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

Sanjin Jukic

10-05-2009, 07:48 AM

Geoff Boyle FBKS (http://www.cinematography.net/geoff/), cinematographer and leader of

CML - Cinematography Information & Discussion (http://www.cinematography.net/)

did extensive digital camera testings at the

Hands on HD - the annual high definition-event in Hannover. (http://www.hands-on-hd.de/index.php?id=37&L=2&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=71&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=1&cHash=e8c6301e3d)

"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>>> (http://ls.cinematography.net/read/login/?go=http://ls.cinematography.net/read/?forum%3Dcml-digital-raw)

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

10-05-2009, 07:50 AM

-3 less = 3 more

Will Keir

10-05-2009, 07:58 AM

-3 less = 3 more

???

Stuart English

10-05-2009, 08:10 AM

Irri

10-05-2009, 08:10 AM

It was a joke about double negatives.

Hans von Sonntag

10-05-2009, 08:19 AM

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

10-05-2009, 08:34 AM

Eki Halkka

10-05-2009, 08:43 AM

"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>>> (http://ls.cinematography.net/read/login/?go=http://ls.cinematography.net/read/?forum%3Dcml-digital-raw)

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

10-05-2009, 09:16 AM

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.

10-05-2009, 09:19 AM

Steve G

10-05-2009, 09:22 AM

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

10-05-2009, 09:51 AM

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

10-05-2009, 09:52 AM

Graeme Nattress

10-05-2009, 10:03 AM

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

10-05-2009, 10:07 AM

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

10-05-2009, 10:10 AM

BradWright

10-05-2009, 10:23 AM

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

10-05-2009, 10:25 AM

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

10-05-2009, 10:27 AM

Sanjin in panic ... again :rolleyes:

Graeme Nattress

10-05-2009, 10:29 AM

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

Tim Sutherland

10-05-2009, 10:30 AM

I think an important consideration in ETTR is to make the decision by scene, which most likely means that you TEST the camera before shooting it, just like you would if you've never shot Kodak Vision 3 before.

The reason I think it's important per scene, or maybe per dynamic range envirnonment, is that you can sometimes be opening up the iris 1/3 of a stop to fill the histogram and then close it back down for the reverse, if you are matching shots. Now you have DOF changes and other considerations.

I think this is a decent hybrid between the 'old' ISO based system, and the histogram reading situation, because you can use the histogram in your tests, and say, for this 2pm daylight exterior, we are going to rate the camera at 500ISO and fill in the shadows a bit, in order to keep the skys blue. That way you have a base exposure setting to help with continuity of lensing, etc.

I think that's one of the big differences between using a histogram for stills and a histogram for motion. In motion, a lot of times you make aesthetic choices with the lens, shutter speed, etc, and then you work the lighting/DR (as much as you can control it) around that (although, you can't just pluck numbers out of the air, it requires testing). This allows you to have that continuity in a scene, especially matching elements, that are sometimes (often?) not necessary when exposing for digital stills.

Hopefully my point is clear here.

Dylan Macleod, CSC

10-05-2009, 10:34 AM

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.

I am hoping that ARRI's new Dynamic Range Test Chart is going to help level the playing field when it comes to camera to camera comparison of dynamic range.

http://www.arricsc.com/pdf/2009_09_ARRINEWS_EVF_DRTC.pdf

I have been in contact with ARRI so that a side by side analysis can be performed with many of the camera systems mentioned here - and adding in Kodak and Fuji stocks.

I know that there are systems with more dynamic range than the RED. That didn't stop me from buying one.

Hans von Sonntag

10-05-2009, 10:38 AM

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

Leo, developing at ISO 160 or changing metadata in camera to 160 and using this for exposure does indeed no good to the shots. But taking a lightmeter setting it to 160 ASA will bring you near to the acclaimed 320 Metadata ASA Graeme is referring to.

Basically there are two user groups with Red. The ex film people who like to rely on stock, ASA indices and lightmeter and the video folks who love to see what they are doing. Metadata ASA and "legacy" lightmeter ASA don't match, IMO. This confuses people. In doubt follow Red's advises. But then don't use a lightmeter.

Hans

Axel Mertes

10-05-2009, 10:46 AM

I agree with Graeme.

Exposure of a scene can be controlled without even thinking about an ISO setting nor actually selecting one. In fact I can do the same perfect exposure with a RED ONE at ISO 2000 as I can do at ISO 160. Because its RAW it is always the very same data. The only thing that changes is that my preview will look either too bright, too dark, or somehow right when going to e.g. ISO 320.

The ISO setting is a preset for interpreting the data, either for live monitoring or later quick review. Remember, you can always override or alter the ISO settings on any R3D file.

Its nice if a camera can catch a really wide dynamic range. But a DOP / AC should be able to adjust the camera and lit the scene to a point where the dynamic range almost fits the scene. IMHO its their job. The less they care about this, the more latitude is required to compensate.

If one day the perfect sensor would be there, that would catch every single photon for sure, then we might never more discuss to light a scene. We would just point and shoot. DOPs jobs would be down to framing "somehow". Well, I clearly not expect such a day to come in my lifetime.

One more thing:

The cameras that have been "compared" here have drastically lower resolution than the RED ONE. If you downscale the RED ONE image to the same resolution as they have by nature, you immediately gain dynamic range. That is simple math.

With all respect to the poeple involved, as long as I have not seen proof that this has been taken into account in the comparison, the whole thing is just wrong IMHO.
I do not say that the RED is better or close to F35 etc. I did such tests myself and know there are differences. And the F35 low light performance is incredible - no question. But the values stated have to be carefully examined.

At which resolution has each camera been tested exactly?
IMHO only a 1920x1080y scaledown of all of them would be a valid comparison. Clearly not for sharpness, but for dynamic range.

I can use my good old low dynamic range Hi8, expose just to its limits, downscale that to 24*18 pixels and will for sure have the widest dynamic range of them all... pristine!

In stop motion - were exposure time isn't an issue - we use so called "frame averaging" to increase the quality of the exposure. Noise goes down drastically. You may shoot 100 frames with a Hi8 body and the resulting image with frame averaging looks far better then the most expensive camera would do in a "live shot".

As Greame pointed out, dynamic range is a function of signal to noise ratio, the higher the resolution is, the higher the comparable noise will be.

Apples to apples, pies to pies.

Axel

BradWright

10-05-2009, 10:58 AM

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

Graeme

I'm just wondering is there a standard test for measuring noise levels by comparing changes between frames on a test chart. I wrote an App that I never finished which compared stuff like this. This seems like the missing link in the scientific analysis of measuring noise floors on locked down shots. I really should finish that App.

Stephen Williams

10-05-2009, 11:25 AM

Hi Sanjin,

So this is the second time you have been anti G.B.! IIRC the first time was in the build 8 days.

Geoff has shot an awful lot with RED one, because he understands the cameras limitations he is able to get the most out of it.

Stephen

Geoff Boyle FBKS (http://www.cinematography.net/geoff/), cinematographer and leader of

CML - Cinematography Information & Discussion (http://www.cinematography.net/)

did extended digital camera testings at the

Hands on HD - the annual high definition-event in Hannover. (http://www.hands-on-hd.de/index.php?id=37&L=2&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=71&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=1&cHash=e8c6301e3d)

"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>>> (http://ls.cinematography.net/read/login/?go=http://ls.cinematography.net/read/?forum%3Dcml-digital-raw)

I write now and would consider this suggestion as a sort of Warning Message to 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."

Steve G

10-05-2009, 11:25 AM

[QUOTE=Axel Mertes;487961]I agree with Graeme.
Its nice if a camera can catch a really wide dynamic range. But a DOP / AC should be able to adjust the camera and lit the scene to a point where the dynamic range almost fits the scene. IMHO its their job. The less they care about this, the more latitude is required to compensate.

I think that all dop's would say that of course they would love to be able to light to perfection everything that they shoot. Sadly, budget and time pressures mean that we don't always have the exact lighting tools or resources to be able to do that. I shot a commercial recently which could have been done on the red, but we were doing a night shoot and we only had vehicle access and budget for one small cherry picker, which then meant that we had to limit the size of the main "moon light" to an 18k to cover a very large field. I knew that by the time I softened that down to get a nice spread, I would be dead if I used a red, so I went for the P2 Varicam 3700, which is a fantastic low light Hi Def camera.

The cameras that have been "compared" here have drastically lower resolution than the RED ONE. If you downscale the RED ONE image to the same resolution as they have by nature, you immediately gain dynamic range. That is simple math.

So, given that more and more stuff that we shoot is being watched on the internet or on tv screens, as opposed to cinema screens, do we really need 4 k resolution ? I don't know the answer to that one. (Certainly, the last thing I shot on Red was posted at 2k) Maybe arri, with their new 2 k camera, feel that the "good enough" scenario comes into play in terms of resolution.

BradWright

10-05-2009, 11:31 AM

I agree with Graeme.

One more thing:

The cameras that have been "compared" here have drastically lower resolution than the RED ONE. If you downscale the RED ONE image to the same resolution as they have by nature, you immediately gain dynamic range. That is simple math.

With all respect to the poeple involved, as long as I have not seen proof that this has been taken into account in the comparison, the whole thing is just wrong IMHO.
I do not say that the RED is better or close to F35 etc. I did such tests myself and know there are differences. And the F35 low light performance is incredible - no question. But the values stated have to be carefully examined.

At which resolution has each camera been tested exactly?
IMHO only a 1920x1080y scaledown of all of them would be a valid comparison. Clearly not for sharpness, but for dynamic range.

Axel

Excellent point! 4 to 1 down sampling to 1080p is a significant way to reduce noise if done correctly. This would explain some of the huge gap in reported DR.

One of the problems I noticed when shooting the Red is that the 720p output for monitoring is a significant detractor when compared to monitoring at 1080p. There are digital artifacts that occur in the down sampled 720p output that aren't present in the final image. The impression you get from the 720p output is that everything is very soft and a bit nosier than the high res R3D.

If you are shooting side by side and the F35 is feeding a 1080p and the Red is producing a 720p image, you are going to be biased towards the F35.

CsabaJuhasz

10-05-2009, 12:01 PM

If so, why such experienced cinematographer, Geoff Boyle doesn't take it into consideration and do this test such a way?

Eki Halkka

10-05-2009, 12:16 PM

If so, why such experienced cinematographer, Geoff Boyle doesn't take it into consideration and do this test such a way?

That's a good question... but funnily enough, most camera shootout tests out there have done something wrong with the red footage, so i wouldn't be surprised if...

Stuart English

10-05-2009, 12:26 PM

To be noted is the 1280 x 720p PVW output from RED is intended as a HD video assist, it's not Program video.

And as we do NOT add any sharpness (edge enhancement) in the camera, yes it will look a touch soft v's other cameras.

Also the noise floor and color purity of the HD-SDI outputs are significantly better since Build 20 firmware.

Hans von Sonntag

10-05-2009, 01:04 PM

With all respect to the poeple involved, as long as I have not seen proof that this has been taken into account in the comparison, the whole thing is just wrong IMHO.
I do not say that the RED is better or close to F35 etc. I did such tests myself and know there are differences. And the F35 low light performance is incredible - no question. But the values stated have to be carefully examined.

At which resolution has each camera been tested exactly?
IMHO only a 1920x1080y scaledown of all of them would be a valid comparison. Clearly not for sharpness, but for dynamic range.

I can use my good old low dynamic range Hi8, expose just to its limits, downscale that to 24*18 pixels and will for sure have the widest dynamic range of them all... pristine!

In stop motion - were exposure time isn't an issue - we use so called "frame averaging" to increase the quality of the exposure. Noise goes down drastically. You may shoot 100 frames with a Hi8 body and the resulting image with frame averaging looks far better then the most expensive camera would do in a "live shot".

As Greame pointed out, dynamic range is a function of signal to noise ratio, the higher the resolution is, the higher the comparable noise will be.

Apples to apples, pies to pies.

Axel

Hi Axel,

isn't the RedOne effectively a 1080p/2K camera? How many 4K cameras are out there... One reason why the RedOne holds up so well is the power of oversampling, IMO. Here I heartly agree. But since the comparison standard is 1080p and oversampling is part of the RedOne's technology we compare oranges, to oranges, IMHO

Hans

Sanjin Jukic

10-05-2009, 02:12 PM

Hi Sanjin,

So this is the second time you have been anti G.B.! IIRC the first time was in the build 8 days.

Geoff has shot an awful lot with RED one, because he understands the cameras limitations he is able to get the most out of it.

Stephen

Hi Stephen,

there is no need to "advocate" G.B. from you here because whatever he and his collaborators

did with those tests there are going to be published and available to the public soon at CML pages.

The main idea behind that sort of warning was a reason that RED should not RUSH with shipping Epic-X

before Mysterium-X is not totally ready for the (bright) future in a comparison to the competition.

Take these two possible "scenarios" to count:

Scenario-1:

Next year at October 2010 somebody doing a comparative digital camera test.

They found that new ARRI camera has 3 stops more latitude than RED EPIC-X.

some of the main Hollywood cinematographers like a R. Deakins, M. Ballhaus, R. Richardson, etc, ..(just to name a few top cinematographers)

that before were mostly shooting film now at 2010 suddenly switching to digital (ARRI new digital camera)

because they said that it has equal sensitivity of the main film stocks like a Kodak Vision 3 500T...

Scenario-2:

Next year at October 2010 somebody doing a comparative digital camera test.

They found that new RED Epic digital camera system has equal or even more exposure latitude than new ARRI digital camera system.

Also EPIC has 5K resolution and with new RED de-Bayer software you can get a pure 4K resolution that has equal as 4K film scans.

With almost the same exposure latitude and resolution as film scans at 4K RED EPIC digital camera system with its specs "attracted"

some of the main Hollywood cinematographers like a R. Deakins, M. Ballhaus, R. Richardson, etc, ..(just to name a few top cinematographers)

that before were mostly shooting film now at 2010 suddenly to digital (RED EPIC new digital camera system)

because they said that it has equal sensitivity of the main film stocks like a Kodak Vision 3 500T...

What I would like to "hear" is something like a "Scenario-2" with Mysterium-X upgraded new RED cameras for the next year.

Just in the case that "Scenario-1" could possibly happen then a lot of professionals will be going to switch on ARRI digital just because

it would have the same price range as a brand new full EPIC RED digital camera system between Euro 30.000 to 70.000 it depends on the configuration.

Also do not take all those names and comparisons so serious just because any future is unpredictable anyway.

That was about a little warning before the main game start next year.

Shawn Nelson

10-05-2009, 02:29 PM

3 stops? Come'on, i've repeatedly heard 1 to 1.5 stops

Felix K.

10-05-2009, 02:29 PM

Sanjin, the Mysterium-X sensor is done. Nothing can be changed there. We saw pictures of it already. Your clever "warning" (what would RED be without you) is a bit late. In 12 months, I'm pretty sure, we will be discussing what the Monstro-Sensor can do.

No good cinematographer will make up his mind about digital cameras and then stick forever to whatever was best at the time of his decision. They will always keep an open mind about technical advancements.

Why is it so important what other people think about RED or who works with it as long as you are happy with your cam (which I thought I could read hidden somewhere between the lines of all your posts)?

P.S.: Ballhaus more or less retired as D.P.

dustin lindgren

10-05-2009, 03:58 PM

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!

Exactly! Stop comparing cameras to RED that cost 15X more. Its a tool for people who want to use it. Go buy a $300,000 camera and tell me how much better it really is at the end of the day.

Leif Thomas

10-05-2009, 04:38 PM

sergio arguello

10-05-2009, 05:55 PM

cmon all this is just no longer needed or useful; superfluous the camera is DOPE!!
if DR is your focus then shoot film. All this brings to mind how many times i had to fight
with producers for REVERSAL film...get over it and sharpen your skills within the parameters of your equipment...stop waiting for 22 stops of latitude cause when it comes youll be out of a job...cause i can hear the producer saying "ill just shoot it"

just sayin

Dominic Cochran

10-06-2009, 12:11 AM

The main idea behind that sort of warning was a reason that RED should not RUSH with shipping Epic-X

before Mysterium-X is not totally ready for the (bright) future in a comparison to the competition.

Sorry Sanjin

http://reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=487262&postcount=188

Stephen Williams

10-06-2009, 12:20 AM

Hi Stephen,

there is no need to "advocate" G.B. from you here because whatever he and his collaborators

did with those tests there are going to be published and available to the public soon at CML pages.

.

Hi Sanjin,

You may remember David Stump's test of Frankie. 5000 people downloaded the tests, the Champagne was flowing until GB plotted the results against other cameras.

For some reason the Red One seems to perform badly in shoot-outs, lets hope Epic does better.

IMHO competition is a good thing Horses for Courses as GB would say.

Stephen

Gavin Greenwalt

10-06-2009, 12:22 AM

WARNING! There are sensors with 6 more stops than RED... which may or may not be available in the future for indeterminate prices in indeterminate quantities with unknown image quality! Stop everything that's happening now! We can't let the future sensors beat us!

I think this is one area where it's best to deliver as much as you can. The REDOne had less range than the F23 which was launched around the same time and both have been pretty successful. No need to panic yet.

Sanjin Jukic

10-06-2009, 12:33 AM

Hi Sanjin,

You may remember David Stump's test of Frankie. 5000 people downloaded the tests, the Champagne was flowing until GB plotted the results against other cameras.

For some reason the Red One seems to perform badly in shoot-outs, lets hope Epic does better.

IMHO competition is a good thing Horses for Courses as GB would say.

Stephen

Stephen,

all I wish and also the other REDusers for sure is that Mysterum - X

would have much much better performance than Mysterum sensor in R1.

In that case there is no reason for any rush with shipping Epic-X, etc,...

First get the best out of the product, second consider how that product would handle

with the competition and when you are sure that all is ready then start to ship it.

hans de vries

10-06-2009, 02:14 AM

Sanjin Jukic

10-06-2009, 04:04 AM

You stick to your oilpaint, Gavin, at least that hasn't changed for centuries:laugh:

http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/images/pv_buiten/fietser?coulisse&cropleft=9&croptop=10&cropwidth=492&cropheight=715
The Rijksmuseum Amsterdam

Or who else is the next time at IBC Amsterdam could visit the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam (http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/meesterwerken?lang=en) and learn about Rembrandt's "The Night Watch" (http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/formats/container_en.html) :laugh:.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/The_Nightwatch_by_Rembrandt.jpg/720px-The_Nightwatch_by_Rembrandt.jpg
The Night Watch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Watch_(painting)) (Dutch: De Nachtwacht) is the common name of one of the most famous works by Dutch painter Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn.

Bérenger Brillante

10-06-2009, 04:27 AM

All I know is that beyond " "only" 9 stops dynamic range", Red has bring to a lot of people the camera to shoot 35mm with.

I don't care if a F35 or a D21 has 3 stops more, I'm happy with mine, and most of my crew images are better than lots of (french) movie I see on Tv shot with genesis, d-21 or f23.

I thank the Red team for giving me the opportunity to work the same as with my hvx200, and yet have a hollywood style movie, --AD Mode ON see our short Bunker (http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/bunker+subtitle/video/xajacr_bunker-english-subtitles_shortfilms) to be sure of it, AD Mode Off--

I thank the Red team for the opportunity to be judged on cinematography, camera moves, framing, sound, editing, screenplay and directing, and not only with the camera used anymore.
I thank the Red team for opening me (and my fellows) the door to bigger cinema festivals, without Red, I'd be stuck with 1/3 HD and nobody would care.
That's the best I can tell for people always refering to charts. Though Geoff Boyle rocks

hans de vries

10-06-2009, 04:53 AM

http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/images/pv_buiten/fietser?coulisse&cropleft=9&croptop=10&cropwidth=492&cropheight=715
The Rijksmuseum Amsterdam

Or who else is the next time at IBC Amsterdam could visit the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam (http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/meesterwerken?lang=en) and learn about Rembrandt's "The Night Watch" (http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/formats/container_en.html) :laugh:.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/The_Nightwatch_by_Rembrandt.jpg/720px-The_Nightwatch_by_Rembrandt.jpg
The Night Watch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Watch_(painting)) (Dutch: De Nachtwacht) is the common name of one of the most famous works by Dutch painter Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn.

an example for many

Eki Halkka

10-06-2009, 05:17 AM

All I know is that beyond " "only" 9 stops dynamic range", Red has bring to a lot of people the camera to shoot 35mm with.

Well, R1 measures over 11 stops. Best home video cameras can do around 9 stops.

Sanjin Jukic

10-06-2009, 05:47 AM

Somebody already suggested that RED Mysterium-X should be balanced

(fixed) more to 3200K tungsten light (orange) than to daylight 5600K (blue).

The next generation of high-end cine digital cameras all will go that way of low light

hyper sensitivity just try to compete with the latest super sensitive film stocks.

Graeme Nattress

10-06-2009, 05:58 AM

No silicon based sensor is anywhere near tungsten balanced. Sure you can hack it, but you will loose in that hack (analogue gain on blue, or reducing green and red sensitivity).

Graeme

Charles Angus

10-06-2009, 06:25 AM

Any FUD thrown at Geoff Boyle re: improperly handling RED footage won't stick - he knows what he's doing, and has himself complained that RED footage in shootouts is not properly handled.

I give Geoff the benefit of the doubt on this one.

At the end of the day, if you want incredible latitude, shoot film. Case closed.

Steve G

10-06-2009, 06:28 AM

Stephen Williams

10-06-2009, 06:28 AM

Well, R1 measures over 11 stops. Best home video cameras can do around 9 stops.

A great deal depends your tollerance of noise.
FWIW Arri's 'nearest competitor' measured the F35 at 11.3 stops.

Sanjin Jukic

10-06-2009, 06:37 AM

No silicon based sensor is anywhere near tungsten balanced. Sure you can hack it, but you will loose in that hack (analogue gain on blue, or reducing green and red sensitivity).

Graeme

Graeme,

can you do it for us that is somewhere in between the two, daylight and tungsten.

BTW, I have already 5.000 posts!!! :emote_happyhappy::hurray::party:

Johan Lindgren

10-06-2009, 06:37 AM

This looks cool.

http://www.alibaba.com/product-free/104510640/Dynamax35_Multimode_Video_Sensor.html

100 db range in hdr mode.

New sensor Dynamax from panavision. It may have been discussed before.

Johan

Lauri Kettunen

10-06-2009, 06:39 AM

In that case there is no reason for any rush with shipping Epic-X, etc,...

Here I have to say that I don't agree with Sanjin.

Even if Epic-X had the same sensor as Red One, Epic-X would already be an important improvement. Epic-X will have several features of usability that are significant. Such as (less than) 2s boot up time, considerable smaller energy consumption, adaptivity to different kind of needs --cranes, jibs, gyrostabilizers, under water housings, still image feature and so on.

And we know that there will also be a better sensor. How much, yes that's a good question, but we will know soon.

Michael Hastings

10-06-2009, 07:01 AM

Here I have to say that I don't agree with Sanjin.

Even if Epic-X had the same sensor as Red One, Epic-X would already be an important improvement. Epic-X will have several features of usability that are significant. Such as (less than) 2s boot up time, considerable smaller energy consumption, adaptivity to different kind of needs --cranes, jibs, gyrostabilizers, under water housings, still image feature and so on.

And we know that there will also be a better sensor. How much, yes that's a good question, but we will know soon.

Agree with Lauri here - there are so many things right about the configuration of Epic that I would want to upgrade even if the sensor was the same specs.

Eki Halkka

10-06-2009, 07:04 AM

A great deal depends your tollerance of noise.

Actually, when measuring a camera's dynamic range it doesn't.

Camera's dynamic range is determined simply from the difference between the darkest gray that can be differentiated from black to the lightest gray that can be differentiated from pure, burnt out white. The measurement doesn't take a stance in how noisy or clean the image is, just if those shades can be determined.

It's whole another issue what area within this range is perceptually considered to have an acceptable amount of noise, or, how much underexposure is considered to have an acceptable amount of noise. Or, what is perceived to be the usable dynamic range. That's a matter of opinion and application, not measurement.

That "usable range" depends on many factors, including the output resolution, filtering and color correction - i.e. when scaled fom 4K to D1 size, a lot of the noise will be filtered out by averaging pixels, allowing you to underexpose by roughly two stops while maintaining the same noise level when the image is examined pixel per pixel. Due to most noise being in dark areas, increasing the contrast in shadow areas while keeping brighter areas low contrast will make the image look noisier than having high contrast highlights and low contrast shadows. And so on.

Also, many cameras do in-camera noise reduction - if such footage is compared to a raw output from another camera, it's apples and oranges situation. Similar filtering can be done for raw footage, increasing the perceived signal-noise ratio and thus the usable dynamic range. The real-life performance of cameras should be compared at the same output resolution, and with similar processing (taking into account both in-camera processing and processing done in post).

Eki Halkka

10-06-2009, 07:05 AM

Graeme,

can you do it for us that is somewhere in between the two, daylight and tungsten.

Why not just add a daylight filter (or a half) in front of your lens, if you wish to tungsten-balance the camera?

Graeme Nattress

10-06-2009, 07:09 AM

You can hack any sensor to respond to white as white for any color temperature you want, within reason. If it makes sense to do so or not is another issue.

Graeme

Daniel Reichenbach

10-06-2009, 07:17 AM

Graeme,

can you do it for us that is somewhere in between the two, daylight and tungsten.

BTW, I have already 5.000 posts!!! :emote_happyhappy::hurray::party:

It's funny, some are always discussing, what could be better or not with RED One and are collecting posts, other are shooting the hell out of this great camera and every picture makes them happy, like me. RED ONE is NOT perfect, but as perfect as possible for what this camera wanted do be: the first affordable digital cinema camera for all of us.

Irmeli R

10-06-2009, 07:50 AM

Daniel Reichenbach

10-06-2009, 07:58 AM

Peter Moretti

10-06-2009, 08:43 AM

I can verify the results of the shootout on the Hands On HD workshop. My Red One (and 3 others) were involved and we saw some strange behaviors on all 3 cameras.

A copy of the original RAW material (and DPX-Sequenzes / ARRI RAW) is on my personal HDD and I will try and get some more information out of the tests when I find my time.

Under the given conditions (judging Redlog VS C-Log VS S-Log) there was no doubt the Red was lacking at least 2.5 stops. I will try some different post-routines, but with our grading system on the workshop the D21 (rated 200 ASA) got more latitude in highlights AND shadows than the Red One (320 ASA, build 20 / 21 beta) both on wide open Master Primes, conformed on a low-light / high contrast nightshot with a fire-breather.

On (unfiltered) 3200K it went even worse, but I think Geoff will get there in detail soon...

Unfortunately I'll be out shooting stuff the next 3 days, but I'll watch this thread closely for possible questions.

Geoff,

I think you've mentioned something very significant to all this. It's that in all likelihood, their test also used one of Sony's log gamma curves.

That IS Sony's way of adding more latitude, esp. w/ 10-bit color depth. Essentially the sensor has a lot more DR than 10-bits can capture linearly w/ a standard acquisition gamma curve. So Sony's solution is to use a type of logarithmic gamma curve.

Some love it and some don't. Michael Mann refused to use it on "Public Enemies" while shooting the F23 and EX-1, which goes a long way to explain the shadow noise.

I unsubscribed myself from the CML awhile ago b/c I couldn't deal with all the emails. But if anyone can post some more information about the test, that would be nice.

Anyway, I doubt the best offerings from Sony or ARRI are going to be any cheaper than many multiples of what Red costs, so I think a little perspective may be a good thing for everyone here. ARRI and the highest-end Sony's are priced to rent; Red's offerings are priced to buy or rent.

Stephen Williams

10-06-2009, 08:48 AM

Why not just add a daylight filter (or a half) in front of your lens, if you wish to tungsten-balance the camera?

Hi Elki,

You loose speed & quality.

I don't agree with your definition of DR, I am only interested in usable DR.
Latitude is the amount +/- from a mid point that still gives an acceptable result to the user in question.

Best,

Stephen

Peter Moretti

10-06-2009, 08:49 AM

Hehehe, sorry, Sanjin, but this is funny ;-)

But two years after that, when the sequel to "District 9" is release, Sanjin will be the DP, and he'll have the last laugh.

Eki Halkka

10-06-2009, 08:51 AM

You loose speed & quality.

You lose speed, yes, but the same happens if you do it in-camera.

And you won't lose quality, but actually gain some, as the blue channel will be properly exposed.

I don't agree with your definition of DR, I am only interested in usable DR.

It's not "my" definition, it's "the" definition.

PS: it's "Eki", not "Elki"

Alex Carr

10-06-2009, 09:20 AM

There are many other ways to properly expose the blue channel. A Blue Filter is not the answer since the weakest one takes 1 1/2 stop off the Lens. You need more light!!! And what happens is you end up not being able to properly expose at all, because you can't afford those lights on a particular budget. And 80C + 80D don't balance you to 5000K more like 3800-4200. So you need tungsten 12ks instead of just getting 4k HMI's

Also I've noticed from many tests, the Red is 300 ASA Camera. Expose for white and the Camera Matches a Spot meter, Forget about the 18% Gray, when do we ever shoot anything that is specifically 18%??? Brick buildings, the Sky and fresh green grass are close to 18% reflectance But how do you ever know for sure?? We should be referencing White and skin tones, not 18%. We know the reflectance of White, we know the reflectance of Skin tones. We never know what 18% grey is without a chart. Thats why it shouldn't be referenced.

Axel Mertes

10-06-2009, 10:05 AM

Hi Axel,

isn't the RedOne effectively a 1080p/2K camera? How many 4K cameras are out there... One reason why the RedOne holds up so well is the power of oversampling, IMO. Here I heartly agree. But since the comparison standard is 1080p and oversampling is part of the RedOne's technology we compare oranges, to oranges, IMHO

Hans

Hi Hans,

we both know we see the RED as a perfect 2K/HD camera, as then it holds up pretty perfect against 3 chip designs and their prism flaws :P

Anyhow, we should examine what was tested here to be able to judge on it, especially if customers of us point to it (we are in germany, so that may be the case). As I said, if one shoots a frame on the F35 and then on RED ONE, both full resolutions, the noise floor of the RED MUST be worth than the F35, otherwise the sensor would be really a "mysterium" (physics-wise).

Honestly I agree with the often mentioned idea that for us "RED owners" it isn't really important how much better the "one family house" priced Sony F35 is versus our RED ONEs. As long as we can make the images we want and need, we are satisfied. OK, I need to take a little more care when exposing, but I can have the house for (almost) free then. Good deal.

Sorry to say so, but IMHO Sajin's "warning" is both useless and annoying. Why? Well, useless, because no one can make a sensor that much better so quickly. Sensor design take several month. Sensors reach the limits of physics. You know how deep I am into this. I am damn sure RED tried to make the best possible payable sensor for the given time, so "warning" them not to release it if it doesn't match a users wishful expectations or possibly third parties comparison results, does neither help RED (because they can't do much about it, except taking a long time and a LOT of money to make the even better and way more expensive sensor that would solve Sajins wish but push the RED in the price region of the F35) nor us users, because we wait for EPIC cameras to arrive, to start working with, because they show some advancements in feature over RED ONE that we can at least make use of. It annoys me that one of us - the RED user base - raises the hand against upcoming product releases WITHOUT any idea of what will really come, sensors dynamic range wise. But that all is just my perspective on it.

Axel

Sanjin Jukic

10-06-2009, 10:21 AM

Scenario-3

Next year in October 2010 someone will notice that sanjin hasn't posted for months - he wonders where he might be. then a fellow austrian cinematographer will tell us that sanjin lost his marbles and is currently locked up in a funny farm outside of vienna constantly mumbling something like noctilux..noctilux..noctilux in his straight jacket.

Hehehe, sorry, Sanjin, but this is funny ;-)

By the way I do not owe Leica 50mm Noctilux older or newer version.

Also it is interesting phenomenon that some people use forum like this or internet in general to try out

to impose their bad taste or even to insult somebody without any reason.

That's all about that "bad taste" and provincial "Schweitzer" kind of humor from the country that

do not have any sense about it.

They also can claim that they are highly educated and so on but that more tell you about certain

trends with that sort of "petite bourgeoisie".

Now I shouldn't recall some masterpieces from the film history...

But they can't do anything to me at all and I'm laughing to them from my neighborhood of the Viennese Belvedere Garden close to their's (CH) embassy :001_tt2: :biggrinjester: :smilielol5:

Stephen Williams

10-06-2009, 10:35 AM

Hi Eki,

Placing a glass filter in front will cause a loss of quality.

'The' definition is of no practical use to a cinematographer, that's why I & others test for ourselves

Stephen

You lose speed, yes, but the same happens if you do it in-camera.

And you won't lose quality, but actually gain some, as the blue channel will be properly exposed.

It's not "my" definition, it's "the" definition.

PS: it's "Eki", not "Elki"

Sanjin Jukic

10-06-2009, 10:39 AM

Sorry to say so, but IMHO Sajin's "warning" is both useless and annoying. Why? Well, useless, because no one can make a sensor that much better so quickly. Sensor design take several month. Sensors reach the limits of physics. You know how deep I am into this. I am damn sure RED tried to make the best possible payable sensor for the given time, so "warning" them not to release it if it doesn't match a users wishful expectations or possibly third parties comparison results, does neither help RED (because they can't do much about it, except taking a long time and a LOT of money to make the even better and way more expensive sensor that would solve Sajins wish but push the RED in the price region of the F35) nor us users, because we wait for EPIC cameras to arrive, to start working with, because they show some advancements in feature over RED ONE that we can at least make use of. It annoys me that one of us - the RED user base - raises the hand against upcoming product releases WITHOUT any idea of what will really come, sensors dynamic range wise. But that all is just my perspective on it.

Axel

One more example of a "clever one" that knows everything about what's coming up from RED behind the curtain.

Getting pretty boring to listen and read this type of notions...