a "learned process". It is not intuitive the first time. But then we learn and we refine and we repeat and it gets better and over time it becomes intuitive. The process and mechanics of film didn't (arguably) change that much over 100 years. This made learning and using the equipment easier over time. When each new 35mm film camera was released with new and better improvements the overall design and "process" was basically the same. Though they are different a Panavision Millenium and an Arricam ST have a common thread. They are both "intuitive" to the initiated. The same can be said for the majority of digital motion picture cameras. They have mostly followed a common thread. The R1 and EPIC are the exception. Fundamentally the tech is the same but these cameras were (re)designed in a completely different manner in both layout and public relations. And, personally, I find this to be the biggest culprit in the continued head-scratching and confusion surrounding these cameras.

And, to be clear, I am not faulting RED for making their camera counter-intuitive. I am simply pointing out that this was a deliberate choice on RED's part to differentiate themselves from the rest of the competition. Unfortunately, I think it had a few unintended consequences...
 
Will Keir said:
...
Click to expand...

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by jimhare
Brook (Willard) is here is Sydney working on Gatsby, Toia shoots incredible stuff that makes me drool. One swears by 800 and the other by 320 so in my book both are completely viable depending on the situation.


AND SO THE CONFUSION CONTINUES . . .

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

:beatdeadhorse5:
 
Adrian, Tim, would you two respectfully take it to PMs. I'd like to keep my thread open.
 
Nope, it doesn't.

There is no ISO that fits all situations.

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

It's pretty simple really, just takes some time to come around. Some people have to go around more times than others. :)
Adrian Jebef said:
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by jimhare
Brook (Willard) is here is Sydney working on Gatsby, Toia shoots incredible stuff that makes me drool. One swears by 800 and the other by 320 so in my book both are completely viable depending on the situation.


AND SO THE CONFUSION CONTINUES . . .

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

:beatdeadhorse5:
Click to expand...
 
Well, "RAW" is in no way RAW...

Camera is calibrated at 320. And so what?

800 Gives you highlightprotection and the extra stop you need to not fuck the redchannel under tungsten if you WB in camera (=highlightprotection per channel).

Technical ISO?

Decide what you find acceptable in the bottom and find the middle from there to clip? Easy stuff, but hardly makes the cam or you better.

Best advice I know?
Learn how your camera responds under differen conditions at "flat" settings. ANd use it to make lovely images....
If you start off by tweaking metadata, you will not learn how the cam responds...
 
Gunleik Groven said:
Well, "RAW" is in no way RAW...

Camera is calibrated at 320. And so what?

800 Gives you highlightprotection and the extra stop you need to not fuck the redchannel under tungsten if you WB in camera (=highlightprotection per channel).

Technical ISO?

Decide what you find acceptable in the bottom and find the middle from there to clip? Easy stuff, but hardly makes the cam or you better.

Best advice I know?
Learn how your camera responds under differen conditions at "flat" settings. ANd use it to make lovely images....
If you start off by tweaking metadata, you will not learn how the cam responds...
Click to expand...


My thoughts exactly.
 
Will Keir said:
Nope, it doesn't.

There is no ISO that fits all situations.

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

It's pretty simple really, just takes some time to come around. Some people have to go around more times than others. :)
Click to expand...



Just to make another point: ISO, native sensor sensitivity, T-Stop, Shutter = exactly the same thing. They all have to do with exposure. There is no ISO that fits all situations just like there is no exposure that fits all situations.

As Gunleik points out, it is most helpful to discover why RED wants you to "underexpose" the EPIC in order to understand the ways in which you can get the absolute best from it.
 
@ adrian
ISO is related to exposure, but as it is metadata on the red cameras, it doesn't really affect exposure of the sensor.
It may very well affect how YOU expose, though...
And IMHO, you shouldn't let a random set of metadata affect your exposure. at least not untill you are truelly familiar with a fixed/"flat" set of metadata and learn to recognize image clues in those images as to when the image will break or hold according to what you desire.
 
Instead of arguing this to death I'm going to just lay out my approach to setting my Epic in camera exposures (assuming lighting is done)

ISO set to 800 (or greater if needed)
Check histogram and stop lights for clipped channels
If no channels clipped expose to the right as long as skin tones look pleasing (usually 40% for caucasian skin)
If there are no skin tones I'll usually take the highlights to just below clip (fat negative?)
Lastly if the DR of the scene is very extreme and lighting/fill is out of my control I try to balance the shadow detail with clipping as little as possible (adding a Low Con filter helps a bunch just like an Alexa)
I do not change this approach shooting tungsten
I use green Kino Flo bulbs for greenscreen so there is no need to overlight, chroma keys grab chroma not luma and the green channel is the cleanest always.
I only rarely shoot below 4KHD but when I have the loss of detail has bothered me more than noise.

Because of my "expose to the right" paradigm I may be exposing my camera at an equivelent of anywhere form 250 to 1600 ISO but I'm always maximising the amount of exposure for a given scene, and for that I want as close to an equal amount of available DR top and bottam as possible, thus 800 ISO is the best Viewing ISO for me.
 
Timothy Eaton said:
The concept of a thin negative doesn't really apply to digital imaging
Click to expand...


If "thickness of the negative" is perceived as "the amount of usable data recorded ", the concept applies.
 
BigLu have the answer

Tungsten indoors at ISO 500
Out doors normal day cloudy skys ISO 640 as long as im not shooting into the sun
Bright day to HOT bright day out doors ISO 800 and even 1,000 if i want to preserve the white clouds in the bright blue sky.
Click to expand...
 
Just to add some levity to this topic because it comes up every so often.

While I do adhere to a certain amount of logic when shooting below ISO 800 or at exactly 800 something that's not taken into consideration in this particular conversation is what you desire out of the image. I personally have no problem pushing to higher ISO values with the intent of noise reduction later if it suits the shot that I'm attempting to achieve. I tend to shoot for specific apertures and DOF. Most of the time I'm targeting ISO 320 or 800 then using NDs to balance. I agree with what most are on about. But there are plenty of times where untypical ISOs are used to achieve what I feel is a desirable histogram exposure and balancing out exactly what I want from my lens performance. Especially in conditions where I don't have 100% control over my light source.

Generate that great of rule of thumb, but by all means make sure you can "bend" those rules when you need to. Always pay close attention to that histogram and I like to hot key the Raw view to always check exactly what RedCode is seeing.

Something that I've personally noticed that I've been doing over time is attempting to match ISO values per scene, but that's just me more or less being weird and trying to equalize the look of things cutting back to back and perhaps adding a unique feel when cuts happen.

In reality it's a pretty flexible tool. Just know the advantages and limitations of your decisions in camera.

An example from this Saturday: I shot my just after magic hour exteriors at ISO 1280 because I needed T5-ish for a buggy to be in focus at 35mm before darting into the abyss. I could have opened up a bit to have less noise, but what was more important to me was having my subject and DOF handled how I wanted it.
 
KETCH ROSSi said:
What ever ISO you choose the key is always one... EXPOSURE... ;)
Click to expand...

Hahahahahahaha

But we like and dislike in an image vary. An exposure i like, you may dislike. I may like the noise, you may not. And as Graeme has said a number of times, "native" iso in the digital domain is dictated by the manufacturers.

A sensor may have a technical measureable midlevel. Which would dictate a certain iso.
But
As that may not be the point where you get the best technical image, that doesn't make much sense to stick to diehardly.

Many digital cameras look not so nice out of their sweetspot, when you go too much over or under. And that fat spot is not allways exactly where the technical measureable iso should be.

I never bothered to measure the iso, but the ones who have done seem to agree on a number around 200.

That is fine.
It is still not a good plan to shoot at 200, and if you go bellow 320 you are really just confusing yourself. Add wb and clamping of channels into the soup, and the answer is: you want headroom and contrast...
Thus underexposing is the practical advice, to make a nice rolloff in both ends of the spectre.

Epic does that more elegantly than any other camera i know of.

I sometimes lower the iso slightly for some dp's though, to force the technical exposure a bit up. Our eyes and what we look for in images vary by a large margin. But in the end it is all about learning to know the tool as well as dp's used to know their stocks. THEN you can set the iso to whatever and get excellent results...
 
Will,

Epic records a signal which is 320 native - always, regardless of your chosen ISO. Shoot anything on your Epic at any ISO - 320, 800, 2000, 6400..... now switch the histogram to raw view on playback. What do you see? You see a histogram equivalent to 320 ISO. However that doesn't mean you cant rate at 800 and have nice results. Epic can handle a 'digital boost' if you like, to 800 and still look great. You get more DR by rating at 800 (or in simpler terms, underexposing slightly) which is why Red recommend it. The sensor is still clean, which means you can do this and have little to no difference in shadow noise. But this highly depends on what you're shooting.

The danger in underexposing, for me, is not in sensor noise but in compression. The lower your signal falls the more likely you are to see dancing noise. In the thread you're quoting that was specifically a solution for someone experiencing blockies in the shadows oh high fps. If you do get these problems then one solutions is to decrease compression (not always possible), the other is to protect your shadows rather than your highlights. If you're seeing dancing compression then you need more light into the system to to lift that histogram out of 'the danger zone'. In order to do so, and assuming you have no control over lighting you need to rate the camera to 320 and open up. You lose some highlight protection but you will end up exposing a brighter image as a result - which a compression system likes.

The system is flexible, rate what you like and what works for you. It doesn't really matter what it's official rating is, it's understanding how it works and testing. Shooting at 320 is more of a 'what you see is what you get' situation. Shooting at 800 is expanding the DR by underexposing and applying more digital gain to the signal. My experience is I've seen examples where 800 has too much noise - that may be under low light tungsten, or simply under high fps. In those situations I'd rate 320, but there are other situations where 800 would be fine.
 
Evin Grant said:
.... (adding a Low Con filter helps a bunch just like an Alexa)
.
Click to expand...

I've never tried this but I imagine it's a huge help for high contrast slo-mo. If I shoot high contrast at 800 I often notice blocking in my shadows even when I'm as ETTR as possible (and that's at a standard frame rate). Especially on dark even areas, like a suit or sofa. This isn't noise, its compression. As a default what compression ratio do you normally shoot at/find acceptable?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top