Redspace vs. Sekonic

[Jeff Deveraux]

I don't think it is a big deal either, but it would be nice to know if all RED cameras are consistent.

 

[Caleb Heymann]

I would rather not change the meter. That's what we had to do--rate the meter at 160. The problem comes in if people start saying the Red is actually ISO 160, a very light-hungry camera, which they will take as another reason to knock it. Well is it? When we push it to ISO 500 are we actually pushing it that far, or are we really pushing to 250? Here in Cape Town I'm battling Red misconceptions and myths everyday, but at least I'm fighting the good fight. I've shot in very low light with impressive results, but as soon as people start saying you have to set your meter to ISO 160 to get the cleanest image, it will certainly discourage some. We just need this issue to be addressed by Red as to what is causing the discrepancy and can it please be fixed.

 

[Gediminas Vansevicius]

Same here. The DP for the last feature we did still believes the camera should be rated at ISO 160, which was the main reason we didn't get a job for the cameras on another feature which is to be location interiors for the most part. They went with digibeta as RED was described by him as "too light-hungry".

 

[Finner]

I've been finding 160-200 to be the ASA in my tests as well.

 

[hunterrichards]

Sorry, let me rephrase about knocking down your meter. If your using a sekonic and your getting a 1 stop difference from the meter to the RED, you dont have to mismatch the iso settings on the meter:

When you start up the meter in profile mode (by holding down certain buttons when turning it on -see the manual), you can the meter at - 1EV (if thats the difference your seeing). Than you can just set the Red at what ever iso and the meter at the same iso and get accurate reading without doing exposure math.