Mysterium X Build, vs. Build 21

[Christopher Probst]

Is the new build of firmware for the upgraded Mysterium X Red Ones built upon the same features as Build 21? From what I have found, aside from the different color science, FLUT and RedColor, it seems to be the same... 4.5K, Redcode 42...

Can anyone confirm and/or elaborate. I plan to use an M-X R1 on an upcoming commercial shoot this week...

[Chuck Z]

I suspect they are identical as well.

I'm sure the builds have separate code trees for RED One cameras with and without the Mysterium-X.

However, I'm sure most of the coding goes into supporting the surrounding hardware. After all, the upgrade was only for the sensor and OLPF. Remember, there are lots of other little parts that go tick inside the RED One body.

[Stuart English]

aside from the different color science, FLUT™™™™ and RedColor ...

Aside from those, yes it's the essentially same...so roughly equivalent to having a heart and lung transplant. :-)

[Cüneyt Kaya]

wow cool, so basically epic will have all the R1 features too plus some goodies like different viewing LUTs on the monitoring paths (hope my memory serves me well)

[Rick Darge]

Aside from those, yes it's the essentially same...so roughly equivalent to having a heart and lung transplant. :-)

So what's the MX upgrade akin to then?

[Nick Burridge]

So what's the MX upgrade akin to then?

Brain transplant of course. :rolleyes5:

[Greg M]

So what's the MX upgrade akin to then?

its like getting a new camera, the difference is really amazing. Honestly not sure why anyone would not spend the $5k to get this upgrade.

[Rick Darge]

Rent, food & water

[Greg M]

Rent, food & water

Why worry about those insignificant things when you can have a new camera :)

[Rick Darge]

Why worry about those insignificant things when you can have a new camera :)

Haha, for some reason I read that in a southern preacher's voice

[Christopher Probst]

I must say, thus far this new sensor seem very promising...

[PatC]

Its sensitivity is incredible.

[Peter Hodgins]

its like getting a new camera, the difference is really amazing. Honestly not sure why anyone would not spend the $5k to get this upgrade.I'm figuring on opting for stage III, and shooting Original RED ONE until that time. There must be a lot of people making this financial decision ... no? Should I upgrade and act on stage I or stage II instead? While shooting certain subjects the new chip has no advantage over the original ... am I wrong?

[C.H.Haskell]

Aside from those, yes it's the essentially same...so roughly equivalent to having a heart and lung transplant. :-)

Any chance us non MX guys will get a build that includes FLUT and redcolor?

[C.H.Haskell]

I'm figuring on opting for stage III, and shooting Original RED ONE until that time. There must be a lot of people making this financial decision ... no? Should I upgrade and act on stage I or stage II instead? While shooting certain subjects the new chip has no advantage over the original ... am I wrong?

Wrong, the new chip (M-X) has several advantages over the original mysterium chip. Higher dynamic range and lower noise floor to name a few. Search forum for some MX examples to compare yourself but its a night and day difference...specially when shooting pass ISO 500.

[David Battistella]

I know it's a new chip but I am also curious to see the new Color Science and FLUT™ in the old R1 with a new firmware build. That will also be a good test.

david

[Stuart English]

Any chance us non MX guys will get a build that includes FLUT™™ and redcolor?

Yes, as soon as we have adjusted a few parameters to optimize that firmware for the Mysterium sensor.

[Michael Epple]

So, do the new upgraded MX R1s have all of the same recording options: resolution, bitrate, and framerate, as well as an addition of FLUT controls and a Redcolor viewspace?

[Michael Epple]

Nobody has answers to those questions? Red....?

[Christopher Probst]

Playing with a M-x Red One this week. I found a few things about the upgraded camera... and Graeme, feel free to chime in here on what's going on.

First off, if you rate the camera at iso 320 with the FLUT at zero, the difference between RAW and RedColor is VERY little, just a touch more contrast and more color saturation it seems. BUT VERY little. Much less than comparing RAW with r709 and certain much less than RedSpace.

I did like having a built in "buffer" when lighting to 709 and having RAW be appreciably less in the highlights as protection. This is now significantly diminished with RedColor and I think I need to adjust my working style some to this new color science.

From what I have read, some at read have generalize that iso and FLUT are interchangeable, with FLUT offering smaller increments of sensitivity adjustment... Is that the case or is there more to it than that?

[Stuart English]

if you rate the camera at iso 320 with the FLUT™™™ at zero, the difference between RAW and RedColor is VERY little, just a touch more contrast and more color saturation it seems.

some at read have generalize that iso and FLUT™™™ are interchangeable..?

To get more highlight protection I'd suggest that you re-rate to ISO 800.

As to ISO and FLUT™™, yes technically they are both inputs to the FLUT™™ algorithm, but calibrated to different step sizes - 1/3 stop v's 1/10 th stop.

[Stuart English]

do the new upgraded MX R1s have the same resolution, bitrate, and framerate, as well as FLUT™ controls and REDcolor viewspace?

That is correct.

[XiaoSu Han]

Am I not going to underexpose too much if I go to ISO 800? If it's "red" in false colors it's gone anyways or not? Maybe we can get a revive the "exposure 1, 2, 3" thread, it's a bit confusing.

Wouldn't 640 be safer? (And it's exactly one stop higher than 320!)

[Christopher Probst]

To get more highlight protection I'd suggest that you re-rate to ISO 800.

As to ISO and FLUT™™™, yes technically they are both inputs to the FLUT™™™ algorithm, but calibrated to different step sizes - 1/3 stop v's 1/10 th stop.

Okay, gotcha, in order to separate what you see in RedColor vs. Raw, rate the sensor higher to build in your protection that way. It's a little bit different way of thinking about it, but I get the idea. On the particular job, I was full sunlight, day exterior, so rating at 800 iso seemed a little fool-hearty. However, by not rating higher, my highlights were borderline... As it was I had a Pola, ND 1.2 and a hot mirror.... Oh well here's to stacking on the filters!

[Scott Webster]

Stuart,

Are you still fine tuning the False Color 'Video' color index? In that mode the 'Maximum Exposure' color is yellow. Orange and Red aren't present.

If you are judging exposure solely on False Color Video , thinking you still had some room in RAW you would be wrong (although the RAW Color bar shows you have maxed out)

As far as I can tell the Maximum Exposure in RedColor/Video, Yellow, is the same as Red in Raw/Exposure and 105 Zebras.

[Stuart English]

If you are judging exposure solely on False Color Video , thinking you still had some room in RAW you would be wrong (although the RAW Color bar shows you have maxed out) .

With FLUT color science that would be poor operational practice given that you have got RAW exposure tools available to you.

Which build are you on btw?

[Scott Webster]

With FLUT™™™ color science that would be poor operational practice given that you have got RAW exposure tools available to you.

I understand that Stuart.

As Chris has pointed out those use to exposing based on RedSpace or REC709 and a stop of safety based on the False Color reading would be caught out with the Yellow reading currently provided by False Color Video in Build 30. There is no Orange or Red.

The RAW color bar does clip out at Red when RedColor Video shows yellow and this does correspond with Exposure False Color Red. This is what lead me to crosscheck what was happening with False Color Video.

Do you plan to introduce the highlight protection function back into RedColor False Color 'Video'?

From my own experience the False Color mode has been largely ignored by our users with the Red One. Operators still preferring their meters, ETTR Histogram or Zebras.

I think with the changes that have been introduced with MX False Color we now have an excellent tool to give them. Combined with the Multi-key I hope it becomes the first choice in judging exposure with the Red MX.

FWIW I preferred the original Build 22 labels Video and RAW for False Color. Currently running Build 30 on Red MX #23

[Stuart English]

Hi Scott. Video False Color does include the Orange and Red bars as before - if you enable the LUMA RAMP test signal you can see that.

The key difference is that these color bands are above the IRE level that the FLUT™ color science normally delivers in the RGB domain.

But if you push the RGB video level using EXPOSURE (compensation) or R G B Gains - which are post FLUT™ - then you will see them.

[Stuart English]

Am I not going to underexpose too much if I go to ISO 800?

If it's "red" in false colors it's gone anyways or not?

Wouldn't 640 be safer? (And it's exactly one stop higher than 320!)

Well you should do a test and satisfy yourself that it isn't. In our opinion ISO 800 is a very comfortable rating for the Mysterium-X sensor to work at.

As discussed above - you normally won't "see red" with RGB false color as the FLUT™™ color science very nicely rolls off the RGB domain highlights.

So on Build 30 you check your Exposure (RAW) false color rather than your Video (RGB) false color overlays.

It's got just two colors -red and purple - if you don't see red anywhere in the image then you are NOT clipped.

[Scott Webster]

Thanks for the reply Stuart.

If that is the case could I suggest some other multi-key options that could be selected?
M1:Default, FC Video, FC Exposure, Focus
M2:FC Exposure, Focus
M3:FC Video, Focus (for those only processing RC/RG)

Not sure if your monitor path is set up to do that but combined with Magnify on User 1, all possible options can be quickly accessed by the operator.

[Michael Epple]

That is correct.

Thank You!


Hi Scott. Video False Color does include the Orange and Red bars as before - if you enable the LUMA RAMP test signal you can see that.

The key difference is that these color bands are above the IRE level that the FLUT™™ color science normally delivers in the RGB domain.

But if you push the RGB video level using EXPOSURE (compensation) or R G B Gains - which are post FLUT™™ - then you will see them.

Does false color read correctly in Raw viewspace? I usually use that to check highlights anyway, but it is also nice to see the difference in clipping from Rec 709 to RAW. Is there a way around the FLUT roll-off in false color mode so we can get a better idea of our clipping in a contrast range that is closer to the final look? I have preset the look in camera before for just such a purpose. If we don't touch the FLUT controls in the look menu, will false color work as normal?