WARNING: RED has -3 stops less latitude than the D-21&F35

[Sanjin Jukic]

Geoff Boyle FBKS, cinematographer and leader of

CML - Cinematography Information & Discussion

did extensive digital camera testings at the

Hands on HD - the annual high definition-event in Hannover.

"The RED has just under 3 stops less latitude than the D-21 or the F35 and
about 1 stop less than the SI-2K. However, it can look gorgeous if you bear
this in mind, it definitely favours overexposure and protecting the
highlights rather than exposing for the low end."

LINK>>>



I write now and would consider this suggestion as a sort of Warning Message to the RED Team:



"Please RED do not start ship EPIC, EPIC-X or RED ONE upgrade to Mysterium-X

before you don't FIX EXPOSURE LATITUDE of the new sensor (aka Mysteruim-X)."

This would help us not to go again throughout the same circle of discussions, confusion and testing

about Mysterium-X comparison with the other digital cameras like Arri D-21, Sony F35, SI-2k, Phantom HD Gold, etc,....

And the most important thing is to make RED1 M-X, EPIC-X, EPIC, etc,...

a real competitive camera system with the other digital acquisition systems.

Simply just make it better than any other sensor at the competition."

 

[Irri]

-3 less = 3 more

 

[Will Keir]

-3 less = 3 more

???

 

[Stuart English]

Dynamic Range

Dynamic Range

Given that each camera manufacturer has a different post and monitoring workflow, and acceptable noise is a matter of personal taste...

I'd suggest that "hands on" camera tests generating inconsistent results - and follow on debate and additional testing - are here to stay.

 

[Irri]

It was a joke about double negatives.

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

I once had the chance to compare the Sony F23 and the RedOne side by side. Yes, the F23 has more latitude and was considerably faster. But any day I would prefer shooting with my RedOne. The RedOne has a lot of virtues but surely neither latitude, nor speed.

I never parted Red's opinion that the RedOne has 320 ASA. I find that the camera is a 160 - 250 ASA camera. If you rate the sensor 500 ASA you tend to drift skin tones into the noise floor. This can be compensated by appropriate lighting of course.

Saying that the Arri 21 and the F 35 have 3 stops of latitude more means that either the redOne has only 6-7 stops which I cannot confirm or they have 11-12 effective stops which I doubt. I find that the RedOne has 8-9 stops of usable latitude, depending how much noise you bare. But one is sure: The RedOne reacts with heavy noise when underexposed.

I sincerely hope that EpicX will be a real 500 ASA camera, better 800 ASA and one more effective stop latitude would be great too. But speed is more important for me.

Hans

 

[Stephen Strangways]

Let me get this straight, Sanjin... you're concerned that your $17,500 camera isn't considered, by Geoff Boyle, to be just as good as a $300,000 camera?

You really need to stop worrying that not everyone in the world thinks your RED ONE is the greatest camera ever made (the same applies to the lenses you use) and just go out and shoot with it!

 

[Eki Halkka]

"The RED has just under 3 stops less latitude than the D-21 or the F35 and
about 1 stop less than the SI-2K. However, it can look gorgeous if you bear
this in mind, it definitely favours overexposure and protecting the
highlights rather than exposing for the low end."

LINK>>>

First of all, the link requires an username and password so it's useless, second, i'll take the conclusion with a huge grain of salt until i see the procedure they used + some example shots... 3 stops is a LOT, and it sounds like they did something wrong with R1.

Also, "overexposure and protecting the highlights" is an oxymoron. If your highlights do not clip, you are not overexposing - if they do clip, you are not protecting highlights.

 

[Steve G]

i'll take the conclusion with a huge grain of salt until i see the procedure they used + some example shots... 3 stops is a LOT, and it sounds like they did something wrong with R1.

If Geoff Boyle was in charge of the tests, then it would have been an exceptionally well run test. He has a huge amount of experience, and has recently shot a 3 d feature and 2 episodes of Wallander on the Red.

http://www.gboyle.co.uk/

From my experiences with the red, I would agree that the asa is really around 160.

 

[Felix K.]

Let me get this straight, Sanjin... you're concerned that your $17,500 camera isn't considered, by Geoff Boyle, to be just as good as a $300,000 camera?

You really need to stop worrying that not everyone in the world thinks your RED ONE is the greatest camera ever made (the same applies to the lenses you use) and just go out and shoot with it!

Halleluja!

 

[Steve G]

You really need to stop worrying that not everyone in the world thinks your RED ONE is the greatest camera ever made (the same applies to the lenses you use) and just go out and shoot with it!

I think quite a few of us are interested in seeing sanjin's first film.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Graeme Nattress]

In the definition of ISO there is an assumption made on scene dynamic range (as in the number of stops of highlight protection above mid grey) and if the scene you are shooting has a different range, you will find the ISO of the camera different.

I take a macbeth chart, I light it, I point my light meter at it (set to ISO320) - it says 5.6 8 and I incident meter it and it says 5.6 7, so pretty much in agreement there.

Now I take a shot and, it looks a little dark, but that's because a macbeth chart has a DR of 5 stops. If I'd exposed to the right on the macbeth, I'd have to have opened up the lens a stop giving the impression that the camera is around ISO 160. But that's only because you've now shaved 1 stop of highlight protection off your definition of ISO. You've got a different number, but you're simultaneously using a different definition of ISO. That is the source of the contradiction.

Now I put my shiny reflective lucky cat in the scene. Don't change a thing, but take another shot. Now the scene, due to the reflective cat has a much higher DR, and as luck would have it, now the histogram is filled from one end to the other without clipping. I've exposed to the right, practically nailing the perfect (purfect?) exposure for this scene. Now everything is in agreement that the camera is ISO320 as stated.

As for measuring DR - unless you post up some Stouffers or equivalent, I'm not buying any measurement from anyone. The human eye is pitifully poor at gauaging DR, whereas the charts don't lie.

Graeme

 

[Leo Ticheli]

Exposing Red with an ASA less than 320 can have very unfortunate consequences.

Frankly, I think that throwing around numbers like 160 could lead people to make terrible mistakes.

Opinions vary, but exposure never lies...

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

 

[Graeme Nattress]

In my mind, you either ETTR and know what you're doing, especially if "the right" are small, specular highlights which are going to clip anyway, or you go with the ISO recommendations from RED.

If you choose to rate at 160, you're basically placing practically no headroom at all above that white chip on the macbeth compared to the mid grey chip. That "might" be correct for the particular scene you're shooting, if the whole DR of that scene is around 5 stops. I'd hazard a guess that most of the time that is not the case. A quick glance at the RAW meter, or false color in RAW mode will tell you that you've clipped your highlights nasty.

Graeme

 

[Eki Halkka]

You've got a different number, but you're simultaneously using a different definition of ISO. That is the source of the contradiction.

Yep.

It would be so much easier if people forgot about ISO alltogether, and just exposed using histogram / traffic lights / false color / Zebra... always exposing to the right, making a decision about how much (if any) highlight clipping is acceptable for any given shot, then judging if the darker areas are still in acceptable range - in other words, just like video is exposed usually, if footage is to be color corrected in post.

Easy really, but it's an old dog, new trick situation i guess.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Well, it's useful for some people to have an idea of ISO so that they can prepare to have enough lights to light a scene, which is why such numbers are given and used. But yes, best exposure does come from the in-camera metering tools.

Graeme

 

[BradWright]

I'm wondering if the confusion is happening because the noise floor is more apparent in different lighting situations. The comparison between the various cameras may stem from measuring noise thresholds and not exposure range under conditions that don't favor the Red. This goes back to the daylight versus tungsten debate. Hopefully, the noise will be a lot lower in the new cameras.

 

[Joel Kaye]

Well, it's useful for some people to have an idea of ISO so that they can prepare to have enough lights to light a scene, which is why such numbers are given and used. But yes, best exposure does come from the in-camera metering tools.

True. I use the in camera tools to max my exposure without clipping anything I care about.

BUT - if I pull out my light meter it usually says I should be exposing at a stop lower (typical interior). I think that's why a lot of people feel like it's really a 160 camera. Because that's what our light meters tell us AFTER we've used RED's in camera metering to set exposure.

It's easy enough to test that for yourself. Light a room to F2 (typical) and see what RED tells you to do. Odds are you can't even get anything critical to blow at F/1.4.

To me testing anything at 5.6 for an interior isn't reflecting real world shooting situations most of us see. I've seen sets with lights everywhere that barely managed F4 at 320.

Outdoor daylight seems to be a different animal. I've rated the camera at 400 and been fine there.

 

[Petr Dvorak]

Sanjin in panic ... again

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Yes, typically outdoor and indoor (with controlled lighting) scene will have different scene dynamic range. If you don't take that into account, and know much many stops above mid grey your lightmeter is expecting in the scene, you're going to get strange results.

When you meter with the camera, it sees the whole scene and whole DR, so the meters will tell you a different exposure story unless you're in the lucky happenstance that the scene DR is the very same as in the assumptions made by the light meter, just as I had in the case with my lucky cat.

Brad - I just did my experiment here under 2800k Tungsten, and didn't see unnacceptable noise going with the light meter's recommendations.

Graeme