Thread: Kinefinity MAVO Edge

Reply to Thread
Page 17 of 21 FirstFirst ... 7131415161718192021 LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 201
  1. #161  
    Senior Member Patrick Tresch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Switzerland, Lausanne
    Posts
    5,250
    You would probably have better noise floor but your highlights will tend to be clipped rapidely. As people judge the camera quality by it's highliths retention/roll-off you'r playing the ball of the blue label.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #162  
    Senior Member rand thompson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    6,834
    Patrick,

    I think that's where how you expose the 1600 Iso image derived from a higher Native ISO with negative gain comes into play. You can use ND filters which would keep the highlights from clipping at the cost of reducing the dynamic range or stopping down the lens being used at a cost of deepening the depth of field.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #163  
    Senior Member rand thompson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    6,834
    Here are 4 better more clearly explained tutorials about how to get better exposure/images from the Mavo LF which will also be about the same for the Mavo Edge


    Exposure Tutorial with Kinefinity MAVO LF - Part 1 - ISO vs. EI modes


    By Kinefinity Europe






    Exposure Tutorial with Kinefinity MAVO LF - Part 2 - ISO Highlight Stops


    By Kinefinity Europe






    Exposure Tutorial with Kinefinity MAVO LF - Part 3 - ETTL monitoring


    By Kinefinity Europe






    Exposure Tutorial with Kinefinity MAVO LF - Part 4 - DUAL ISO Sweet Spot


    By Kinefinity Europe


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #164  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris McKechnie View Post
    ProRes RAW won't have the latitude that RED RAW, ArriRaw or even CDNG have in terms of highlight recovery. It's a "fake" version of RAW, not even allowing you to change basic metadata settings like ISO and WB. So while you have a little bit more flexibility, most people will find it isn't worth the effort of adding a recorder, media, bulk, etc., as the cons far outweigh the pros. There are several you tubers who did comparison with even Sony SLOG 2 and PRR...and you'd be surprised, PRR didn't look all that great.
    This is incorrect. While true that support and workflow are underdeveloped for ProRes Raw, you have full control over Exposure and White Balance. There is no interfase that lets you change 'ISO' like with redraw, but changing the exposure slider in FCPX as long as you don't have a log conversion on achieves the same thing. I think ProRes Raw is terribly misunderstood and has terrible examples on the internet. I had my eyes opened at the FCPX Creative summit, when I went in pushing for a Red style interface for FCPX for ProRes Raw and was taught how to work with it and understood that we have full control over a raw signal, its just called different things.

    The 'fake' raw floating around is Braw, which does a partial Debayer in-camera, but is still quite good from what I understand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #165  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4,239
    Quote Originally Posted by rand thompson View Post
    Patrick,

    In my own personally experience I only use 800 ISO for grading red footage, and if I actually owned a Red camera, I would base getting a good exposure from that. Now in a camera like the Mavo LF and potentially the Mavo Edge, a 1600 ISO that comes from negative gain from a higher Native ISO would probably look better than a 1600 ISO from positive gain from a lower Native ISO . In that case, I would want to use a 1600 ISO and not the 800 ISO which would be the native and last ISO setting of the camera's sensor before digital gain was being added.
    If the ISO change is an EI shift, not gain related, then the DR and noise floor don't change, only your middle gray exposure point changes. It looks to me like most of the dual range gain structure cameras sacrifice some DR in the higher gain range for less noise in the image at higher ISO's. ARRI uses dual gain to increase to first stage captured bit depth (22 bit AD) for better deep shadow detail retention and noise performance, effectively increasing usable dynamic range. I don't think anyone else does this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #166  
    Senior Member rand thompson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    6,834
    David,

    I was trying to wrap my head around the benefits of using the EI mode over the ISO mode. I believe you just cleared that up for me, thanks. Yeah, to my knowledge I've never heard of anyone else using that Arri method.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #167  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4,239
    Quote Originally Posted by rand thompson View Post
    David,

    I was trying to wrap my head around the benefits of using the EI mode over the ISO mode. I believe you just cleared that up for me, thanks. Yeah, to my knowledge I've never heard of anyone else using that Arri method.
    For raw cameras as far as I know ISO change is an EI shift, there is no gain change from the optimum gain structure for max DR, Dual gain ISO range cameras excepted. Video cameras use gain, but I have often used EI corrections instead of gain with video cameras to retain highlights with optimum DR.
    Gain for raw cameras is added in post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #168  
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Hooper View Post
    This is incorrect. While true that support and workflow are underdeveloped for ProRes Raw, you have full control over Exposure and White Balance. There is no interfase that lets you change 'ISO' like with redraw, but changing the exposure slider in FCPX as long as you don't have a log conversion on achieves the same thing. I think ProRes Raw is terribly misunderstood and has terrible examples on the internet. I had my eyes opened at the FCPX Creative summit, when I went in pushing for a Red style interface for FCPX for ProRes Raw and was taught how to work with it and understood that we have full control over a raw signal, its just called different things.

    The 'fake' raw floating around is Braw, which does a partial Debayer in-camera, but is still quite good from what I understand.
    Arri raw let you change iso, whitebalance etc, exlain the difference between that and redraw exept red raw is compressed?
    Björn Benckert
    Creative Lead & Founder Syndicate Entertainment AB
    +46855524900 www.syndicate.se/axis
    VFX / Flame / Motion capture / Monstro
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #169  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4,239
    Based on my own experiments with a few posted Braw sample files, I would say its main advantage is decoding efficiency on lower powered computers. It runs 4k real time on my 4 year old I7 6700 series MSI laptop, better than CDNG 2k, either compressed or uncompressed. This fits well with the consumer market for their relatively low cost cameras. It does offer a bit more grading flexibility compared to log video formats, but not as much as deep raw formats like CNDG and Redcode.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #170  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    1,825
    Quote Originally Posted by David Rasberry View Post
    Based on my own experiments with a few posted Braw sample files, I would say its main advantage is decoding efficiency on lower powered computers. It runs 4k real time on my 4 year old I7 6700 series MSI laptop, better than CDNG 2k, either compressed or uncompressed. This fits well with the consumer market for their relatively low cost cameras. It does offer a bit more grading flexibility compared to log video formats, but not as much as deep raw formats like CNDG and Redcode.
    Valid for Scratch
    https://www.slashcam.de/artikel/Ratg...ren-Funkt.html
    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