EPIC Native ISO

[John Smyrnios]

Hi guys,

I'm a new member and new RED user and really excited about this powerhouse of a camera!

From reading around the forum its my understanding that the EPIC has a native ISO of 800 http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?36340-Mysterium-X...

Gathering information over the past few days, it seems to me that correct usage of the EPIC can be achieved by proper exposure as No.1 priority, since all else is just META-DATA.

This relies mainly on correct aperture and shutter speed, as ISO, White Balance, and Colour Profiles are all things that can be done in post.


And the question: Can shooting at ISO800 and keeping an eye on the histogram reliably give me a good indication through my monitor of what the sensor is actually picking up?



(it appears new users can be fooled into thinking they have correct exposure because they lowered the ISO setting and looked at a correctly exposed image through the monitor when in fact the sensor was being over exposed therefore killing the highlights)


Thanks,

I hope I'm not asking a very silly question ;)

[David Battistella]

And the question: Can shooting at ISO800 and keeping an eye on the histogram reliably give me a good indication through my monitor of what the sensor is actually picking up?




THis is sure to be a hot thread.

Since I was just asked this about an article I wrote on R1 MX exposure over a year ago. I will post the same asnwer here:

"how does that (ISO vs. EXPOSURE) pan out exactly related to your base stop?"

This depends on where you set your mid grey but as a rule when highlights clip they are gone, there is much more DR in the blacks than in the top end (though I am hearing that on EPIC the TOP END has MORE thatn the R1 MX.

"is it best to set it at 800 for both int and ext and just ND it to hell or adjust accordingly?"

Red recomends that the the ISO be set to 800.

I tend to do the following.

-I always set the ISO to 320 and light accordingly looking at the histogram for cliping, etc. I always rate the camera at 320. M, MX, or also EPIC (when I get it)

-If i want to protect highlights on exteriors then I set the ISO to 500.
-By doing this you are effectively "stopping down" to ensure that you do not over expose the shot and protect highlights.
-It depends on your level of comfort, if you know the sensor and the camera and you expose to the right you get great shots at 320, but you leave little room for margin of error.
-I always monitor the RAW file and I set the Color temperature to 5000 (the sensors native setting) so I see exactly what the sensor is seeing.
-I find the the sensor likes more light so I expose to the right.
-When exposed properly with a lot of light it looks best.
-Starve it from light and you can count on more noise.
-I try to stay away from noise.

The only other person I know who leaves teh camera a 320 all the time and monitors RAW is MArk Toia.
800 ISO is the safe way to preotect highlights.
I think the sensor perfroms better when you hit it with more light and expose to the right as much as possible, giving you the most amount of play in post.

I equate it to recording a low audio signal, the more you boost it the more noise you also boost.

Let the games begin...

David

[Adam Eden]

Hey don't forget about me David. I only ever shoot 320 ISO also!

At 320 you can push the hell out of it if need be.

[David Battistella]

Hey don't forget about me David. I only ever shoot 320 ISO also!

At 320 you can push the hell out of it if need be.

Plus 1 for the 320 ISO crowd. Let's face it. More light makes better images and usually sharper. Rating at 800 means less light on the sensor.

David

[Damien Molineaux]

Plus 1 for the 320 ISO crowd. Let's face it. More light makes better images and usually sharper. Rating at 800 means less light on the sensor.

David

+1 for ISO 800, as that means protecting your highlights, and the darks are so clean, this gives you the most latitude, er oops I mean dynamic ;-) !

Cheers,
Damien

[John Smyrnios]

Plus 1 for the 320 ISO crowd. Let's face it. More light makes better images and usually sharper. Rating at 800 means less light on the sensor.

David

Thanks David, are you still talking about the Red One sensor or the New M-X on the EPIC? I'm currently working on the EPIC and it appears to be more sensitive than the old sensor of the Red One.

[David Battistella]

RED MX and EPIC share the exact same sensor.

I am refereing to the MX sensor.

RED reccomends ISO 800 but there are a few people (like myself) who like to rate it at 320 whenver possible. This will carry over to EPIC for me and I base that only on trusting TOIA becuase I do not have mine yet.

Also, I hihgly reccomend shooting some stuff and running iit right through post.

There are other consuderations. 320 will almost always mean short focus, getting F4 at 320 is a lot of light. F4 at 800 less light, so it might let you go to F85.6 or F8 for deeper focus.

It depends on the situation. I'm talking optimal here.

There is always plently of room for creative choice, budget consideration, speed of set-ups, size of crew, etc.

320 is fine, 500 is fine, 800 is (can also be) fine. Just know the tool going in. The MX chip (RED ONE MX AND EPIC) is much cleaner in the blacks over the original RED ONE M.

David

[John Marchant]

I tend to shoot at 320 as I usually judge exposure visually rather than technically. Rating at 800 I find I tend to watch highlights like normal and consequently waste latitude on highlight safety I needn't have worried about, at the expense of shadows that could have been better...

My business partner shoots 800, but exposes more like video... (He's from a video background, I'm from a 35mm stills background) I usually do the grade, and knock his stuff back to 320 as a starting point for an easier curve. Everyone has their own style :)

[Brook Willard]

I leave the camera at 800 ASA 100% of the time. I feel that it gives you the most balanced readings of what your image is actually going to look like.

Here's the thing - all cameras have a "native ASA" that differs from the settings we choose. Whether it's an HVX or a DLSR [stills or otherwise] or an F35 or an Alexa. The cameras all have a native ASA that is lower than what we see.

On all of those cameras when you select an ASA [or equivalent setting] you are essentially choosing which LUT to view. It's an oversimplified description but that's what it is. Even when you choose 100 ASA on a still camera you take the shot and end up with a picture that is "meant for human consumption". It looks good. Lots of math has gone on behind the scenes to make sure that the image you see looks as a human might expect it to.

The same thing happens in the Epic. When you turn the camera on... you see a pretty picture. It's based on the math that happens in between the sensor and your eyeballs.

The difference with the Epic [and R1] is that you can essentially turn all of this off. You can choose a LUT that is not "meant for human consumption" but is instead more appropriate for robots. You could take all settings back to their defaults and load your data in linear. Or any number of other LUTs.

I view this as an enormous advantage. On a whim I can pull back the curtain on my footage and see the wizard hiding behind it. Properly understanding the relationship between RAW data [and proper exposure of a RAW camera] and the infinite number of ways by which you can process footage is key to getting the most out of your camera and footage.

Many people take this in the opposite way. "Well, the R1/Epic isn't really 800, it's actually 320. They just boost it to 800." In many ways that is true. The thing that people skip over is that EVERY camera does this. Every camera has an inherent sensitivity which is modified into a functional sensitivity via math that happens behind the curtain. The reason that people often brush over this point is because they don't realize that to be true. No other camera [in my hands-on experience] has the ability to strip back the inherent math/LUTs to see what the image "really" looks like.

Unfortunately the knowledge that the sensor is "really" 320 [just as the M sensor was "really" 160] is a dangerous fact without a greater understanding of the RED/Epic system and RAW capture in general. It's a flash headline on a low-rent blog that is hunting for traffic. The functional ASA is what people should compare between systems.

I interpret the Epic's functional sensitivity to be 800 ASA.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

+1 to everything Brook said.

I also leave the EPIC at 800 all the time. You can shoot 320 with it, and some people do, but I've found ISO 800 to give the most balanced response. And I suppose that's why RED has picked it as the target sensitivity. If you can over-light a scene and not blow your highlights when rating at 320, then good for you... However, there's a good chance you're crushing out some potential DR in that scenario. But this really comes down to each shot and lighting setup.

[jimhare]

Also, even though it's the same sensor on the MX and Epic, the Epic has new advanced space-age guts that create an even cleaner image, so those basing all of this on MX may need to test and possibly rethink their stance when they have the EPIC.

In the end, you can't go past what experts like Brook and Jeff say about 800, and I have never been more consistently impressed then Mark Toia's 320 work so it's clear both 320 and 800 work damn well in capable hands! :coolgleamA:

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Also, even though it's the same sensor on the MX and Epic, the Epic has new advanced space-age guts that create an even cleaner image, so those basing all of this on MX may need to test and possibly rethink their stance when they have the EPIC.

Quite true. Epic captures 16bit data from the sensor, vs. the 12bit on RED One. And there's a lot of other deeper things going on in the EPIC as well... Images from it look to be on a whole new level.

[Ryan E. Walters]

Well put Brook.

I haven't landed on where I'm going to rate the Epic yet. I may end up rating the EI higher then 800 (Possibly 1000). Since it records 5k, and the deliverables could be in 4k or smaller, some of the noise that might be there in the 5k image will get hidden in the down sample to 4k or smaller, so I might be able to get away with more.

Here is the way I see the EI of the MX chip- in the Red One MX, for sure, (Still testing with the Epic). The "native" EI of the chip is 320. A simple way to check is to turn the camera to 320 and then switch to RAW view, not much changes. (The RedColor view has it's own LUT which does make things "brighter", but not by much on the Red One MX.) This is even more clear on the Epic, as almost nothing changes. The catch being at least on the Red One MX, the sensor is VERY, VERY, VERY clean and there is a lot of room for under exposure. At EI 320, the sensor is not very balanced in terms of DR. There is MUCH more under exposure latitude then over exposure latitude. By bumping it up to EI 800 the over and under exposure latitude is much more balanced, and is most similar to how I am used to working with my light meter. And since I know the sensor is VERY clean, I can comfortably "underexpose" it and know that I have solid highlight protection so that it rolls of nicely, and I have clean details in the shadows. So even though the "native" EI is 320, the effective working EI for myself ends up being around EI 800.

As the Red One MX has the same chip as the EPIC, my hunch is that it is the same here too. Although I'm still testing and playing around with it to see where I am comfortable rating it. I think I can "get away" with more on the EPIC due to the increase of resolution, and also the processing in camera of the RAW data feels cleaner to be then on the Red One MX (that may just be me) - so I think I can push it harder then the Red One MX if I need to.

Native ISO is a VERY tricky / touchy subject, as too many people just read the headlines and do not bother with the details and implications of what that means. I highly suggest that you do some testing of your own, figure out what your on set working method is, and what your post workflow is going to be, and then develop a rating based off of that. Something that is KEY to working with the Red RAW data is what / how you process it in post. I've seen some MX footage shot at EI 320 that was processed nicely, and EI 800 footage that was processed horribly. But they both were shot correctly. The is the same when working with film. Just because Kodak or Fuji says their film is EI 500, or 250, that doesn't mean that it is EI 500 or EI 250- how you shoot it and then develop it can significantly change that rating depending on your needs. Treat RAW data the same way.

[Mike McEntire]

I am in the middle. For exterior daylight shots I rate the camera at 500. In exterior day with low light and under artificial light I use 800. The highest I rate it in extreme low light is 2000.
In my tests on my epic it seems like 400 is the native speed of the sensor so 500 gives me a little wiggle room with ultra clean images.

[David Battistella]

Also, even though it's the same sensor on the MX and Epic, the Epic has new advanced space-age guts that create an even cleaner image, so those basing all of this on MX may need to test and possibly rethink their stance when they have the EPIC.

In the end, you can't go past what experts like Brook and Jeff say about 800, and I have never been more consistently impressed then Mark Toia's 320 work so it's clear both 320 and 800 work damn well in capable hands! :coolgleamA:


That's a pretty sweet backhanded slap. Thanks Jim!

[soren k jensen]

At the recent Reducation UK, Ted said that Epic is technically measuring to 320, but in the real world 800 works at least as well, and Red prefers to shoot it at 800. Of course you can do whatever you want, depending on needs and aesthetics. Just test...

[Patrick Tresch]

Quite true. Epic captures 16bit data from the sensor, vs. the 12bit on RED One. And there's a lot of other deeper things going on in the EPIC as well... Images from it look to be on a whole new level.

Hello Jeff,

Very interested about where did you get this info about 16bit data captured from the Epic sensor?

Thanks a lot.

Patrick

+1 on 800 asa with the Epic. Much cleaner blacks than with te One MX.

[Eric Haase]

I rate the camera at 800. Rating at 320 sacrifices highlight detail. 320 would work well for a scene that has all it's values one or two stops over key and the rest under. Turn on your internal spot meter on the camera, break out your minolta F, and shoot a bracketed greyscale. Plot the IRE of the internal spot meter against how many stops under or over the grey value is based on your minolta F spot meter. Do this at 320, 800, 1200, etc. You'll find that at 320 you get a very unbalanced distribution of the dynamic range- it mostly resides in the shadows. Rating 800 improves the distribution to a bit more even for over/under. There is no wrong way to shoot but I think it's good to be aware that even at 800 you do not have an even distribution of under and over key values.

I've shot scenes for episodic television at 1000 and they looked super clean on air. As many have discussed the noise floor on the MX and Epic is so low.

[Billy Summers]

I also leave the EPIC at 800 all the time. You can shoot 320 with it, and some people do, but I've found ISO 800 to give the most balanced response. And I suppose that's why RED has picked it as the target sensitivity. If you can over-light a scene and not blow your highlights when rating at 320, then good for you... However, there's a good chance you're crushing out some potential DR in that scenario. But this really comes down to each shot and lighting setup.


I think this was even more true before REDfilmlog curve was added to the mix

[Ian Laurie]

I tend to stick to monitoring the RAW data, I like to see exactly what the sensor is getting. so +1 to the 320 crowd. Though The mx does make me less worried about allowing it to be viewed in REDcolor rather than raw.

[Stephen Wheeler]

Please Correct me if I am wrong here, but my understanding of the difference between 800 and 320 on the MX sensor is wear in your dynamic range you want to place middle grey.

So say your range is 14 stops(13.5 whatever I just wanted a round number) at 320 you have maybe 8 stops in your highlights and 6 in your shadows. With 800 you are placed in the center of your range with 7 stops in the highlights and 7 stops in your shadows. This isn't a red only issue all digital cameras and film stocks have this characteristic.

I honestly go for 320 mostly because I like to shot for the raw. If i shoot with a 800 iso I think of it like I'm rating a film stock with a 320 asa as 800 because i need equal range in the highlights and shadows.

Stephen Wheeler
Daufenbach Camera
Specializing in RED, Digital Cinema, & 3D
www.daufenbachcamera.com

[Joseph Hutson]

+1 to what Brook has to say.

I'm sticking to 800 ISO as my base, and like Mike, I'm never pushing it further than 2000 ISO in extreme low light...

[Zakaree Sandberg]

while I usually set the asa to 640-800

I have found it to be the truest to raw at 320-400..

id say 800 is a safe place to be.. but not necessarily the true asa for the sensor..

these are my findings.. they may differ from people to people.. but yah.. my 2 cents

[KETCH ROSSi]

800 all the way, unless really need something different, if need lower I can, but usually I suggest every one else in need to shoot lower ISO, to just invest in a good set of ND's... ;)

[keith morton]

I'm roll'n with Brook & Ketch on this one.

[Eric Haase]

Please Correct me if I am wrong here, but my understanding of the difference between 800 and 320 on the MX sensor is wear in your dynamic range you want to place middle grey.

So say your range is 14 stops(13.5 whatever I just wanted a round number) at 320 you have maybe 8 stops in your highlights and 6 in your shadows. With 800 you are placed in the center of your range with 7 stops in the highlights and 7 stops in your shadows. This isn't a red only issue all digital cameras and film stocks have this characteristic.

I honestly go for 320 mostly because I like to shot for the raw. If i shoot with a 800 iso I think of it like I'm rating a film stock with a 320 asa as 800 because i need equal range in the highlights and shadows.

Stephen Wheeler
Daufenbach Camera
Specializing in RED, Digital Cinema, & 3D
www.daufenbachcamera.com

You have it backwards. At 320 (which may be closer to the sensors "native" sensitivity- or the point where the raw matches the redcolor as far as middle grey) you have much less range in the highlights. By rating 800, you are underexposing the sensor a bit and protecting the highlights. The applied gamma curve places values back where you would expect them to be so that your meter matches the camera's rating as far as where middle grey falls. Again, 320 gives you more range in the shadows and 800 gives you more in the highlights. Because the distribution is wildly lopsided toward the shadows at 320, I think most people choose 800. To get a true even distribution of values in shadow and highght on the MX you have to rate 1280 or 1600.

[Stephen Williams]

800 works for me.

[Alexander Christ]

800 for sure. Brook's post sums it up really well, a good knowledge of capturing and developing RAW is essential for getting stunning results.

[Curran Giddens]

Default is 800 for a reason...

[Dylan Macleod, CSC]

I have only shot with The Epic once - but after a day of shooting at 800ISO (and we were doing some moody lighting) I was not pleased with the noise I saw in the dark areas. They had to be crushed out to not see it. So for the consecutive days I rated at 500. And I would have gone for 320 (and just kept an eye on highlights) if I could have ordered more lights. As a side note - I now do the same with the Alexa. 500 ISO.

[Stephen Wheeler]

You have it backwards. At 320 (which may be closer to the sensors "native" sensitivity- or the point where the raw matches the redcolor as far as middle grey) you have much less range in the highlights. By rating 800, you are underexposing the sensor a bit and protecting the highlights. The applied gamma curve places values back where you would expect them to be so that your meter matches the camera's rating as far as where middle grey falls. Again, 320 gives you more range in the shadows and 800 gives you more in the highlights. Because the distribution is wildly lopsided toward the shadows at 320, I think most people choose 800. To get a true even distribution of values in shadow and highght on the MX you have to rate 1280 or 1600.

Thank you, your right, I'm not sure why i switched thoughs.

[David Battistella]

Scenario:


Rate at ISO 800 with a metered exposure of F11 1/2

Rate at ISO 320 with a metered exposure of F8

You want the scene at F4


Do you rate at 320 and use less ND?
or
do you rate at 800 and use more ND? (risking IR polution)

My ulitmate point is that this is a flexible thing.


David

[Phil Bates]

I am also in the 800 crowd. I like that it leaves room for error. I am almost always shooting in fast situations and need the flexibility without worrying. I always view RAW as well.

Phil

[Antoine Fabi]

I see ISO "only" as an interpretation (LUT) of sensor reading.

I dont think we can say that a sensor has a "native" unique ISO.

As long as you have sufficient sensitivity for a scene, it's OK.

...and, also, as long as the noise level is low enough, then again it's OK.

I'd say "recommended ISO" over "native ISO"

...bur i may be totally off track :)



Antoine

[David Battistella]

+1 to what Brook has to say.

I'm sticking to 800 ISO as my base, and like Mike, I'm never pushing it further than 2000 ISO in extreme low light...

If you are at Iso 2000 then you lens is wide open. This means that you never push your monitoring past iso2000? Or your Processing past iso2000? Because once you are wide open no more actual light it hitting the sensor, you are just increasing the gain. You could wind it up to the highest iso to "see" but it techically means nothing.

David

[Curran Giddens]

If you are at Iso 2000 then you lens is wide open. This means that you never push your monitoring past iso2000? Or your Processing past iso2000? Because once you are wide open no more actual light it hitting the sensor, you are just increasing the gain. You could wind it up to the highest iso to "see" but it techically means nothing.

David

Yeah, once you are wide open it doesn't matter. At that point it is just metadata. You could just as well monitor at 4000 ISO if that was the only way you could see anything on the screen.

[Antonio Forjaz]

On the original RED I always shot 320...on the MX, 800...it seems to work well for me ilke this...If there is too much light, ND's...and Hot mirror if needed....I just use ND's to get the stop I want, or light accordingly...

[jimhare]

That's a pretty sweet backhanded slap. Thanks Jim!

Meant no disrespect to anyone David.

Brook is here is Sydney working on Gatsby, Toia shoots incredible stuff that makes me drool. One swears by 800 and the other by 320 so in my book both are completely viable depending on the situation.

If my post was taken in any other way I sincerely apologize as it was unintended.

[Kris Anderson]

Joseph and I were shooting together the other week in a recording studio with not a whole lot of light. My plans for additional lighting fell through due to budget and power available in the room itself so we used what was there. We shot at 1280 ( I think ) and while it was "moody", it looks cool. I have given it a bit of a gamma push over all and it comes up perfect for the intended end product, and the band really dig it. I would love to have had enough time and light to get it between 320 and 800 but it wasn't to be. But we still got some cool stuff at the end of the day.

The feel of what we shot is, in this case, more important to me than perfect ISO. But I'm not working at the level most of you guys are!

[jimhare]

When Ted was showing the Epic in Sydney he had it at 3600 and it was still quite usable, though compromised. The best thing about the Epic is its flexibility when you need to make a shot work.

[Gunleik Groven]

If you don't have a very good reason, is in a very controlled studio setting or have very good knowledge of what you do, there is no reason whatsover not to shoot the Epic at 800 or above, as far as I have seen.

David is right, thoigh. Everytqhing is. Alibrated at 320...

But on the Epic, that implies thastuff really get overexposed when they look lile they ate

I also tend to disagree with David on the exposure to therigjt theory on the R1mx. While that is mathematically and theoretically right, the mx, more than the m, breKs and overdrives a bit on the R1 when it approaches clip.

Not so on the Epic...

Shoot 800 and you havethat 1.25 stop highlight prote tion which is allmost enpugh, when the sun suddenly breaks in the middle of a shot.

The real good thing aboit Epiv vs R1 mx, though - is that overexposure looks good on it...
Real beautifull it is..

Lol
But I guess that was not your question...

[Shawn Nelson]

I've been leaving the Epic at 320 iso during daytime exteriors, as this also corresponds to what it looks like when "RAW" is toggled. Have I been in error?

[Gunleik Groven]

I've been leaving the Epic at 320 iso during daytime exteriors, as this also corresponds to what it looks like when "RAW" is toggled. Have I been in error?

You are in no way "wrong".

Otoh, you also have no headroom on a cam tha does not create much noise in the extreme lowlights.

But everthing is still
calibrated at 320, so you are good.."

[ericyoung]

I've been leaving the Epic at 320 iso during daytime exteriors, as this also corresponds to what it looks like when "RAW" is toggled. Have I been in error?

It's just another legitimate way of working. There's nothing to stop us underexposing at ISO320, if we want to protect unexpected/uncontrolled highlights. It'd get the exact same results as using ISO800 to bias towards underexposure.

I quite like setting ISO320 on the Red MX so that I can use the red clipping as a kind of true RAW clipping "zebra" for exposure.

[Chris Zamoscianyk]

I've had beautiful images at 800, broad daylight, no fill for the shadows. I get plenty of detail in the shadows and the highlights look like film.

I'll go to up to 1280 for night exterior with negligible noise for the under exposed elements.

[Joel Pfeiffer]

This may be a dumb question but is the ISO really Raw? Wouldnt the colorist set the ISO and be able to save highlights that were blown out at 320 or is setting the iso right from the start on camera the only way to do this? Thanks for your response!

[Florian Stadler]

800ISO is the factory recommended rating. You can veer from that either direction as per your own testing but running ISO equal or lower to "digital negative sensitivity" is questionable at best. The RAW sensor sensitivity does not equal developed sensitivity nor should it.

[PatC]

800 club.

[Eric Haase]

I've been leaving the Epic at 320 iso during daytime exteriors, as this also corresponds to what it looks like when "RAW" is toggled. Have I been in error?

It's not "wrong". You should just know that you will have more range in the highlights if you rate 800, without in my opinion sacrificing anything including increased noise. You should really shoot the greyscale test I described in an earlier post. I've shot this test and graphed the results with both the M and MX sensor and learned a lot from the exercise. Day exteriors benefit greatly from increased range in the highlight tones.

[RikiButland]

Definitly with the 800 club for the exact same comments as Brook and Eriic. Protect those highlights

[Rob Ruffo]

Well put Brook.

I haven't landed on where I'm going to rate the Epic yet. I may end up rating the EI higher then 800 (Possibly 1000). Since it records 5k, and the deliverables could be in 4k or smaller, some of the noise that might be there in the 5k image will get hidden in the down sample to 4k or smaller, so I might be able to get away with more.

Here is the way I see the EI of the MX chip- in the Red One MX, for sure, (Still testing with the Epic). The "native" EI of the chip is 320. A simple way to check is to turn the camera to 320 and then switch to RAW view, not much changes. (The RedColor view has it's own LUT which does make things "brighter", but not by much on the Red One MX.) This is even more clear on the Epic, as almost nothing changes. The catch being at least on the Red One MX, the sensor is VERY, VERY, VERY clean and there is a lot of room for under exposure. At EI 320, the sensor is not very balanced in terms of DR. There is MUCH more under exposure latitude then over exposure latitude. By bumping it up to EI 800 the over and under exposure latitude is much more balanced, and is most similar to how I am used to working with my light meter. And since I know the sensor is VERY clean, I can comfortably "underexpose" it and know that I have solid highlight protection so that it rolls of nicely, and I have clean details in the shadows. So even though the "native" EI is 320, the effective working EI for myself ends up being around EI 800.

As the Red One MX has the same chip as the EPIC, my hunch is that it is the same here too. Although I'm still testing and playing around with it to see where I am comfortable rating it. I think I can "get away" with more on the EPIC due to the increase of resolution, and also the processing in camera of the RAW data feels cleaner to be then on the Red One MX (that may just be me) - so I think I can push it harder then the Red One MX if I need to.

Native ISO is a VERY tricky / touchy subject, as too many people just read the headlines and do not bother with the details and implications of what that means. I highly suggest that you do some testing of your own, figure out what your on set working method is, and what your post workflow is going to be, and then develop a rating based off of that. Something that is KEY to working with the Red RAW data is what / how you process it in post. I've seen some MX footage shot at EI 320 that was processed nicely, and EI 800 footage that was processed horribly. But they both were shot correctly. The is the same when working with film. Just because Kodak or Fuji says their film is EI 500, or 250, that doesn't mean that it is EI 500 or EI 250- how you shoot it and then develop it can significantly change that rating depending on your needs. Treat RAW data the same way.

The raw view is misleading and of no real utility on MX

[Rob Ruffo]

I see ISO "only" as an interpretation (LUT) of sensor reading.

I dont think we can say that a sensor has a "native" unique ISO.

As long as you have sufficient sensitivity for a scene, it's OK.

...and, also, as long as the noise level is low enough, then again it's OK.

I'd say "recommended ISO" over "native ISO"

...bur i may be totally off track :)



Antoine

No, I agree with you - ISO is just a preview LUT.

[John Smyrnios]

Thanks guys, I'm starting with ISO 800 and 5600K as my entry point (as they are defaults in RC-X too). This might change based on given conditions and as I learn how to use the EPIC more efficiently but in the end it all starts making more sense during post when you see whether you really exposed things right or not.

My thanks to both the 320 and the 800 crowd ;)

[David Battistella]

This may be a dumb question but is the ISO really Raw? Wouldnt the colorist set the ISO and be able to save highlights that were blown out at 320 or is setting the iso right from the start on camera the only way to do this? Thanks for your response!

Basically if the RAW file is clipped it is clipped. When a pixel goes to white on a CMOS sensor there is no information to recover. period. Film was a bit different in this regard becuase it protects teh highlights better.

So rating at 800 pretty much ensures that you are not going to clip highlights (unless you want to and there is a given number of pixels in just about any scene that will roll off that way.


For me, (and I will revist this on the EPIC) going back to the R!-M sensor, I found it really performed much better with MORE light and with DAYLIGHT. It was messy in tungsten light and RED for a while reccomended that tungsten be shifted toward teh blue spectrum to better deal with the noisy blue channel that would happen in the R1 M. Then the MX cam out with the advertized rating of 800 ISO (there was talk of rating it at 500 ISO for a while and in the end 800 was the "factory default".

In futher testing with the R1-MX i still rated the MX at 320ISO while watching hihglights and the image very carefully. I found this gave me the widest histograms and allowed me to expose to the right (as RED reccomends as well). In extremely bright outdoor situations You can rate at 500 for about a stop of highlight protection in scenes where it is harder to control light.

So picking a rating is giving you highlight protection. That is it.

I think the sensor produces better images when I rate it at 320ISO then if I want a "brighter image" I wind up the ISO in post. If I rate at ISO 800 and need to "boost" then I am looking to move to ISO 1000 or ISO1280 and that is not a place I want to comfortably go. Rating at 320 lets me know when I am "pumping" the image to 400, 500, or 800 ISO (acceptable amounts of noise for me)

So the rating really comes down to how much noise you personally like but my lightmeter at 320ISO and the camera at 320ISO and the stop seem to match up nicely. Monitor RAW and you are good to go.

There is much less room for error this way because if you blow out, it's gone, whereas if you blow out at 800, it is not gone, so 800ISO is a nice safe rating.

David

[David Battistella]

Meant no disrespect to anyone David.



All good Jim,

Thanks!
David

[Joel Pfeiffer]

Okay Gotcha so even ISO as a "RAW" setting its not really raw because if you shoot at 500 and clip I can go into redcinex and bring it down to 320 but once they are clipped theyre clipped the highlights will be lost, so ISO isnt really a raw value if the metadata only contains information from the chosen iso value set on camera.

[Graeme Nattress]

Yes, ISO is really raw - it's just metadata indicating rendering intent. However, based on you, the human operator setting an ISO you will adjust the exposure coming into the camera via aperture or ND and that part cannot be totally undone later. If there is no clipping you may have made the scene too dark and add noise, but you can still brighten it up. If you've over-exposed you may have unnecessarily clipped and see it when you darken it down.

Graeme

[Gunleik Groven]

It's not "wrong". You should just know that you will have more range in the highlights if you rate 800, without in my opinion sacrificing anything including increased noise. You should really shoot the greyscale test I described in an earlier post. I've shot this test and graphed the results with both the M and MX sensor and learned a lot from the exercise. Day exteriors benefit greatly from increased range in the highlight tones.

True!

The headroom will have to be reclaimed in post if needed. RedlogFiolm does a good job for that. Lowering the ISO/FLUT/Exposure settings may be needed. I think ISO is the most logical thing to lower towards 320.

[Graeme Nattress]

I find it good to leave ISO as setting rendering intent, and then if necessary bias the exposure for grading with the FLUT.

Graeme

[Ryan E. Walters]

The raw view is misleading and of no real utility on MX

I disagree- it depends on your working method. It may be useless to you. But I have found it very handy on the Red One MX. I have found that when in RAW view all the other meters respond more accurately, and I can feel more comfortable about my light meter readings. But agin- you have ot know your post workflow and how the image is going to be developed. And if RAW view is left on, it can really scare a client if that client knows little about what RAW view really is ...