Amazing "13.5 stops of dynamic range with no pattern noise: it can match any print film."Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
RED should look to achieve this DR...
Shot on Nikon D3x.
LINK>>>
Thread: Is the future FF35?
|
|
10-11-2009, 04:29 PM
Amazing "13.5 stops of dynamic range with no pattern noise: it can match any print film."
RED should look to achieve this DR...
Shot on Nikon D3x.
LINK>>>
10-11-2009, 04:45 PM
I have a hard time believing that the D3x blows the 1DsM3 and 5D2 out of the water when it comes to DR. It's the same basic technology.
10-11-2009, 04:51 PM
FWIW, I don't think Nikon's web examples show the DR very well at all. (The reds are blown, probably due to sRGB out-of-gamut conversion.)
Agreed. I'm sure it's a high priority.
10-11-2009, 05:09 PM
Hobbiest rockets and the Saturn V are the same basic technology, but only one of them goes to the moon.
The 1Ds3 has 4 readout channels and off-sensor ADC.
The D3X has 6000 column parallel ADC on the sensor itself.
They do have the same basic quantum efficiency, which means they gather close to the same amount of light. But where they greatly differ is in read noise (shadow noise).
Firstly, it does not have pattern noise. The 5D2 has random noise that limits the dynamic range to 11.5 stops. But you'll never get close to using that much, because there is another problem you run into first: pattern noise. Lines running through the deep shadows. That kind of noise will limit you to 8-10 stops, depending on the color balance of the light.
Of course, where the 5D2 shines is at high ISO. There the read noise is lower than the D3X.
Here is an example of the pattern noise I'm talking about:
(Click image for full size.)
It's actually one shot from a multi-exposure HDR sequence I did shortly after I got the 5D2. But I wouldn't have to shoot multi-exposures if the 5D2 had enough dynamic range to start with. (And anyway, multi-exposure is not an option if you have movement in the frame.)
It was developed for ~11 stops of dynamic range during raw conversion, but you don't have to go that far to see the pattern noise.
The 1Ds3, on the other hand, seems to have much better electronics. The pattern noise is reduced enough that you can use 11 stops of dynamic range. But the random noise still limits you. The D3X random noise is low enough that you can get over 13 stops.
10-11-2009, 05:52 PM
This is the first I have heard about the D3x being such a marvelous camera. Maybe I will have to rent one for a gig and find out! ;)
10-11-2009, 06:19 PM
Well, it had better be marvelous for the price they put on it. Even so:
- It can't touch a 5D2 in low light.
- There is no Nikon equivalent for my favorite Canon lenses, like the 24mm f/1.4 II, 35mm f/1.4, 70-200 f/4 L IS, and more. (Though they do have some of their own unique offerings like the 200-400 f/4 VR and the excellent 14-24 f/2.8, if you're into slow zooms
).
- Nikon has some issues for starry nightscapes: if you disable in-camera dark frame subtraction ("long exposure noise reduction") so you can do 360-degree shutter, then Nikon will enable a different kind of noise reduction that smudges hot pixels into the background. Unfortunately, it tends to think that stars are hot pixels.
- No video.
10-11-2009, 11:59 PM
This is a great reason why not to get the D3X...well at least for myself and I think Tom. I mainly use my 5D2 for night timelapse. Either cityscapes or star timelapse. I very rarely use my 5D2 for just taking a couple stills of something random. For me its primarily a timelapse camera. The shots you can get with the 5D2 at night are amazing.Well, it had better be marvelous for the price they put on it. Even so:
- It can't touch a 5D2 in low light.
- There is no Nikon equivalent for my favorite Canon lenses, like the 24mm f/1.4 II, 35mm f/1.4, 70-200 f/4 L IS, and more. (Though they do have some of their own unique offerings like the 200-400 f/4 VR and the excellent 14-24 f/2.8, if you're into slow zooms
- Nikon has some issues for starry nightscapes: if you disable in-camera dark frame subtraction ("long exposure noise reduction") so you can do 360-degree shutter, then Nikon will enable a different kind of noise reduction that smudges hot pixels into the background. Unfortunately, it tends to think that stars are hot pixels.
- No video.
10-12-2009, 12:43 AM
Me too. The 5D2 is the best thing going for stars and any low light stuff right now, and that's a big part of why I own it. Unlike Nikon, it also has electronic first curtain ("Silent mode 2") which is great when your camera support is delicate enough that the focal plane shutter itself can introduce sufficient camera shake to affect the image. For me that means sharper macro and astrophotos. (My timelapses are usually wide angle, and I don't even need MLU.)
Of course, the list of things I dislike about the camera is quite long. Canon always seems to strike that delicate balance between just enough features to entice me away from the competition, and just enough flaws to breed contempt.
10-12-2009, 12:53 AM
So for a sunrise timelapse there is no point in doing the side by side test you suggested.
10-12-2009, 11:47 AM
Well let's find out.
There are advantages to digital other than DR. And again, there are things that can be done in post at the RAW stage that simply cannot be done on film.
Dragging a chemical strip through a huge camera presents other problems. There used to be an old-school guy who posted here who described in detail all the problems and horrors that can arise while shooting timelapse on chemical film, including lab problems, exposure problems, flicker, scratches, etc. I'll be standing by with my 5D2 whenever you're ready.
| « Previous Thread | Next Thread » |
