View Poll Results: Which cameras color do you prefer form the Full Frame Cinema Shootout 2020

Voters
73. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1

    54 73.97%
  • 2

    2 2.74%
  • 3

    9 12.33%
  • 4

    2 2.74%
  • 5

    0 0%
  • 6

    1 1.37%
  • 7

    3 4.11%
  • 8

    1 1.37%
  • 9

    1 1.37%

  Click here to go to the first RED TEAM post in this thread.   Thread: Full Frame Cinema Shootout 2020...

Reply to Thread
Page 15 of 20 FirstFirst ... 5111213141516171819 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 191
  1. #141  
    Senior Member Ryan Hamblin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Nashville TN
    Posts
    840
    I have to agree with the Alexa mini comment as well as the Venice. but to my eye the FX9 really was playing in the same ballpark of the Venice... kinda scarily close. we downloaded the original file and were outputting it to our 4k color grade monitor. It was pretty crazy.
    www.ryanhamblin.com

    BrainStemDigital production|post|vfx
    info@brainstem.tv
    www.brainstem.tv
    follow us on twitter: http://www.twitter.com/brainstemdigit

    Gear list: Rokinon 14mm T/3.1, Rokinon 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm T/1.5, Pentax 90mmLS, Pentax 165mm f/2.8 various ND and filtration
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #142  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan Hamblin View Post
    I have to agree with the Alexa mini comment as well as the Venice. but to my eye the FX9 really was playing in the same ballpark of the Venice... kinda scarily close. we downloaded the original file and were outputting it to our 4k color grade monitor. It was pretty crazy.
    Yeah the fx9 looks cleaner in the underexposure than Venice, doesn't it? Problem is the contrast and color was not matched on the underexposures and noise rendition and perception is pretty sensitive to contrast so it may be hard to judge. And if it is cleaner at -6, Venice still has the benefit of better highlights, though it's not clear how much from this test.

    I was able to guess right based on my understanding of these cameras from some other tests, one of which was the CVP test between the c500ii, fx9, fs7, and venice (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-kYtjH3eEs). While the C500II isn't comparable in that due to non-raw recording, their test between the Venice and FX9 put them further apart with the Venice being considerably better in both over and under exposures. Perhaps the difference is related to the recording method as well, XAVC vs XAVC whereas this test compares XAVC vs raw, so the XAVC may have the benefit of some compression and noise reduction as it is much lower bitrate compressed YUV recording. The FX9 in this test looks like it could have very similar DR to Gemini and considerably more than Helium, but it may be because of noise reduction of its internal recording...
    Noah Yuan-Vogel | noahyv.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #143  
    Senior Member Jeffery Anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    655
    Quote Originally Posted by Hrvoje Simic View Post
    No.

    Only analog gain changes recording, digital ISO slider is just how you present what is recorded.
    I think you might have misinterpreted what I was asking...

    so if you set the native ISO to 3200/5000 the actual 14+DBs of dynamic range shifts from -7/+7 to maybe -3/+11, so you can preserve the highlights?

    Incorrect?
    I have to try and change the landscape, whatever it is.
    -Robert Plant
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #144  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffery Anderson View Post
    I think you might have misinterpreted what I was asking...

    so if you set the native ISO to 3200/5000 the actual 14+DBs of dynamic range shifts from -7/+7 to maybe -3/+11, so you can preserve the highlights?

    Incorrect?
    Youre talking at the low conversion gain mode? I mean that's essentially what the -6 underexposure test is doing, shooting at ~ISO51,200 and preserving highlights by 6 extra stops. Not sure I get what you're asking. Sounds like all cameras were shot at 0db gain in low conversion gain mode setting for the over-under tests. Boosting the EI/digitalISO without changing exposure wouldn't change anything. I guess you're suggesting lowering exposure and increasing EI/ISO? I think the "base" ISOs are already a bit arbitrary, so changing and varying them even further would just have made it harder to make comparisons. Personally I'm a fan of matching white clip points since that forgo's arbitrary manufacturer ISO specs and middle grey values and guarantees similar highlight and shadow contrast/compression and apples to apples underexposure comparisons.

    Evin, could you clarify what each of the cameras were set at for exposure? Were they basically all reading ISO800 except Venice at ISO500 and FP at like 160 or whatever the lowest is? So those were shot with less ND than the cameras that were set at ISO800?
    Noah Yuan-Vogel | noahyv.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #145  
    Senior Member Aaron Lochert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    1,109
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffery Anderson View Post
    I think you might have misinterpreted what I was asking...

    so if you set the native ISO to 3200/5000 the actual 14+DBs of dynamic range shifts from -7/+7 to maybe -3/+11, so you can preserve the highlights?

    Incorrect?
    If you set the native ISO higher on a dual-native system, it's the opposite to the mental model we have where "rating" the sensor for higher digital ISO preserves highlights (because in that scenario you're underexposing and gaining back up). So your -3/+11 guess is going in the wrong direction.

    If you're at native ISO 800 exposed for 800, and then switch to a two-stops-higher native ISO 3200 but still exposed for 800, you clip your highlights sooner but you expose the shadows more. So instead of -7/+7, you're at like -9/+5. But you'll probably also stop down two stops during this process, which puts you back at the same under/over as before, but exposed at an overall lower light level. So at the end of the day, you're back to -7/+7.

    So to answer your question, I don't think putting the Gemini to the Low Light mode is really going to change the way highlights clip in comparison to how they clip on Standard. All that changes is when they clip in the absolute sense - either two stops earlier than Standard when exposed exactly the same, or at the same time when exposed each respectively at their native ISO's.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #146  
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffery Anderson View Post
    I think you might have misinterpreted what I was asking...

    so if you set the native ISO to 3200/5000 the actual 14+DBs of dynamic range shifts from -7/+7 to maybe -3/+11, so you can preserve the highlights?

    Incorrect?
    That's the second analog gain.
    Nope. Highlights clip sooner.

    Lower analog saves up top and looses shadows.
    Higher analog pushes more out of shadows and looses highlights.

    The other way around from propagated data-centric digital fantasy with bit-surfing and imaginary sensitivity in post.
    Analog > Apollo wooden handgrip http://omeneo.com
    Digital > Primers - professional image transformation tools http://omeneo.com/primers

    imdb


    "Como delfines en el fondo del oceano
    volamos por el universo incentivados por la esperanza"

    "L'esperanza", Sven Väth
    "It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards"
    Jung/ Carol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #147  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    438
    Gotta say at normal exposure, they all look pretty great (4 and 6..maybe less so), but 6+ overexposure. Wow, 1...couldn't even tell. 1 and 7 for underexposure. Great test. Thanks a million !
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #148  
    Senior Member Nick Morrison's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    8,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Hrvoje Simic View Post
    That's the second analog gain.
    Nope. Highlights clip sooner.

    Lower analog saves up top and looses shadows.
    Higher analog pushes more out of shadows and looses highlights.

    The other way around from propagated data-centric digital fantasy with bit-surfing and imaginary sensitivity in post.
    Hrvoje I think what everyone is trying to say is Monstro may have extra DR at the lower end than is being seen in this test.

    Lets say at an actual LIGHT LEVEL the camera had been NDd a stop or two, Id be curious to know how that would have affected the highlights and shadows in this test.

    Its worth noting that Panavision rates the Monstro natively at 1600, not 800.
    Nick Morrison
    Founder, Director & Lead Creative
    // SMALL GIANT //
    smallgiant.tv
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #149  
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Morrison View Post
    Hrvoje I think what everyone is trying to say is Monstro may have extra DR at the lower end than is being seen in this test.
    Generally speaking, superior results are possible depending on type of push, transformation from log and compression used for recording. Not as in "seeing deeper into the dark", but as in "how good you can capture and present it when gamma/gamut corrected".

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Morrison View Post
    Lets say at an actual LIGHT LEVEL the camera had been NDd a stop or two, Id be curious to know how that would have affected the highlights and shadows in this test.
    With ND it would capture lower light intensity so the image would be underexposed compared to other cameras, in which case you are not doing comparative analysis of DR performance but attempting to match imagery by compensating exposure for available DR.
    Analog > Apollo wooden handgrip http://omeneo.com
    Digital > Primers - professional image transformation tools http://omeneo.com/primers

    imdb


    "Como delfines en el fondo del oceano
    volamos por el universo incentivados por la esperanza"

    "L'esperanza", Sven Väth
    "It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards"
    Jung/ Carol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #150  
    Senior Member Nick Morrison's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    8,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Hrvoje Simic View Post
    Generally speaking, superior results are possible depending on type of push, transformation from log and compression used for recording. Not as in "seeing deeper into the dark", but as in "how good you can capture and present it when gamma/gamut corrected".



    With ND it would capture lower light intensity so the image would be underexposed compared to other cameras, in which case you are not doing comparative analysis of DR performance but attempting to match imagery by compensating exposure for available DR.
    Yes, but Monstro may have it's DR distributed differently than other cameras. It's an 8K camera, and that resolution may clean up the shadows more than others. Meaning that if you stop down one stop (to PROTECT HIGHLIGHTS), you may not notice any penalty in the shadows.

    Again, there's a reason Panavision rates it at 1600. Not 800.

    How you expose for the sensor matters.
    Nick Morrison
    Founder, Director & Lead Creative
    // SMALL GIANT //
    smallgiant.tv
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts