View Full Version : Low light?


Joseph Aurili
April 27th, 2006, 01:43 PM
Can someone more experienced tell me if the camera should work well in low light conditions? If I could shoot with natural light the majority of the time, then the price might be well worth it for that alone! Any camcorder I have ever used looks like junk to me in low light, with a ton of noise, and/or too dark. The best I have used is the Z1.

Jim Jannard
April 27th, 2006, 02:10 PM
We expect the low light capability of our camera to be one of it's strongest points. 5.4 microm pixels are significantly larger (and collect more light) than the camera you are used to seeing/buying. It is one of the advantages of such a large sensor. You get both light AND resolution.

Jim

Joseph Aurili
April 27th, 2006, 02:19 PM
Now, that's what I want to hear! ;) Can't wait to see some low light footage in the Fall.

Dalen Johnson
April 27th, 2006, 02:23 PM
We expect the low light capability of our camera to be one of it's strongest points. 5.4 microm pixels are significantly larger (and collect more light) than the camera you are used to seeing/buying. It is one of the advantages of such a large sensor. You get both light AND resolution.

Jim

so can i finally go through these old churches in europe and film them?
Better yet, will I be able to take still shots at 11mega pixel from the camera?
(not sure if screengrab counts)

peace

dalen

Joseph Aurili
April 27th, 2006, 02:38 PM
The quality I envision from RED1 is to be equal to a good 10MP digital camera taking pictures at 60 FPS. I can only image how good that would look in full motion.

Jim Jannard
April 27th, 2006, 02:42 PM
Working footage in the still world is a top priority...

Joseph Aurili
April 27th, 2006, 02:50 PM
sorry Jim, I can't quite decipher the meaning of that last comment

David Mintzer
April 27th, 2006, 03:38 PM
sorry Jim, I can't quite decipher the meaning of that last comment


Let me translate---I assume that Jim wants to be able to shoot in the real world so he can answer your question more precisely.

Jim Jannard
April 27th, 2006, 03:56 PM
hehe... let me try again. One of our top priorities is to be able to extract stills from the digital stream at the highest quality possible (not a screen capture). If a guy shoots sports footage, he should be able to sell a high res still to a magazine and a video clip to the networks.

Does that read better? I'm a bit frazzled from NAB.

Jim

Jim Jannard
April 27th, 2006, 03:57 PM
Working footage in the still world is a top priority...

That doesn't even make sense to me and I wrote it...

Jim

Joseph Aurili
April 27th, 2006, 04:00 PM
Got ya. That is what I thought you meant, but I did not want to assume ;)

Joseph Aurili
April 27th, 2006, 04:03 PM
The data is the data, so it should exist as a result of the frame. The fact that is a high resolution high quality frame is what will make it a high quality still.

Rory Hinds
April 27th, 2006, 05:16 PM
filming at night with available lighting is paramount for me. I live in London and the light ain't the best :-)

I have a RedRock M2 adaptor which I use on my DVX and its very disappointing in low light, all be it a DV camera.

Still images aren't a priority for me as its a motion camera after all and I have a Canon Digital EOS for my still photography. I actually shot a music video using it, I was getting around 4-6 frames per second and intercut it with DVX footage

http://www.whatismine.com/html/showreel/reel_musicvideos_Creel.htm

I can't wait to get my hands on the RED with some 35mm lenses and hope RED can release a cost effective set of lenses with the camera. Cookes are just way to over priced for my modest budget :-)

Dave C. Preston
April 27th, 2006, 09:46 PM
We expect the low light capability of our camera to be one of it's strongest points. 5.4 microm pixels are significantly larger (and collect more light) than the camera you are used to seeing/buying. It is one of the advantages of such a large sensor. You get both light AND resolution.

Jim

Jim-

How does the RED sensor compare with the Foveon chip?

Thanks.

Jim Jannard
April 27th, 2006, 10:37 PM
Foveon is a completely different technology. Interesting. But I know of only one camera that uses it. Sigma. And it won't do 24 fps let alone 60 fps.

Jim

Marvin Emms
April 28th, 2006, 04:25 AM
For high quality stills how do you plan to address the problem of motion blur?

If you increase shutter speed until you have none the video could look bad, and 1/60th-1/125th might be too slow for high quality sports stills.

Does the chip have a global shutter, or does the camera have a shutter?

If there is a global shutter, is the system clever enough to intersperse short shutter frames with the long ones? For example, something I would like to see in the future is a 48fps camera, that can record with alternate shutter speeds (some clever strobe lighting might be required to light the short and long frames the same indoors) such that someone viewing the final movie in 24fps can pause and instead of getting a motion blurred frame, sees a pin sharp still. This requires more storage but DVD/HDDVD/BluRay technology is catching up.

Rory Hinds
April 28th, 2006, 04:31 AM
motion blur is what 35mm films are all about. Having a super sharp image without motion blur is very "video".

For me film is all about DOF, Motion Blur, Variable Frame Rates, High Dynamic Range and Colour Depth. Which are all things "Video" can not deliver.

I say if you want still images buy a SLR digital still camera.

Digital Cinema is what RED is all about.

Dalen Johnson
April 28th, 2006, 09:14 AM
I say if you want still images buy a SLR digital still camera.

Digital Cinema is what RED is all about.

- as for the first comment, maybe some do not want too have both in one.
{really ridiculous cutting up tools...I may want/need both capabilities, which is why the below following statement appears to hold true....

-it appears it is what Red is about as it is on the priority list to allow i.e. sports shoots to deliver to both still & motion media.

About time...

peace

dalen

Greg Milneck
April 28th, 2006, 09:42 AM
- as for the first comment, maybe some do not want too have both in one.
{really ridiculous cutting up tools...I may want/need both capabilities, which is why the below following statement appears to hold true....

-it appears it is what Red is about as it is on the priority list to allow i.e. sports shoots to deliver to both still & motion media.

About time...

peace

dalen

Cant have your cake and eat it too...if you had a progression of razor sharp images the motion function of red would look like crap, and isnt that why we bought this camera...for motion?

Dalen Johnson
April 28th, 2006, 09:57 AM
Cant have your cake and eat it too...if you had a progression of razor sharp images the motion function of red would look like crap, and isnt that why we bought this camera...for motion?
Greg, read what Jim said...in this thread...hes doing it.
So it looks like I can eat my cake too. :-)

Peace

dalen