Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

  • 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 :)

RED MX IMAGES APPEAR BETTER THAN SCARLET-X

I think alot of the complaining about noise in the Scarlet-X comes from people who are not familiar with how to expose digital sensors correctly. And the whole native ISO thing is confusing people. It's really easy actually, and has been pointed out before. Red recommend using 800 ISO as a "standard" so that when you are out shooting you will automatcally protect your highlights, because the image on the monitor then seems a little over exposed compared to what the sensor is actually recording. If you set the ISO to 320 on your scarlet-x and then go to Settings-Display-Tools and turn on RAW you will see a very similarly exposed image, this means the monitor shows you an image that is very close to what the camera is actually recording.

So the conclusion I have made is this: If you find youself shooting outside in the sunlight or in a high contrast situation with a lot of light, then set your ISO to 800. If you are shooting in a low light situation with low contrast, then set your ISO to 320, and light the scene to get an image that is as noise free as possible. This is the exact opposiite of what you would do if you were shooting film, and I think this is what is confusing to most people.

So in other words ISO 800 protects you from getting blown out highlights, ISO 320 protects you from noise in the low light areas. I guess the reason RED tells us to stick with ISO 800 is that blown highlights is generally a much bigger problem than a little noise in the shadows, which can be fixed with noise reduction software. There is no blown out higlight fixing software (as far as I know ;)).

A very good tool to make shure you don't get noise is the RAW noise indicator, the little bar on the left side of your histogram if this fills up with red, you will get noise. same thing the the highlight clipping indicator bar on the right side of the histogram, if the bar goes red you are overexposing. Keep the indicator bars free from red and you are golden, it's as easy as that really.

Another thing that most people dont understand is that RAW images generally seem more noisy than compressed footage because the detail has not been lost in compression and there has not performed any noise reduction. So if you want to see the same low light performance out of your Scarlet-X as the other cameras out there like the FS100, AF100 etc, you will have to apply noise reduction like they do. Only difference is when you shoot RAW, you do it in post.

Another thing; the thread starter keeps saying the RED one has different, and better performing "sensors". This is wrong. The Scarlet-X and the upraded RED Ones have the exact same Mysterium-X sensor inside, but they do have different kinds of processors. The Red One has a processor much like a CPU ( Central Processing Unit) in your computer, while the Scalet-X and the Epic have application-specific integrated circuits (ASIC's). Diffrence is that the ASIC's are customized for a particular use, rather than intended for general-purpose use, like the CPU. Using ASIC's is much more effective in terms of heat, space and cost. Hence the smaller lighter less expensive Scarlet-X. The main difference between Scalet and Epic is that the Epic has higher quality/better performing ASIC's inside, plus the circuit boards that go along with these. As a result the analog to digital conversion process is probably a bit different between the RED One and Scarlet/Epic but the compression is probably very similar (both use redcode raw).

If anything the compression in the Scarlet-X and EPIC is more efficient than in the RED One and and you will get more detailed information out of the R3D. More information = more noise. (this is pure speculation on my part as I have not done any scientific testing, nor have I ever shot with a Red One camera)

I would like to state that I am not one of the people who are complaining or unhappy with the Scarlet-X camera. It is a great camera for the price and I am over the moon to co-own one.

However I have been using a RED ONE and more recently a RED MX for over two years on quite a few projects and can say that the RED MX creates incredibly clean pictures, even in ISO 800. I am very familiar with the RED camera setup and understand the significance of the metadata, especially the ISO. In my professional life I've worked both as a DIT and DOP on RED projects, and am familiar with the setup of the camera. Also from a technology standpoint I am a qualified electronics engineer, so can appreciate how the boards ‘and sensors’ within the cameras can make a difference.

Steiner, you are absolutely right that the cameras have the same sensor, but my query is more specific to whether the ‘grade’ of the sensor is the same. That is, do they all have equivalent signal to noise performance and hence dynamic range, or are there differences? This is a valid question and may explain the difference in the performance of the cameras, beyond the characteristics of the electronics. If they are identical in every way, great! If however, there is a variance then it is not wrong to propose that differences in the sensors may be causing the perceived noise. And again, I don’t know the answer either way.

To be honest I was a little reluctant to start this thread as I was voicing a personal observation and felt that people would question my intent. Hence, why I asked for people's 'impressions' of their cameras.

I am little busy with work at the moment but when I get a chance I will run some controlled test with the two cameras and post the results.

I would like to state again that the differences I have 'observed' in the noise behaviour of the cameras is at ISO 800. Switching the camera to a lower ISO will make the noise less obvious.

BTW, the noise is also present on the touchscreen monitor when you use the magnify mode.
 
About the noise in the magnify mode: that mode magnifies digitally, it's a zoom of the image in the monitor, infact U'll see magnified the cross in the center too. So it's obvious U'll see noise because it's magnified itself.
 
Last edited:
The more I read the more I feel like it's an operator error on my end, but I have noticed an increase in noise from when I purchased the camera. Some pick up shots I want to shoot, straight at the moon for example create tons of noise. I just feel that I'm seeing more than I normally did when I first got the Scarlet.
 
About the noise in the magnify mode: that mode magnify digitally, it's a zoom of the image in the monitor, infact U'll see magnified the cross in the center too. So it's obvious U'll see noise because it's magnified itself.

That is true Carmine, but it more prominent than what I see on the RED MX in the 1:1 mode.
 
The more I read the more I feel like it's an operator error on my end, but I have noticed an increase in noise from when I purchased the camera. Some pick up shots I want to shoot, straight at the moon for example create tons of noise. I just feel that I'm seeing more than I normally did when I first got the Scarlet.

Jeffrey, I am hoping also that what I am seeing is something that I have overlooked or an error on my part and that it is a simple case of adjusting a parameter to correct it and not a fault in my camera.
 
The more I read the more I feel like it's an operator error on my end, but I have noticed an increase in noise from when I purchased the camera. Some pick up shots I want to shoot, straight at the moon for example create tons of noise. I just feel that I'm seeing more than I normally did when I first got the Scarlet.

In that case, shooting some test charts at different controlled lighting levels would be useful when moving to new firmware.

When I get my camera, I'll start making my own tests, keeping track of temp when blackshaded, termperature of camera when shot, compression, etc.

I'm real curious how temperature deviation from black shade temperature affects noise:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...erent-deviations-from-black-shade-temperature

Showing black shade temperature and camera temperature in meta data would be very useful (if it's not already there)?
 
That is true Carmine, but it more prominent than what I see on the RED MX in the 1:1 mode.

I've noticed this too.

I guess for me I like shooting city scapes at night, and other things with dark areas around them. So the city lighting or moon light is what I use. And I might be crazy but there is an intense noise pattern in some images in low light situations. I shoot concerts as well and this seems to show up there as well. It's really apparent in the areas where the light is tapering off. I do expect some noise in the situations that I shoot, but I did a test pointing straight at the moon with the ISO down to 320 and it was just as prevalent as it was at 800.

Seems like I need to learn or read more. It's just odd because the second day I had the camera I ran around shooting the camera at 800-1000 ISO with little to no noise. Lately it's been more present. Even in some daylight mid leveled areas of shots. I'll do more digging around RU and other places for learning purposes but I have to agree with you Stelios I notice more noise than the R1 produces in similar situations.
 
But the parts of the frame that are naturally underexposed are fine, you just need to bring them down enough in the grade to crush the Blue noise out. Those areas will be devoid of detail, but that is an accurate representation of the scene. That is the desired outcome, no?

It sounds like a textbook use of FLUT to me. ;-)

I've noticed this too.

I guess for me I like shooting city scapes at night, and other things with dark areas around them. So the city lighting or moon light is what I use. And I might be crazy but there is an intense noise pattern in some images in low light situations. I shoot concerts as well and this seems to show up there as well. It's really apparent in the areas where the light is tapering off. I do expect some noise in the situations that I shoot, but I did a test pointing straight at the moon with the ISO down to 320 and it was just as prevalent as it was at 800.
 
Last edited:
But the parts of the frame that are naturally underexposed are fine, you just need to bring them down enough in the grade to crush the Blue noise out. Those areas will be devoid of detail, but that is an accurate representation of the scene. That is the desired outcome, no?

It sounds like a textbook use of FLUT to me. ;-)
Thanks Scott, I'll play around with it.
 
Based on my broadcasted RED footage, here are two links of some HD reels from two TV shows I shot with RED at based on 800 ASA.. I really do not see any noise.. and there was no noise reduction.
So for me I will stay exposing the camera the way I have all along.

https://vimeo.com/37026176

https://vimeo.com/37786881

Regards,
Dana Gonzales
www.danagonzales.com
 
Based on my broadcasted RED footage, here are two links of some HD reels from two TV shows I shot with RED at based on 800 ASA.. I really do not see any noise.. and there was no noise reduction.
So for me I will stay exposing the camera the way I have all along.

https://vimeo.com/37026176

https://vimeo.com/37786881



Regards,
Dana Gonzales
www.danagonzales.com

WOW. You are GOOD. Beautiful. Makes me want to check out the shows on iTunes.

Was that One MX or Epic?
 
A gorgeous reel indeed. If for some reason someone needed confirmation that treating 800 ASA as native on Epic was a valid approach I'm sure they could find it there.

Based on my broadcasted RED footage, here are two links of some HD reels from two TV shows I shot with RED at based on 800 ASA.. I really do not see any noise.. and there was no noise reduction.
So for me I will stay exposing the camera the way I have all along.

https://vimeo.com/37026176

https://vimeo.com/37786881

Regards,
Dana Gonzales
www.danagonzales.com
 
Thanks for all the nice feedback.. I just want to say .. Yes rate the camera at 320 asa if you want as the blacks may be more crushed but you will limit your dynamic range.. and in my experience using a light meter the camera is definitely 800 ASA..
I call it" Native" you can call it anything you like.

All photography is based on a constant.. you have to start somewhere and it needs to be the reference. Using a HD Video camera is no different then film in this respect... It keeps you centered and know how to correct issues..

All footage in reels were shot with both Red MX and Epic.

I just finished shooting a 35 million dollar feature with Epic cameras and believe me I rated it at 800 ASA.. this film is called "Snitch" and will be posted at Light Iron. It will have a major release so we can talk about again when it his the big screen.

Cheers,
Dana Gonzales
www.danagonzales.com
 
Last edited:
Yes rate the camera at 320 asa if you want as the blacks may be more crushed but you will limit your dynamic range.. and in my experience using a light meter the camera is definitely 800 ASA.. I call it" Native" you can call it anything you like.

I'd like to have a deeper understanding of this so I'm looking for guidance here.

To me it's a lot like setting your alarm clock 15 minutes ahead. Some folks need that in order to get themselves out of bed in time, others don't. Setting your clock ahead doesn't actually change the time, just how you relate and react to the time. My understanding here is that ASA is the same.

The sensor records the same signal whether you rate it at 320 or 800. There is no gain or curve applied to the incoming signal so the upper and lower limits are not actually effected. The amount of headroom and the noise floor do not actually change, rather it is your perception of where the floor and ceiling lie that changes. ASA is functioning more as a baseline gamma setting for playback and a frame of reference on which to draw the histogram. Is that fairly accurate?

I understand what you mean when you call it a constant frame of reference. The sensor sees what it sees, and Digital ASA is just a means to describe it. If you know empirically what it's limits are, then you can rate it at any ASA you like and still turn in well exposed results utilizing the full dynamic range of the sensor.

Feedback please...

If you say "There is no spoon." it will really bake my noodle.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all the nice feedback.. I just want to say .. Yes rate the camera at 320 asa if you want as the blacks may be more crushed but you will limit your dynamic range.. and in my experience using a light meter the camera is definitely 800 ASA..
I call it" Native" you can call it anything you like.

All photography is based on a constant.. you have to start somewhere and it needs to be the reference. Using a HD Video camera is no different then film in this respect... It keeps you centered and know how to correct issues..

All footage in reels were shot with both Red MX and Epic.

I just finished shooting a 35 million dollar feature with Epic cameras and believe me I rated it at 800 ASA.. this film is called "Snitch" and will be posted at Light Iron. It will have a major release so we can talk about again when it his the big screen.

Cheers,
Dana Gonzales
www.danagonzales.com

Hey Dana - do you agree Mx 800 is cleaner than Epic 800? Have you seen a difference?
 
I'd like to have a deeper understanding of this so I'm looking for guidance here.

To me it's a lot like setting your alarm clock 15 minutes ahead. Some folks need that in order to get themselves out of bed in time, others don't. Setting your clock ahead doesn't actually change the time, just how you relate and react to the time. My understanding here is that ASA is the same.

The sensor records the same signal whether you rate it at 320 or 800. There is no gain or curve applied to the incoming signal so the upper and lower limits are not actually effected. The amount of headroom and the noise floor do not actually change, rather it is your perception of where the floor and ceiling lie that changes. ASA is functioning more as a baseline gamma setting for playback and a frame of reference on which to draw the histogram. Is that fairly accurate?

I understand what you mean when you call it a constant frame of reference. The sensor sees what it sees, and Digital ASA is just a means to describe it. If you know empirically what it's limits are, then you can rate it at any ASA you like and still turn in well exposed results utilizing the full dynamic range of the sensor.

Feedback please...

If you say "There is no spoon." it will really bake my noodle.

Well yes, the concept is "meter at" and "have a look at the monitor" at Iso =X - not really "set" Iso=X. But there is a logic to metering, like "those bushes should be two stops under, the window one stop over" and you would need to build that kind of logic around a base ISO and chosen f-stop - ND grade equation. I agree with 800, but you can get away with up to 2000 if need be on MX.
 
Well yes, the concept is "meter at" and "have a look at the monitor" at Iso =X - not really "set" Iso=X. But there is a logic to metering, like "those bushes should be two stops under, the window one stop over" and you would need to build that kind of logic around a base ISO and chosen f-stop - ND grade equation. I agree with 800, but you can get away with up to 2000 if need be on MX.

If you measure in lux or fc, then you don't need to reference ASA either, no?

ASA was great when it was a language we all understood, but ASA is to digital imaging what the urban dictionary is to the English language, or iTextbooks might be to history. But I digress...
 
Back
Top