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 :)

RED MX IMAGES APPEAR BETTER THAN SCARLET-X

Scott Crawley said:
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...
Click to expand...

Well the Epic/Red have an Iso - and what you intend on set will automatically make sense as a setting starting point in Resolve/Pablo/Etc. (regardless of what you set in metadata - the colorist will quickly figure things out unless they're incompetent). Parts of the shot may later be determined to work better one stop above or below, but the point is you work around a target, otherwise there is no land to build you lighting plan house on. LUX and fc really have no quick and easy on-set meaning, at least not for me.
 
Rob Ruffo said:
Well the Epic/Red have an Iso - and what you intend on set will automatically make sense as a setting starting point in Resolve/Pablo/Etc. (regardless of what you set in metadata - the colorist will quickly figure things out unless they're incompetent). Parts of the shot may later be determined to work better one stop above or below, but the point is you work around a target, otherwise there is no land to build you lighting plan house on. LUX and fc really have no quick and easy on-set meaning, at least not for me.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course. Thanks for taking the time to answer that seriously. I guess I was reaching a little to illustrate an idea that is a response to the current confusion which I share to some degree. When you hear folks explain a method that seems to turn the logic at your foundation upside down, and you understand that one day soon ASA will have no real meaning at all you begin to search for a new way in which to ground yourself.

If there is something in this 800 ASA methodology that in a practical way does enable us to somehow pull more dynamic range out of the sensor, I would still like to understand why that is, and where my lack of understanding lies.

Rob Ruffo said:
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.
Click to expand...

The more I look at this the more I see the answer I was looking for, I guess. Perhaps I am not as confused as I thought.
 
Last edited:
radfilm said:
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
Click to expand...


Dana, this is absolutely gorgeous work! I'll have to experiment with ISO 800. One question though, in the Southland footage, at 1:26, am I seeing some blackpoint clipping in the flare? I didnt know the RED's had this issue... if thats what it is..

Beautiful work regardless...

Adrian
 
Scott Crawley said:
Yes, of course. Thanks for taking the time to answer that seriously. I guess I was reaching a little to illustrate an idea that is a response to the current confusion which I share to some degree. When you hear folks explain a method that seems to turn the logic at your foundation upside down, and you understand that one day soon ASA will have no real meaning at all you begin to search for a new way in which to ground yourself.

If there is something in this 800 ASA methodology that in a practical way does enable us to somehow pull more dynamic range out of the sensor, I would still like to understand why that is, and where my lack of understanding lies.



The more I look at this the more I see the answer I was looking for, I guess. Perhaps I am not as confused as I thought.
Click to expand...

Glad if I was of any help.
 
I'm hoping this cop reel wasn't shot on scarlet. this stuff looked bad in my humble opinion. sorry
 
Tom Gray said:
I'm hoping this cop reel wasn't shot on scarlet. this stuff looked bad in my humble opinion. sorry
Click to expand...

Lol. Do you mean the Southland reel?

Well, style and taste are equally subjective and, taken out of context it can be difficult to understand fully how a chosen style serves the narrative.

That reel speaks directly to the OP's topic. Here is footage that pushes the limits of the camera's range successfully, at 800 ISO. It employs a reality tv kind of look but does it with a deft hand. These guys are obviously in complete control. For example: He's got crazy low exposure levels in there but still what needs to be seen is exposed adequately, with no noise. He talked about wide dynamic range, but also explores extremely contrasty images on the reel, and they work.
 
Last edited:
One very big difference between the two (which is there for a good reason) is that the default gamma on R1 is RedGamma, but on the Scarlet/Epic is RedGamma3

redgamma is much harder in the top and bottom, which by default forces the "acceptable" lowest exposures a bit up (give them a bit more light when lighting the set) which again gives more latitude in the practical use of the lowlights, while Scarlet/Epic goes "deeper". The same happens in the top.,

On R1 you are kind of "forced by the preview" to expose a bit safer to avoid the extremes. The Scarlet/epic allows for much more in the extremes, but of course there is noise down there too...
In the top stops, the Scarlet/Epic really excells over the R1s I have seen, at least...
 
To follow up...
If you want to emulate the R1s blacks on an scarlet, leave it at 800 and set the contrast to something like 0.5 (just ballparking here, not exact)

A much better idea, IMHO - is to learn how to work with the extended latitude given by the Epic/Scarlet....
 
Just want to quickly add - I agree that images from the MX look better than the Scarlet. By some distance. EPIC looks better than both, but not by as much as you think. You can buy a used R1 kit for around 10-15k. If what you are interested in is just the final image there's no contest in my experience.
 
When you guys speak of rating the camera at 800 vs 320 are you only speaking of ISO settings? Am I correct in understanding you can only change ISO on the camera right? You're simply referring to it as ASA? Or am I missing another setting somewhere.
 
WIth RED cameras ISO can be changed after the fact. In the traditional digital camera sense, a sensor typically has a native ISO. In the past the RED ONE was rated at 320. WIth the advent of the MX sensor, the mojo seems to happen at the 800 mark. RED recommends you use the 800 ISO as the benchmark.

Vladimir Druts said:
When you guys speak of rating the camera at 800 vs 320 are you only speaking of ISO settings? Am I correct in understanding you can only change ISO on the camera right? You're simply referring to it as ASA? Or am I missing another setting somewhere.
Click to expand...
 
To my eye R1 has always looked the best from RED cameras.
 
I have noticed a slight cleaner "film look" coming from R1MX. I have shot a few features with LionsGate using the R1MX and tests with Epic, and both produce incredible motion picture. I just love the R1MX personally
 
Nick Morrison said:
Sigh....if that were true, then why are all current Hollywood RED productions shooting on Epic?
Click to expand...
because they look the specs and not the image?
 
Personally the R1MX has more of a plastic skin tone look to it than Epic/Scarlet. Could just be the higher compression ratios. I would like to see someone post samples of a shot from R1MX, and Epic to compare (Same shot, same settings). That would be a more fitting test than by just looking at images and films shot on one or the other and saying one is better.
 
FORM FACTOR.. Hollywood Shoots Epics as oposed to R1MX I would say Form Factor. THis is why DSLRS Blew up the Indi World($$$ too). You can Get a DSMC in places that the R1MX cant Go regardless of Image. now Besides the Prices, I would Imagine that the R1MX which is the Foundation of the RED Company would produce a quality Image superior or with Greater ability than the Intro-to Cinema Camera that is the Scarlet. Now the EPIC is now the Flagship, I would Assume that Camera is Superior to the R1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top