RED Sensors getting bigger

[Sam Wells]

Hi Tom, with the potential of this degree - or more - of modularity (is that a word ? well "functionality" slipped in to the language) FF35 doesn't have to be a 'norm' but a choice, you could shoot your wides, landscapes etc (think your fav filmmaker Malick using 65 in The New World)

 

-Sam

 

ps I would like to have had the Red 645 yesterday, but I am doing weird things with space & reframing lately :blink:

[Tom Lowe]

Oh, I absolutely agree with you guys saying that FF35 can be a choice, not necessarily the new norm. Getting the FF35 sized Epic or Scarlet makes sense, because then you have more options.

 

I also agree wholeheartedly with David when he says the S35 option really needs to be at least 5K so you get a "True 4K" image shooting with PL-mount lenses, for example.

 

Let's see what this announcement is on Dec 3. Jim usually listens to what people are saying, even if he acts like he's not listening.

 

My guess is that higher ISO/ASA ratings and brand-new FF35 cine lenses from top manufacturers (which may come fairly quickly after Epic's release) could dispel many of the reservations people are having about FF35.

[Francis Kuhn]

My guess is that higher ISO/ASA ratings and brand-new FF35 cine lenses from top manufacturers (which may come fairly quickly after Epic's release) could dispel many of the reservations people are having about FF35.

 

Hi Tom,

 

I hear you, but, again, if you are forced to increase the FF35's ISO/ASA just so you can shoot at an aperture that gives you a fighting chance of keeping things in focus, then what's the point of going bigger? Wouldn't these higher ISO settings diminish image quality? Couldn't you simply use lower ASA setting with a smaller S35 chip, traditional cinema lenses at wider apertures and get the same or better quality? Other than maybe shooting wides, where the DOF isn't so much of an issue, I guess I don't understand the need for the bigger chip. It seems like the dog chasing its' tail. :)

 

I'm no expert on sensor characteristics, so maybe I'm missing something here, but I haven't heard any rational explanation on these forums so far.

-Fran

[Tom Lowe]

Hi Tom,

 

I hear you, but, again, if you are forced to increase the FF35's ISO/ASA just so you can shoot at an aperture that gives you a fighting chance of keeping things in focus, then what's the point of going bigger? Wouldn't these higher ISO settings diminish image quality? Couldn't you simply use lower ASA setting with a smaller S35 chip, traditional cinema lenses at wider apertures and get the same or better quality? Other than maybe shooting wides, where the DOF isn't so much of an issue, I guess I don't understand the need for the bigger chip. It seems like the dog chasing its' tail. :)

 

I'm no expert on sensor characteristics, so maybe I'm missing something here, but I haven't heard any rational explanation on these forums so far.

-Fran

 

The reason you want a larger sensor is the same reason people shoot 65mm cinema or FF35 or medium format stills - better image quality and more detail. But with digital, it's important because you start to run out of real estate for photosites on a smaller sensor like S35/APS-C. The Canon 50D is an example of a sensor hitting the wall in terms of trying to pack too many photosites onto a smaller sensor. That is why nearly all serious, high-end DSLRs are Full Frame 35.

 

Increasing ISO should not degrade the image in the manner some people think it might. The new 21MP Canon 5D Mark II shoots ISO 1600 without any noticeable difference to the eye from ISO 800. Also, the more megapixels you have, the better noise reduction you can do at the RAW stage of processing. So, sensors will continue to do two things: get more MP and have higher ISO/ASA ratings. Both factors, IMO, point to FF35 becoming a viable cinema format once again.

Edited November 26, 2008 by Tom Lowe

[Francis Kuhn]

So, sensors will continue to do two things: get more MP and have higher ISO/ASA ratings. Both factors, IMO, point to FF35 becoming a viable cinema format once again.

 

 

So the smaller sensors will not improve as fast as the larger sensors? If not, then it makes sense to go bigger. Maybe. I think I asked the same question about ten pages back in this post. :D

 

BTW I shot this morning with my 1Ds Mark III at 800 and 1600 ASA. Not really all that great compared to 200! But it was impossible to light the scene, so I guess a noisy shot is better than no shot at all.

 

-Fran

[Chris Keth]

BTW I shot this morning with my 1Ds Mark III at 800 and 1600 ASA. Not really all that great compared to 200! But it was impossible to light the scene, so I guess a noisy shot is better than no shot at all.

 

-Fran

 

That's what I'm thinking about the 5DmkII. Sure, maybe 1600 isn't much worse than 800 but how much noisier is it than 100, 200 and 400 ASA? Those are the current working ASAs in digital equipment. Does anyone know of any controlled, reputable side-by-side tests of the available exposure indices on the 5DmkII and on the RED? It would be interesting to see a real test rather than some random footage displayed in a vacuum, away from any comparison to other footage.

[Tom Lowe]

That's what I'm thinking about the 5DmkII. Sure, maybe 1600 isn't much worse than 800 but how much noisier is it than 100, 200 and 400 ASA? Those are the current working ASAs in digital equipment. Does anyone know of any controlled, reputable side-by-side tests of the available exposure indices on the 5DmkII and on the RED? It would be interesting to see a real test rather than some random footage displayed in a vacuum, away from any comparison to other footage.

 

Red One's low-light noise performance is bad from the clips I have seen - very noisy. Modern DSLRs smoke it.

[Chris Keth]

Red One's low-light noise performance is bad from the clips I have seen - very noisy. Modern DSLRs smoke it.

 

I certainly agree with that. What I am wondering is 1. How badly do DSLRs smoke the RED in low light shooting? and 2. Above what ASA setting is the image from one of those DSLRs unacceptable due to noise?

[Tom Lowe]

I certainly agree with that. What I am wondering is 1. How badly do DSLRs smoke the RED in low light shooting? and 2. Above what ASA setting is the image from one of those DSLRs unacceptable due to noise?

 

1. Badly. 2. With new DSLRs, up 1600 should be fine. I've seen ISO 3200 shots that look good. Keep in mind that with 21mp, you can massively downsample them to 1080p or 2K, which means lots of the noise goes bye-bye.

[Neil Duffy]

1. Badly. 2. With new DSLRs, up 1600 should be fine. I've seen ISO 3200 shots that look good. Keep in mind that with 21mp, you can massively downsample them to 1080p or 2K, which means lots of the noise goes bye-bye.

 

 

The color of the night time videos I have seen from the Canon are incredible. The issue is movement, like shooting while driving. I put up some links to these videos on the Dec. 3 thread.

 

Will Nikon and Canon start modifying their lenses to handle motion? Like breathing and making FF possible. I am not a cinematographer, but is it possible to address David's issues with FF on the larger lenses. In other words, are the issues of FF with larger lenses inherent in larger lens design, or just part of the current implementation of larger lenses.

 

Thanks.

[Brian Drysdale]

1. Badly. 2. With new DSLRs, up 1600 should be fine. I've seen ISO 3200 shots that look good. Keep in mind that with 21mp, you can massively downsample them to 1080p or 2K, which means lots of the noise goes bye-bye.

 

Certainly for documentary work you want to be able shoot at 800 to 1600 ASA without too noticeable noise, which is basically what the old SD 2/3" cameras could do.

 

In the in end the camera has to be a good balance of features, going for one feature because it improves a certain aspect of the performance can throw up other issues which mean it's not so practical for other uses.

 

I believe the new RED sensor is supposed to be rated at 800 ASA anyway, so if it manages 2000 ASA without being noisy that should cover the needs of most productions. Usually if you want more gain, you can live with some noise because of the nature of subject matter.

[Stephen Williams]

Certainly for documentary work you want to be able shoot at 800 to 1600 ASA without too noticeable noise, which is basically what the old SD 2/3" cameras could do.

 

Hi Brian,

 

With tungsten lights as well, looks like some way to go berfoe their is an revoloution.

 

Stephen

[Sam Wells]

I certainly agree with that. What I am wondering is 1. How badly do DSLRs smoke the RED in low light shooting? and 2. Above what ASA setting is the image from one of those DSLRs unacceptable due to noise?

 

There's not a fast answer to number 2. What do you accept ? Like film grain, noise betrays itself in large even areas (say in this case a twilight sky......)

 

I'd say for me & the Nikon D3 ASA 200-800 is the optimal range, but I've done some good night stuff @ 2500. Black & White I can do 3200 - it looks like a fast film stock at worst, T Max 400 (but 3 stops faster !) at best. (Chroma noise is always the most problematic).

 

Then again, it's "default ISO" - 200 - is the sweetest; however I can sometimes shoot at 800 with no pain, even 'pushing' a RAW (NEF) file in post from 200 in some cases (with a good converter e.g. Capture NX this can work as well as on board gain boost - which indicates raw converter and post work is of significant importance here).

 

Which, promising as they are makes the 5D Mk II (or D90 to a lesser extent) both very interesting but problematic for major league play, or to put it another way it seems the Canon will make great 'slides' but we need to get great 'negatives'.

 

-Sam

[John Sprung]

Hi John, you have refreshed some good memories now forgotten. I liked the published code in the IBM technical reference manual as it helped me in understanding what the computer was doing, especially during boot up. If I remember correctly there was no support for a "graphics" card/device in those models. Then there was this company "Hercules", that came up with one of the first graphics adapter, perhaps called Monochrome Display Adapter?? (MDA??) at that time, but the PC had no support for it. So Hercules would fool PC Into thinking that it was still in "text" mode.

Yes, those were the days....

 

MDA was IBM's basic monitor card. Later you could get their CGA color card. Both had text modes in which they displayed the contents of some RAM that was on the card and located in the machine's address space at B000:0000 for CGA and C000:0000 for MDA. You could get text on the screen much faster simply by writing directly to the card's RAM, though you did have to interleave attribute bytes. The Hercules emulated all that, plus some extra tricks of its own, though I never needed to write for it.

 

The RAM on the cards was a little bigger than the screen, something like 96 bytes IIRC, so you could stash some flags or whatnot up there so as not to have to change the DS or ES registers. Forgetting about segment registers was always a major source of bugs.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.