Iso 4000

[Jannard]

We have successfully done testing at ISO (ASA) 4000. It is noisy but very useable. You might even be able to squeek out ISO 8000. The Mysterium® sensor is so clean that it is amazing.

Jim

[Shawn Nelson]

Holy shi...4000?? Are you serious?? On a DSLR I can't stand to go above 1600. Wow! You know, you can stop surprising us now, but please don't!

[Evin Grant]

We have successfully done testing at ISO (ASA) 4000. It is noisy but very useable. You might even be able to squeek out ISO 8000. The Mysterium® sensor is so clean that it is amazing.

Jim

I love it! I can't wait to shoot in my darkroom.

[Eric MacIver]

Wow... Would love to see a still of that :)

[Jarred Land]

it indeed is very usable. And to be clear, thats at an 180 degree shutter.. not 360 and "pushed" like some other companies like to test ASA at.

[number6]

We have successfully done testing at ISO (ASA) 4000. It is noisy but very useable. You might even be able to squeek out ISO 8000. The Mysterium® sensor is so clean that it is amazing.

Jim

I... I... don't know what to say! I'm speechless! (as well as pretty darn dumb about what this means. Would welcome a brief refresher from a member of the RED Team to explain why this is something that might make me happy.

[Alex Boothby]

Wha chew talkin' bout, Willis?!?!

[Kenn Michael]

wha wha WHA????!!!!!!!!

[el_cheapo]

man.....

hopefully this will save time and money, in regards to lighting. I want to shoot some alligators feeding at night in the bayou. maybe now i can just stalk them with a camera and moonlight alone. :shiftyph34r:

[Michael Schrengohst]

Great! Now I can shoot that scene where a guy dressed in
black is running down an unlit alley on a moonless night!

[Greg Voevodsky]

We have successfully done testing at ISO (ASA) 4000. It is noisy but very useable. You might even be able to squeek out ISO 8000. The Mysterium® sensor is so clean that it is amazing.

Jim

Let's see sum pictures.... post sunsets would be cool.

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Do you believe in miracles?

[Casey Green]

:ohmy:

[Chris Gearhart]

Are You Kidding?!?!

[Jeff Kilgroe]

We are still talking about shooting at 24fps with 180 shutter, right?

ISO 4000 -- this is awesome. I always wanted to shoot a documentary on the feeding and migration patterns of North American Brown Bats.

j/k... Or am I...? Heh.

[number6]

man.....

hopefully this will save time and money, in regards to lighting. I want to shoot some alligators feeding at night in the bayou. maybe now i can just stalk them with a camera and moonlight alone. :shiftyph34r:

I think I'm beginning to understand why this makes me VERY happy!

[Finner]

I... I... don't know what to say! I'm speechless! (as well as pretty darn dumb about what this means. Would welcome a brief refresher from a member of the RED Team to explain why this is something that might make me happy.


I am sure you will get all upset for me saying this but ASA and shutter angles are basic camera knowledge. If you don't understand this it is quite clear that the camera is far above the level you are at. This is not a jab or any disrespect towards you as everyone starts somewhere and there was a time when even the biggest directors and DP's were at the same point as you. You all start somewhere and using the tool that is appropriate to your skill level is a key to doing well. Someone that does not understand basics should not be buying one red let alone two. The red camera is much more complex then cheaper simplier options that will actually give you better results then if you were to shoot with a red. A pro HD or film or RED camera will actually produce much worse results in the hands of an inexperienced person then a dvx or hvx.

Now you can come back at me about how I am just "THE MAN" trying to hold you down which is just not the case as I feel like a minnow in a big ocean. Really I am only trying to steer you to success. I am not saying don't buy a red just to wait a few years until your skills are ready to handle the challenges you will face with a red camera.

[Larry McKee]

I am dumbfounded. In 30 years of creating images, I have never used anything near ASA 4000. Really want to see some samples.

[number6]

I am sure you will get all upset for me saying this but ASA and shutter angles are basic camera knowledge. If you don't understand this it is quite clear that the camera is far above the level you are at. This is not a jab or any disrespect towards you as everyone starts somewhere and there was a time when even the biggest directors and DP's were at the same point as you. You all start somewhere and using the tool that is appropriate to your skill level is a key to doing well. Someone that does not understand basics should not be buying one red let alone two. The red camera is much more complex then cheaper simplier options that will actually give you better results then if you were to shoot with a red. A pro HD or film or RED camera will actually produce much worse results in the hands of an inexperienced person then a dvx or hvx.

Now you can come back at me about how I am just "THE MAN" trying to hold you down which is just not the case as I feel like a minnow in a big ocean. Really I am only trying to steer you to success. I am not saying don't buy a red just to wait a few years until your skills are ready to handle the challenges you will face with a red camera.

FINNER! How you been buddy? Haven't heard from you in a long time. Sounds like your still doin' alright. Good to hear from you again. Gotta go... be seeing you.

[wshultz]

Finner, my years have caused me to gain enough wisdom to have taught me that very rarely will someone thank you for unsolicited advice--whether it is meant to "save" them or not. Probably could have written a brief refresher in fewer words.

[Finner]

Finner, my years have caused me to gain enough wisdom to have taught me that very rarely will someone thank you for unsolicited advice--whether it is meant to "save" them or not. Probably could have written a brief refresher in fewer words.

Rather then fewer words I think smaller 1 syllable words would be the better choice in this instance.

[Jaime Vallés]

Holy crap on a crap holding stick! You guys have to put up a sample image of that sometime. You HAVE to!!!!! Amazing.

[number6]

Finner, my years have caused me to gain enough wisdom to have taught me that very rarely will someone thank you for unsolicited advice--whether it is meant to "save" them or not. Probably could have written a brief refresher in fewer words.

Oh guv, Don't be so 'ard on me mate. That's just Finner bein' Finner... That is to say... ee's not a fiver nor a tenner... 'ees just a Finner!

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Number6, ISO/ASA is a measure of sensitivity or the "speed" of a film stock or the speed at which a sensor can acquire an image. ISO/ASA 4000 thousand is like really really hyper-sensitive. Fast or sensitive ISO numbers (big numbers) are good for shooting in low light. It's going to make you happy because you can shoot raccoons humping in the bushes by moonlight. Finner is trying to save you... I'm trying to help you achieve your dream of torching your house. Let me know when that's going to happen! I'll have my RED on hand for that and I'll bring the marshmallows, dude.

[wshultz]

Number6, ISO/ASA is a measure of sensitivity or the "speed" of a film stock or the speed at which a sensor can acquire an image. ISO/ASA 4000 thousand is like really really hyper-sensitive. Fast or sensitive ISO numbers (big numbers) are good for shooting in low light. It's going to make you happy because you can shoot raccoons humping in the bushes by moonlight. Finner is trying to save you... I'm trying to help you achieve your dream of torching your house. Let me know when that's going to happen! I'll have my RED on hand for that and I'll bring the marshmallows, dude.

Poor racoons can't get no privacy. But fewer racoons will be a good thing. I must have missed something on the house torching.

[shaftbond]

...unbelievable....

I mean, I'm using that out of shock, I don't really mean it is not believable, as in you're lying. :)

To me, this is one of the most exciting things about this camera! (and its got a lot of competition)

[number6]

Number6, ISO/ASA is a measure of sensitivity or the "speed" of a film stock or the speed at which a sensor can acquire an image. ISO/ASA 4000 thousand is like really really hyper-sensitive. Fast or sensitive ISO numbers (big numbers) are good for shooting in low light. It's going to make you happy because you can shoot raccoons humping in the bushes by moonlight. Finner is trying to save you... I'm trying to help you achieve your dream of torching your house. Let me know when that's going to happen! I'll have my RED on hand for that and I'll bring the marshmallows, dude.

Will send all RED ouners a personal invite to the party. We'll shoot the explosion from so many angles that one of them will have to be right. I'm also looking for actors to play a couple of parts... one will be a parachutist with a poorly packed chute in freefall, and the other will be a rugged individual who will be willing to ride atop an explosion. When they meet, the free-falling parachutist will ask the rising individual if he knows anything about parachutes, and the rising individual will answer no, and ask if the falling parachutist knows anything about butane stoves?

It's an old joke so I probably won't use it.

[Brook Willard]

Oh geez... 4,000 ASA? I just got off a day of juicing for 100 ASA, it was a nightmare. I can't even believe that 4,000 is remotely usable. That's stunning.

[Shawn Nelson]

number6, looking back on my own journey, I am so phenomenally glad that 3 years ago I purchased a professional DSLR and learned it well. It has prepared me really well for Red, in ways that I would not have otherwise received by not coming from a film background. A DSLR taught me all about ISO, focal lengths, what the mm in the lenses means, etc. You have several months, I strongly recommend immediately purchasing a DSLR and learning it inside and out. Red is really just a big DSLR that can go at fast continuous FPS.

[Kevin Halverson]

So, at ISO 4000 how much noise are we talking about? I mean does it look like a 1 to 2 stop push or is it more like 3 or 4 stops? I agree usable at ISO 4000 is amazing but can we can expect good, I mean really decent performance at an 800 - 1000 equivalent? Anything on the far side of 500 exceedes my expectations (and puts a big smile on my face at the same time).

Very exciting!

[Nook Kim]

In addition to what Jeff said, most digital cameras are rated at ISO 320, and
as the ISO number doubles up, you can achieve the same intensity of light
with half amount of light. Which means, you could achieve the same lighting
effect for ISO 320 with about a quarter amount of light if you were shooting
with ISO 4000.

Edit: My math was poorly done. As matter of fact, it should be a bit less than
1/8 amount of light.

[donatello b]

what the !!!

my light meter don't do iso 8000 or for that matter 4000 !!
any chance of a RED meter ?

[Brook Willard]

what the !!!

my light meter don't do iso 8000 or for that matter 4000 !!
any chance of a RED meter ?

Yep... the histogram and waveform monitors. :)

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Poor racoons can't get no privacy. But fewer racoons will be a good thing. I must have missed something on the house torching.

Sorry, I was cross-referencing what number6 said in another thread. He plans to shoot a feature film or two and blow up his house in the process. I'm not sure if he's really serious.

But I should also say that my post was probably a bit out of line. I would remove it, but I see people are already referencing it. So that was a job well done by your friendly moderator. :blush: Whooops. number6 seems to be OK with it though.

[Finner]

Gee! this has got to be some of the most ignorant rants I've read on this forum. Why so personal on a general question. Let's refrain from personal attacks, please. Just don't respond if you don't have an answer, simple!

Quite judgemental Marti_Gras. You don't know me man you don't know my life!

[Andrew Benz]

This IS stunning. T3 RED zooms and the Mysterium sensor combination may redefine what we consider "fast". All of our lighting packages just got a little brighter...


OT...
number6, looking back on my own journey, I am so phenomenally glad that 3 years ago I purchased a professional DSLR and learned it well. It has prepared me really well for Red, in ways that I would not have otherwise received by not coming from a film background. A DSLR taught me all about ISO, focal lengths, what the mm in the lenses means, etc. You have several months, I strongly recommend immediately purchasing a DSLR and learning it inside and out. Red is really just a big DSLR that can go at fast continuous FPS.

Great advice... and be sure to shoot RAW.

Cheers and good luck,

Andrew

[Nook Kim]

Hi Jim,
I'm very excited when you said it was very usable at ISO 4000, because
that also means it would be prestine at ISO 1000 - 2000 range. That is
good enough for me to shoot with. I was happy to shoot my current project
at ISO 400 after shooting a project at ISO 80. I can't even imagine shooting
at that high ISO. Now, how am I going to cut the ambient light? :glare:

[Alex Boothby]

I mean does it look like a 1 to 2 stop push or is it more like 3 or 4 stops?

Nearly 4 stops push if "normal" is rated at 320.

[Brook Willard]

Quite judgemental Marti_Gras. You don't know me man you don't know my life!

:laugh: Come on, man...

[number6]

number6, looking back on my own journey, I am so phenomenally glad that 3 years ago I purchased a professional DSLR and learned it well. It has prepared me really well for Red, in ways that I would not have otherwise received by not coming from a film background. A DSLR taught me all about ISO, focal lengths, what the mm in the lenses means, etc. You have several months, I strongly recommend immediately purchasing a DSLR and learning it inside and out. Red is really just a big DSLR that can go at fast continuous FPS.

C'mon all you Argentinas... don't cry for me. I'm not some tin man runnin' around lookin' for a brain. I've got one. It was a really good one at one time and I THINK I stopped drinkin' in time so all the creamy white fillin' hasn't been licked away. I know you all mean well... (maybe not Finner, he just means) but I WILL be able to figure this out. My strength will be that I will get the 8 ball in the hole. Maybe it will appear to be a lucky shot, but it will still go in the hole. If not, I will return to this forum and pronounce to all that "I am not smarter than a fifth grader!"

But on the other hand, Shawn, thanks for your genuine concern and for most people, sound advice. For me though, it would be taking a step backward, and I cannot abide retreat.

[Steve Gibby]

Yep... the histogram and waveform monitors. :)

...and don't forget zebra...:poster_oops:

[Alex Boothby]

heh heh...

[Jannard]

We are struggling to assign an ISO rating to the camera. We now think it is 320. But a "trained professional" thinks it is closer to 400-500. Somewhere in there. I guess "officially" (for now) we are stating 320.

The image is very clean. We exposed for 4000 (without any sensor gain) which creates a massive under-exposure. Then we lifted up the image out of the dirt and were very surprised at the result. It seemed noisy (as expected), but about the same, or similar to, a Canon 1D Mk III (rated at 3200). Useable.

Jim

[Matt Redmond]

Makes me want to test 1fps timelapse...at night.

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Thanks for the details and known reference point Jim. The sensitivity to noise ratio this promises will be huge for a lot of doco folks and broadens the range of suitable uses for the RedOne. I am at a loss to think of anything you can't do with it unless you need a lipstick form factor.

*Fanboy alert* - Thanks Jim and the Red Team, I tip my hat.

[Alex Boothby]

The image is very clean. We exposed for 4000 (without any sensor gain) which creates a massive under-exposure. Then we lifted up the image out of the dirt and were very surprised at the result. Jim

I remember digging into that sea of under-exposure 8 months ago - and being truly surprised by what was salvageable:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=78368

And things have only gotten better since then. Good stuff.

EDIT: see attached grading test.

[number6]

In addition to what Jeff said, most digital cameras are rated at ISO 320, and
as the ISO number doubles up, you can achieve the same intensity of light
with half amount of light. Which means, you could achieve the same lighting
effect for ISO 320 with about a quarter amount of light if you were shooting
with ISO 4000.

Thanks for a very fine point A to point B explanation... I hope this question doesn't offend, but do you use Nook as your first name, or is it Kim? My intuition tells me that Kim is your family name, but for my future reference, please clarify.

[Casey Green]

We are struggling to assign an ISO rating to the camera. We now think it is 320. But a "trained professional" thinks it is closer to 400-500. Somewhere in there. I guess "officially" (for now) we are stating 320.

The image is very clean. We exposed for 4000 (without any sensor gain) which creates a massive under-exposure. Then we lifted up the image out of the dirt and were very surprised at the result. It seemed noisy (as expected), but about the same, or similar to, a Canon 1D Mk III (rated at 3200). Useable.

Jim

Thanks for the info, Jim. BTW, Can you tell us what the test subject was that you exposed at 4000?

[Jannard]

We have a comprehensive setup that includes several charts, including a Macbeth, a black hole, a shiny bell, and various other objects lit under controlled lighting so we can repeat and compare settings.

We test under both daylight and tungsten lighting.

Jim

[Brook Willard]

We are struggling to assign an ISO rating to the camera. We now think it is 320. But a "trained professional" thinks it is closer to 400-500. Somewhere in there. I guess "officially" (for now) we are stating 320.


But as the test was successful at 4,000 ASA, would I be mistaken in assuming that "pushing" to 500 or 1,000 ASA wouldn't be something I'd have to shy away from? Man, having 320/400/500 as a home base [no gain] on a camera of this caliber will be a nice change...

Oo, I almost forgot... was there FPN on the 4,000 shot?

[Ace]

This is as big of a deal as shooting 4K itself.

[Nook Kim]

Thanks for a very fine point A to point B explanation... I hope this question doesn't offend, but do you use Nook as your first name, or is it Kim? My intuition tells me that Kim is your family name, but for my future reference, please clarify.

I am a Korean, and my real name is Hwan-Wook Kim. When I found that most
people were having a hard time pronouncing and remembering my name after
I came to the US, I gave myself a nick name, which is Nook. You can call me
Nook. And you're very welcome. I learn so much online from industry
professionals, and I try to share my small knowledge whenever I can. I think
it's a lot more beneficial and brave to ask than pretending like you know
everything.

Regards,

[Jannard]

There is no FPN. The noise at ISO 4000 is random. We have come a long way in 18 months.

Jim

[Brook Willard]

Ain't that the truth.

[Nook Kim]

The image is very clean. We exposed for 4000 (without any sensor gain) which creates a massive under-exposure. Then we lifted up the image out of the dirt and were very surprised at the result.
Jim

As I was researching prior to my current project, which I shot on a VariCam,
I read from CML that I could achieve very pleasing image by exposing the
skin at 30 IRE and lift it in grading. I tested it right away, and the image was
indeed very nice. I just had to keep my contrast ratio as what I wanted. I
ended up shooting half of the footage that way for the project, and I am pretty
happy with the result. I don't see why not Red One wouldn't be able to do the
same.
Also, I tend to give myself a bit of safety head room by rating the camera at
about a half stop faster in order to not blow out any highlights. If your
camera is officially rated at ISO 320, I will most likely be shooting at ISO
400. But who knows I will be shooting at ISO 1000.

[Casey Green]

We have a comprehensive setup that includes several charts, including a Macbeth, a black hole, a shiny bell, and various other objects lit under controlled lighting so we can repeat and compare settings.

We test under both daylight and tungsten lighting.

Jim

Thanks. Man, it's got to be pretty exciting there with nearly daily breakthroughs! ;)

Keep Rockin'

[SF Geek]

I know we all love to hear good news but I know that speaking for a lot of photographers that the 1Ds Mark II rated at anything above 1600 makes crap photos. Maybe the Mark III is that much better. I live with a photo editor and I know that she has never accepted photos that were as noisy as that. Obviously what's acceptable is an opinion. That's my point.

The real problem I have is that you're making this statement but not showing us any examples. There are too many "Fanboys", yes I said "Fanboys" because that's what a lot of members here are, that are going to make wild assumptions like that at 1200 or 1800 ISO there will be no visible noise or that lights are obsolete and the camera must be able to cure cancer.

I find it surprising how many people jumped on Finner for making a very valid non-aggressive point. Has it gotten that bad on this site that people get angry at anyone that even comes close to bursting their bubble? Remember that once people actually get the RED camera, make believe time will be over and some won't be happy.

That being said, just let me get my shield up. OK.

[Finner]

True That Geeky SF!

It would be really nice to see a photo. Although I have found Jim to be quite conservative when it comes to him saying something looks good. So we will have to see the images when posted and as far as noise goes I have found in the right look it can really be an advantage. I worked with a few battle star galatica camera crew and they shoot at either 9 or 18db for effect and that show looks great.

As far as me being jumped on well I have got use to it from a few on here. It was the first time I have been called the most ignorant person on here but oh well.

[Jochen Schmidt-Hambrock]

Publishing anything but the most perfect images might not be a good move for Red. Too much controversy out there.
To see the limits of the camera we may have to wait for Gibby´s test.

[Finner]

Camera limits is one of the biggest things myself and a few others on the test team are most excited to test. Over and under expose like crazy in some different lighting situations and see how it plays out. I assume it will be like video, better under expossed then over like film but right now this camera seems to be so different then anything else around who really knows.

[C.H.Haskell]

Agreed. But this is pretty sweet to hear. I am just thinking how this already will lighten our load when we will be shooting in CUBA.

Just to know I can drink every last ounce of what those breathtaking sun sets in Havana can provide, all the way through dusk and into moonlight perhaps. ;)

[Alexander Nikishin]

4,000 ASA????!!?!!?!?!??!?!????!!??!?????!??!!!!??!!?? ? !

Dean Semler and Panavision eat your heart out, damn!

Now imagine some Zeiss Master primes at T1.3 with an ISO of 4,000!

The possibilities are, mind boggling!

That's some beautiful news Jim, thank you!

[SF Geek]

The tests will tell all.

[Sanjin Jukic]

We have successfully done testing at ISO (ASA) 4000. It is noisy but very useable. You might even be able to squeek out ISO 8000. The Mysterium® sensor is so clean that it is amazing.

Jim

UNBELIEVABLE!

[Sanjin Jukic]

Number6, ISO/ASA is a measure of sensitivity or the "speed" of a film stock or the speed at which a sensor can acquire an image. ISO/ASA 4000 thousand is like really really hyper-sensitive. Fast or sensitive ISO numbers (big numbers) are good for shooting in low light. It's going to make you happy because you can shoot raccoons humping in the bushes by moonlight. Finner is trying to save you... I'm trying to help you achieve your dream of torching your house. Let me know when that's going to happen! I'll have my RED on hand for that and I'll bring the marshmallows, dude.


Let's invite Vittorio Storaro to test RED in a dark room shooting.

http://www.sanjinjukic.com/extras/APOCALYPSE_NOW-BRANDO.jpg
Marlon Brando in "Apocalypse Now" shot by Storaro.

[Alex Boothby]

The tests will tell all.

Implicit in Jim's post is that the fact that the "usable" image was created in color correction, either in Redcine or some other ap, or with a crazy LUT. The RAW image (without gain) coming out of the camera will appear very dark and flat - but the low SNR allows for aggressive color correction to salvage a nice image without hitting the noise floor. But this kind of color grading is atypical and can be screwed up if the colorist is not careful. Specifically, secondary color correction can create additional noise (and a lot of it) and many color aps may not be optimized to pull clean keys from such dark source images (4 stops under?)

I hope the LART team takes this into account and has lined up a good colorist. I recommend staying away from any secondary color correction for a true test of Red's ISO. Having said that I don't think Redcine has any secondaries anyway so it shouldn't be a problem. Still I'm often amazed at how often good neg is screwed up by lazy (or bold) colorists. Many do not even bother lifting their gamma to check the quality of their blacks as they notch a reel. For important FX shots I usually ask for a flat pass (dMIN / dMAX) as a backup.

[Simon Blackledge]

Wowsers!..

Might be an option for this..
http://www.neatvideo.com/index.html?snim

[Tom Lowe]

Forget sunsets, at ISO 4000 with a fast lens you can probably shoot a night sky full of stars! Or at least catch twilight stars...

Jim, does the noise lessen considerably if you downsample and do your post in 2k?

[Alex Boothby]

I'd say yes - acceptable noise for 4K is different than acceptable noise for 2K, HD, SD, youtube....

[Alex Boothby]

Oh also... it is a good idea to use a high quality filter when down resezing. A low quality filter (or default, often) will produce zinging which can increase noise. I wonder if RED and /or REDCINE will have filter options for resizing, or if they will just use a high quality default? Greame is a master at this so I wouldn't worry.

[Laco Zamba]

So, can we make some connection between this test and dynamic range?

[Fergus Meiklejohn]

This is as big of a deal as shooting 4K itself.

You said it amigo,

total respect RED team..:construction:

[Alex Boothby]

So, can we make some connection between this test and dynamic range?

Less noise = more dymanic range. back in November Graeme had this to say:

"Also, remember dynamic range is the inverse of signal to noise ratio. With a digital system, nothing stops you clipping off the top, but you can just keep going down until you hit the noise floor."

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=770409&postcount=4

[baro]

I know we all love to hear good news but I know that speaking for a lot of photographers that the 1Ds Mark II rated at anything above 1600 makes crap photos. Maybe the Mark III is that much better. I live with a photo editor and I know that she has never accepted photos that were as noisy as that. Obviously what's acceptable is an opinion. That's my point.

Moving picture tend to average out the noise of individual frames to some extent. When you look at only one frame of a video it will LOOK noisier than the video played back. So even if the still picture is too noise for you from the Mark III, it would look better as part of a moving picture.

[Laco Zamba]

Less noise = more dymanic range. back in November Graeme had this to say:

"Also, remember dynamic range is the inverse of signal to noise ratio. With a digital system, nothing stops you clipping off the top, but you can just keep going down until you hit the noise floor."


Question is - how much down is acceptable? - how much noise is acceptable? Its subjective.

I think that this test showed that 4 stops down is pretty acceptable noise.
Interesting will be more specific dynamic range tests.

[Nick Shaw]

I wonder if RED and /or REDCINE will have filter options for resizing, or if they will just use a high quality default?

I remember at NAB during Mike Curtis' REDCINE demo he showed that you could choose what filter was used for scaling.

[Blair S. Paulsen]

I have heard good things about Shake and AE for scaling if you don't have the $$ for a high end hardware box (Teranex, etc.). Anybody done a head to head? Maybe can share a link? Will RedCine render (pardon the pun) this issue moot?

I was amazed at Jim's statement that the new design has no fixed pattern noise - Michael Bravin might be interested to hear that - or is he noting some other image flaw in Crossing The Line?

Random noise should be less noticeable, especially when there is a fair bit of motion in the frame. Will it look more "filmlike" since the nature of silver halide granular formation is inherently random?

I figured the search for FPN would be part of the "treasure hunt" at the LART, perhaps we will just have to try and find Finner's humor bone, perhaps it looks like a white disc...

[R. Gonzales]

We have successfully done testing at ISO (ASA) 4000. It is noisy but very useable. You might even be able to squeek out ISO 8000. The Mysterium® sensor is so clean that it is amazing.

Jim

WAAAA??? GTFOH... Holy Shit, Lets see it.

Method

[regista]

A base rating ISO EV of 320 to 500 at 0 gain is pretty much what I had hoped it would turn out to be. Never expected more than that, all things considered. So, if I'm getting that, along with a "useable" spread of up to 4000... Man, that's gravy! Can you imagine?

Ahhh... the wonders of RAW image processing never cease to amaze me.

[Häakon]

We are struggling to assign an ISO rating to the camera. We now think it is 320. But a "trained professional" thinks it is closer to 400-500. Somewhere in there. I guess "officially" (for now) we are stating 320.

The image is very clean. We exposed for 4000 (without any sensor gain) which creates a massive under-exposure. Then we lifted up the image out of the dirt and were very surprised at the result. It seemed noisy (as expected), but about the same, or similar to, a Canon 1D Mk III (rated at 3200). Useable.

Jim
Some people consider the noise that the HVX produces to be "useable" too, but I suppose this is subjective. :)

I don't know a professional photographer who would be caught dead shooting with their dSLR at ISO 3200 (even with a MKIII), but it is reassuring to know that the camera can at least be pushed that far and an image of recognizable sort be obtained. I think that if industry DPs are even able to shoot comfortably at ISO 800 with little noise, they're going to be pleased as punch. Adding even 6db of gain to the current crop of digital [video] cameras makes the image quite unsuitable to my tastes in all but the rarest of situations. I just hope people aren't getting crazy ideas that they don't need to light anymore because their camera is "useable" at ISO4000. Intensity is just one property of light - you still need shape, contrast, direction, color, quality!

Extremely good news is the declaration of no noticeable FPN, which was quite noticeable only three months ago in the Peter Jackson short. I only wish I could even begin to comprehend what it is that a "sensor engineer" has to do to make these things so perfect. I admit, I'm still floored that you guys seem to be the only company who are delivering on all of these miraculous promises, but then again I'm certainly not complaining. :)

Can't wait for the RED#8 test-a-thon... it's going to be one fun ride. :gun:

[Christoffer Glans]

I never been around something that just gets better and better each day.
Every technical stuff I ever read about always has some flaws but the RED is just good news... now, if only someone could give me around $25000 so I can begin making my movies, I would in return buy that person a porsche or ferrari when my films start making money... pleeeeease :D

[G.A. Kokes]

Jim,

Any chance of posting a screen grab of this shot?

Thanks,
G.A

www.AuroraCoast.com

[Adrian T.]

:w00t: ISO 4000? Congrats! Can't wait to see some footage...

[Jeremy Hughes]

If I shoot ISO 8000 with the dynamic range of RED ONE, I won't even need lighting. So is this noise luminescence or chroma based? I was thinking monochrome would look okay. But CMOS sensors tend to have a lot of chroma noise in my opinion. Also, how much is the dynamic range decreased at ISO 4000 and 8000.

If you reduce the noise at 4K and downsample to 480p You'll get limpidity.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=72097 Jim talking about ISO 10 months ago
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=75425 Misquoting Jim and talking a bit about vision research

Wow, going back to DVXuser Red fourms... Everything was so quiet there. Unlike REDuser. Even the smallest voice could be heard. And Jarrred wasn't to busy to post.

[ChristopherKenworthy]

Now imagine some Zeiss Master primes at T1.3 with an ISO of 4,000!



I'll be using Red with Master Primes in early 2008, and if we can even get close to an ISO of 4000, it's going to give us so much creative flexibility. Of course, rental of the Master Primes costs more than buying the entire Red kit, but that's fair enough.

[kunal2]

That's why it is called Mysterium,it has got a lot of mysteries yet to deliver,can't wait to see the results:calm: :calm:


We have successfully done testing at ISO (ASA) 4000. It is noisy but very useable. You might even be able to squeek out ISO 8000. The Mysterium® sensor is so clean that it is amazing.

Jim

[kunal2]

Hi,glad to hear that,the same happened to me,watch the results
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7645949@N08/767208684/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7645949@N08/767208668/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7645949@N08/767208692/in/photostream/

number6, looking back on my own journey, I am so phenomenally glad that 3 years ago I purchased a professional DSLR and learned it well. It has prepared me really well for Red, in ways that I would not have otherwise received by not coming from a film background. A DSLR taught me all about ISO, focal lengths, what the mm in the lenses means, etc. You have several months, I strongly recommend immediately purchasing a DSLR and learning it inside and out. Red is really just a big DSLR that can go at fast continuous FPS.

[Siva Kollipara]

When I first read the thread heading, I thought Jim was referring to some sort of ISO quality certifications(like ISO:9001, ISO:14000) that company has received.
I am newbee to Cinematography,I had to read every post to realize that you are referring to sensitivity of the sensor.
please don't tell me that Jim actually referring to RED TEN in 2020 :)

[JD Holloway]

OK Gaffers,

Sell your generators and invest in LED lighting.

If REDONE can deliver 1000 iso (virtually) noise free, Lord knows what RED2 upgrade will do. You can imagine the demand 5000+ RED owners could put on the development timetable for 24M pixel cmos RED2 sensor, even if it outputs "only" 4K. Noise floor? More like noise basement!

Great news.

[Shawn Nelson]

Hi,glad to hear that,the same happened to me,watch the results
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7645949@N08/767208684/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7645949@N08/767208668/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7645949@N08/767208692/in/photostream/

wow dude, those are good! You have vision

[Don Woods]

Holly Shiznit. That is fantastic

[Kevin Halverson]

We are struggling to assign an ISO rating to the camera. We now think it is 320. But a "trained professional" thinks it is closer to 400-500. Somewhere in there. I guess "officially" (for now) we are stating 320.

Using an ISO based equivalent for a digital acquisition device is rather subjective as there are no good standards for a testing regiment.

I would suggest a slightly different approach that might yield a more useful specification than ISO. First, establish a system bench mark based upon the device itself. With no applied signal (dark sensor) and the pre quantizer gain set to its minimum value, establish the noise floor in terms of the quantizer's range (say it is +/- 1 LSB). Now, for this same condition establish the illumination level (using any accepted unit of measure) necessary to drive the quantizer to FS. This provides a bench mark of the best case S/N ratio. Next plot the change in dynamic range for increasing values of pre quantizer gain, perhaps in 3 dB steps (or using whatever step size the camera provides). The data pairs (FS illumination / quantizer gain) and the resulting dynamic range each gain step would provide allows someone to fully understand the relationship between gain, illumination level and noise. Not a simple single dimension number like ISO, but a table of the actual properties of the camera under a finite number of conditions. If a single dimension number were really important, this data would give an equivalent input noise specification.

Its an easy test to perform, very repeatable and one that provides highly correlated and useful information. Reminds me of attempting to characterize noise in ultra high performance audio applications, something I do in my line of work. Marketing always wants a single number that they can use in sales literature, engineering always complains that a single dimension spec fails to provide a clear picture of the actual performance and makes comparing one product to the next by published specs alone, a useless endeavor.

The RED is a breakout product and can take a breakout approach to specifications and choose to provide not just the typical ones, but takes an approach which provides real world usable data.

[ColinSmith]

For (some kind of vague) reference I dug around for some Canon 1DMk111 shots at iso 3200.
Smugmug (http://jlb.smugmug.com/gallery/3034056/1/165005356#165005356)

[tj williams]

KH Muse. Have seen other digital camera makers use ASA type comparisons. Can you explain why this is a bad way to make comparisons? This looks pretty good compared to spec. seen on various newer prof. DSLRcameras which use comparable technology. Does your proposed spec. get used by any of these so we could use it to compare the mysterium to say a Canon Dslr or NIkon Dslr?
For my money this is exciting and means I'm gonna be using smaller wattage lighting a lot!
I'm interested if someone on the forum has ideas about application of noise reduction prior to reducing to HD for output of programming? or 2K for film outs. Will noise reduction at the earlier stage keep more resolution in the final product as I suspect?

[Alex Boothby]

Will noise reduction at the earlier stage keep more resolution in the final product as I suspect?

This may help but only by a small margin. Then again... an aggressive post noise reduction may soften and/or average the image, so yes I guess it would help to noise reduce the 4K first (as you don't want to further soften your 2K or HD down-res.) Again, I think it is wise to really get to know the down-res filtering options to minimize noise (high quality sampling takes much more processing power, is slower, is softer, but can be much better - less zingy.) Also remember that wavelette compression can be thought of as a kind of noise reduction, and is even used in some noise reduction software algorithms - if I'm not mistaken.

[SF Geek]

Hey boothba, can you recommend a post colorist for the LART? Obviously quality post is a big factor in getting a great final image.

Colin, are you sure that that photo from your link was shot at ISO 3200? I have to admit that I'm impressed at the lack of croma in the grain. It actually looks quite nice.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Yeah but ASA has never accurately described the response of any recording medium--digital or analog. It's use is in the fact that it's a single number. A single reference point from which to judge everything else.

[Alex Boothby]

Hey boothba, can you recommend a post colorist for the LART testing? Obviously quality post is a big factor in getting a great final image.

Does it have to be in LA? :tongue: I could hook you up with a top colorist in Toronto - but then you may have to rename the project.... TART!!!!

But back to LA - I've worked with Stefan Sonnenfeld of Company 3, but he'd probably cost an arm and a leg. Perhaps you could contact the folks at Assimilate - although I'm not sure if SCRATCH supports REDCODE yet.

I don't think you need the most extravagant, creative colorist in the world - just someone who understands the technical nature of your tests and therefore doesn't wreck your footage. Sometimes the "famous" guys feel compelled to push your neg (or digital neg) as far as it will go, just to set a new look, justify their rep, or whatever.

It may actually be smart to just use REDCINE so that you don't have to convert hours of footage to uncompressed DPX, TIFFS or CINEON files - which will certainly turn this into a multi-terabyte project. Select shots can then be honed on compositing aps like Shake / Fusion / Nuke / Flame /After Effects / whatever... I'm sure Gavin knows best.

Actually... I could probably pull a favor with Technicolor Burbank or Culver City. Let me make an inquiry.

[ColinSmith]

Colin, are you sure that that photo from your link was shot at ISO 3200? I have to admit that I'm impressed at the lack of croma in the grain. It actually looks quite nice.

Well...... I'm sure that the link was specifically about iso3200 shots, but I did not shoot them, so.......

Here is a bigger 3200 example, from a 1D mk3 3200 vs 1Ds mk2 1600 comparison
Rodeo (http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/images/1d3_rodeo.jpg)
Says there was chromo noise reduction applied but no luma NR.

I mean, we do not know at the moment, but if this is the kind of image Jim is comparing with...... :w00t:

[Kevin Halverson]

KH Muse. Have seen other digital camera makers use ASA type comparisons. Can you explain why this is a bad way to make comparisons? This looks pretty good compared to spec. seen on various newer prof. DSLRcameras which use comparable technology. Does your proposed spec. get used by any of these so we could use it to compare the mysterium to say a Canon Dslr or NIkon Dslr?

I must admit that I haven't seen any DSLR use my suggested measurement approach. My idea was to not be tied to specifications that are to varying degrees, meaningless. I do understand why one would like to have an ISO number to work with (I shoot film so this isn't a foreign concept to me) but the reality is a digital system doesn't lend itself to such a simple, single dimension specification, rather as I mentioned, its a bit more complex. It is the relationship between pre quantizer gain and the resulting noise that is important. Picking a single ISO number is fine but for any given ISO (gain setting) there is a noise characteristic which results, trying to tie it down to one ISO number doesn't reflect the reality of the system. The film equivalent is how a given stock's grain character changes when pushed to varying degrees.

I will certainly perform these tests myself (shouldn't take more than a few hours to complete) and will have the data sets available should anyone be interested in the results.

[Gene Crucean]

The mk3 is definitely a nice camera. Great quality at high iso's. The only negative about it I've heard is an autofocus problem when wide open with long lenses.

I want to see an image before getting too giggly tho.

[Häakon]

Colin, are you sure that that photo from your link was shot at ISO 3200? I have to admit that I'm impressed at the lack of croma in the grain. It actually looks quite nice.
It's also teeny-tiny in size; when downsampled every image looks better (and in fact, noise is reduced). The native file size of the MKIII images are an order of magnitude larger than that sample, so it's not a good reference to go by.

Here's a shot taken with the MKIII at 6400 iso; certainly "useable" at this resolution: http://www.robgalbraith.com/data/1/rec_imgs/1979_eos-1d_mark_III_vball_06_midres.jpg

(but the un-resized original would look far worse).

Colin's new sample is a much better indication of the image size-wise. Interesting that the picture shows only luma noise - I would be interested to know what kind of post processing may have been done? Here's a shot from the MKIII at ISO3200 from a reputable dSLR testing site:

http://69.93.231.164/PRODS/E1DMK3/FULLRES/E1DMK3LL32007.JPG

Note that at 100%, the noise looks much worse than when you shrink it down for the web. There's no question that technology is getting insanely better and what we're able to do today is miraculous compared to digital technology of the past - but I still feel that "useable" is a relative and subjective term and should be taken with caution. A frame grab from one of the ISO4000 tests would definitely be nice.

Keep in mind that if you're shooting 4K with RED but you're delivering to DVD (or even HD, really), you're downrezzing quite a lot and this will help reduce noise. This of course negates the fact that if you are intending to hold on to your "4K master" for projection purposes or high-res distribution in the future, all of the native noise will still be there - but it does provide compelling options for some.

I just hope people don't start shooting everything at fanatic ISOs because they feel the camera is pushable to a ridiculous degree... there are far more numerous reasons to light besides simply illuminating a subject.

[Joe Aurili]

If I can shoot at ISO4000 / 8000 in low light conditions with no added lighting and reduce it to 720P and it looks great then I will be one happy camper.

[Don Woods]

I could have really used this for a documentry that I worked on. I think of how allot of the shots turned out and wow this would have been a big difference.

[Emanuel A.]

Great news though late after my bill on the fastest lenses I have got it! :-)

Anyway, go ahead RED team, you are our indie army. ;-)

[Unwounded]

That's is sooooo awesome.....and it's great to finally have an answer on the ASA so I can finally stop humming and haghing about lens ect... Now I can really start to plan out my kit. Great work!

[Charles Angus]

That shot of the cowboy doesn't look very grainy - compared to 7218 it's pristine...

Charles

[Brook Willard]

I'm locking this thread down to consolidate discussion to Jim's new comparison thread. (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3235)