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
Michael Lindsay said:
TO RED please pull out (or rename) raw view. It has confused people and you are suffering for it. Raw view makes no real sense and now since the Mx and other advancements is not needed.
Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree more. I use it almost every setup...
 
I don't think taking it out would be a good idea – why remove a tool that many people use. Personally I like looking at REDlogFilm at 800ISO as my version of RAW view, but that's just my personal choice. I like it because each stop takes up an equal space along the x-axis of the histogram, so I feel I'm seeing a good representation of the distribution of exposure.

But there is probably a good argument for renaming it, since it clearly causes so much confusion, with people saying again and again, "the native ISO must be 320, because 320 looks similar to RAW view."

I know Graeme and others have said it many times, but RAW view is just a development curve like any of the other ISO based development curves. Ignoring the fact that the colour matrix and a few other things are switched off, it is just a curve which RED have chosen because it shows the detail right into the highlights. Just because this curve has a vague visual similarity (in some parts) to the REDgamma3 curve at 320 ISO does not make 320 "native".

It was something that came up at the UK REDucation, with somebody asking "shouldn't we shoot looking at RAW view, because RAW is what we'll be using in post". This is not true, as RED have (very deliberately IMHO) not made an equivalent of the camera's RAW view available in REDCINE-X or the SDK, as many people might think they should render out as "RAW" to work from. If RAW view, or whatever we are going to call it, were made available in REDCINE-X I believe it should be a button on the viewer window that showed the same as the camera's RAW view, but only temporarily while the button was held, meaning nobody could accidentally leave it on, and certainly not render to it.
 
Nick Shaw said:
I don't think taking it out would be a good idea – why remove a tool that many people use. Personally I like looking at REDlogFilm at 800ISO
Click to expand...

I think it should be renamed as it seems to be causing a lot of confusion.

I actually do exactly what you do. REDlogFilm @ 800ISO. I've never once used raw view.

At this point it's basically a legacy feature/view from the R1 and needs to be updated (or renamed) to be in line with the current state of things.
 
After so many misconceptions (or just different basis of opinions) I'm feeling a strong urge to record a tutorial or overview on the subject.
Main problem is that we miss Formalism in discussions.
Formalism is, roughly speaking, a science related to how to express something in a way that there is only one possible interpretation.

Unformal thing (but still correct) to say is: RED camera sensors have no native ISO.
To deliver a formal and complete description it takes more effort to do.
For start, everybody should reach a consensus and common understanding of what ISO is and more important what/how ISO is used for:
- film exposure,
- DSLR exposure,
- RED exposure,
- RED raw developing

Then there's analogue and digital gain etc...
Lot of things to say and agree upon before the discussion can/should begin.

One day, one day I'm gonna make myself go shoot an "ISO De-classified" :-)
 
We're putting out new tutorials all the time, so I'll ask that our team look at ISO, but http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/exposure-with-red-cameras will get your started.

There is indeed no ISO setting that is "more native" than any others because we don't burn in digital gain and we don't do analogue gain.

Graeme
 
Originally Posted by Michael Lindsay
TO RED please pull out (or rename) raw view. It has confused people and you are suffering for it. Raw view makes no real sense and now since the Mx and other advancements is not needed.

WHAT? Yeah right, RED should leave it there I (as well as many others) use it all the time. Renaming it, maybe.
 
yeah, keep the function, just renamed it.
 
Nick Shaw said:
I don't think taking it out would be a good idea – why remove a tool that many people use. Personally I like looking at REDlogFilm at 800ISO as my version of RAW view, but that's just my personal choice. I like it because each stop takes up an equal space along the x-axis of the histogram, so I feel I'm seeing a good representation of the distribution of exposure.
Click to expand...

Your considered approach of Redlogfilm at 800asa is very different to how I have seen people using Raw... "It is a raw camera that's is why I monitor raw" the WYSIWYG approach... Wrong perhaps but a very easy mistake to make. The most talented of my DP friends all have very little idea about this stuff and I don't blame them. Please Red needs clarity and simplicity where things can be clear and simple. Renaming the tool is fine by me...

Regards

Michael

Ps I also have noticed (on this forum many times) people claiming to be shooting 320 but actually shooting 800-1000 ish but monitoring 320. The footage then needs to be pushed in RCx by 1,2 sometimes 3 stops to get a good result..
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
If you think that your image is less noisy at 320 than at 800, don't be fooled by what's going on. These are meta applied settings, the noise is still there at 320, but with the lower grey point on your curve, you're compressing the dark detail and crushing the noise out. The sensor records the same thing, regardless of what you have your ISO set to.
Click to expand...

I am happy to sacrifice that bottom stop because I don't think it's clean enough. I do a lot of phone work and while the product is "black", where that black is exposed to is important. I like my blacks to be clean. At 800 if you're using that last stop you're going to have to dig into the noise floor. So sure it's recording the same thing at 320, but you're pretending that it's a stop less shadow detail.
 
I thought the only way you'd actually see the extra stop of highlight protection by shooting at 800ISO was if you lowered ISO/FLUT/Curves in post to bring down the image a stop or two less than 800ISO.... Otherwise you're needlessly boosting noise in the the stops below mid-grey and the extra highlight detail you've acquired via physical exposure adjustments (shutter, f-stop) will remain too bright to be seen as distinguishable detail.

Conversely, if you're controlling the light in the scene, and ISO is metadata, and the amount of dynamic range is the same regardless of ISO, then it shouldn't matter what you shoot at as it should always be the same (it's always ~13.5 stops, so you'd use a bit more fill to ensure highlight protection whilst not falling into absolutely noisy blacks.) Or no?
 
i am a still shooter and in the process of thinking of joining the red/scarlet club...my mind is pretty much made up....i have been digging around for raw footage and one of the main points for me is the option to pull stills from footage....
this is a very interesting discussion for me because i have found that 2/3 of all the footage i find is actually (when looking at a properly exposed histogram) 1-2 stops underexposed...neither shadows or highlights are necessary clipped but most of the information is pushed towards the left and compressed in a small portion of the spectrum....and when i play with the still (or footage) and pull the iso slider towards the right i often find the histogram to look perfect, shadows and highlights still good at 2000iso.....which is of course the reason why i find so much noise (pretty much everywhere).....
again: as a still shooter, my eye is glued to the histogram...even knowing that it only shows me the jpeg info....with dslr i shoot most of my stuff at base iso, choose my f-stop and adjust the shutter (or add or pump up the light)....of course with motion it is not so easy because the shutter is (for the most part) the constant....f-stop is often an esthetic decision.....so one has to either add light(s)...or pump up the iso.....
i too like a darker tone in my stills but i know that i need to shoot an even histogram to give the sensor a chance to get a good exposure......
i can't wait to check it out myself, shoot my own stuff....really excited about hdrx for the same reason....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top