8k r3d 5:1- 6 STOP UNDER AND OVER EXPOSE TEST

[Neil Abeynayake]

If nothing else, after the leap from MX to Dragon, RED has consistently produced sensors with the ability to dig ever further down into the shadows, with only marginal (if any, in Helium's case) improvements on the high end. From what I've seen I'm almost certain Monstro has no advantage in highlight retention over my good ol' Epic Dragon. For their next sensor, RED should take a page out of Sony's book, their Venice outperforms both Monstro and Alev III in the highlights while keeping phenomenally clean blacks, without even getting to the amazing color science of that camera!

Have you personally tested SONY Venice camera on a calibrated professional reference monitor? And have you performed a comparison test with Venice, Monstro and 'Alev III' sensors on three identically calibrated and matched reference monitors side-by-side? I'm sure the answer is a solid "NO". Therefore, your comment on "Venice outperforms both Monstro and Alev III in the highlights while keeping phenomenally clean blacks" is rather overrated.

 

[Aris_Gavriilidis]

Can you point to the examples leading to that conclusion ?

Yup, sure thing, here's a test Geoff Boyle performed, pause at the 1st second and see for yourself, (Venice at T2-2.8), the Venice maintains color and separation at the High Saturation Color Reference Chart's second to last row, whereas both Alexa Mini and Monstro are barely holding on. Also note how the Monstro is actually exposed at T4-5.6 and it's still a bit behind. Small difference but it's there. I think that's pretty remarkable performance on Sony's end.

https://vimeo.com/283339506

Shadows on the other hand are clearly Monstro territory so it's a camera that needs to be rated differently to Venice for similar results. I just thought to bring up the whole highlight comparison thing to point out how not having to rate a camera at 1600 for awesome highlight retention is a significant advancement in sensor tech and perhaps more manufacturers should follow that example.

 

[Aris_Gavriilidis]

Have you personally tested SONY Venice camera on a calibrated professional reference monitor? And have you performed a comparison test with Venice, Monstro and 'Alev III' sensors on three identically calibrated and matched reference monitors side-by-side? I'm sure the answer is a solid "NO". Therefore, your comment on "Venice outperforms both Monstro and Alev III in the highlights while keeping phenomenally clean blacks" is rather overrated.

There are no Monstro's or Venice's here in Greece yet - and probably won't be for a good while, the film industry is pretty nonexistent here sadly - at the moment aside from one Alexa LF, a few Alexa Classic and Mini's and a good number of Epic Dragons and I believe a Helium too, there aren't any other high-end options in rental houses. I'd absolutely love to get my hands on those new large format cameras and shoot things beyond tests!

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Yup, sure thing, here's a test Geoff Boyle performed, pause at the 1st second and see for yourself, (Venice at T2-2.8), the Venice maintains color and separation at the High Saturation Color Reference Chart's second to last row, whereas both Alexa Mini and Monstro are barely holding on.

https://vimeo.com/283339506

Let's try that again.


Alexa/Venice

 

[Patrick Tresch]

Let's try that again.

And in low light?

 

[Sabovic Adis]

Hrvoje, is this shot at the same T-stop? To me, the Venice sample looks exposed a stop higher or something.

 

[Mark Wuerthner]

Yup, sure thing, here's a test Geoff Boyle performed, pause at the 1st second and see for yourself, (Venice at T2-2.8), the Venice maintains color and separation at the High Saturation Color Reference Chart's second to last row, whereas both Alexa Mini and Monstro are barely holding on. Also note how the Monstro is actually exposed at T4-5.6 and it's still a bit behind. Small difference but it's there. I think that's pretty remarkable performance on Sony's end.

https://vimeo.com/283339506

You might want to look at this test as it shows something quite different:
https://vimeo.com/showcase/5957128/video/333200960

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Hrvoje, is this shot at the same T-stop? To me, the Venice sample looks exposed a stop higher or something.

T2, ISO500 both.

Differences: sensor, signal processing, log.

Exposure compensation on Venice would not give the same image feel.

 

[Sabovic Adis]

T2, ISO500 both.

Differences: sensor, signal processing, log.

Hm..
And when transformed to 709, are there significant differences in overall brightness?

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Hm..
And when transformed to 709, are there significant differences in overall brightness?

When transformed to 709 you are looking at properties of transformation too.

Overall brightness impression is mostly due to log differences, but that is just a part.

 

[Sabovic Adis]

When transformed to 709 you are looking at properties of transformation too.

Dammit...:rofl:
:thumbsup:

 

[Aris_Gavriilidis]

Yup, sure thing, here's a test Geoff Boyle performed, pause at the 1st second and see for yourself, (Venice at T2-2.8), the Venice maintains color and separation at the High Saturation Color Reference Chart's second to last row, whereas both Alexa Mini and Monstro are barely holding on. Also note how the Monstro is actually exposed at T4-5.6 and it's still a bit behind. Small difference but it's there. I think that's pretty remarkable performance on Sony's end.

https://vimeo.com/283339506

You might want to look at this test as it shows something quite different:
https://vimeo.com/showcase/5957128/video/333200960

Seen this test as well, indeed very different to Boyle's. It's odd how the Alexa is outperforming the Venice here, though on the other hand the Monstro is still marginally behind in highlight retention but absolutely destroys the Venice in the shadows, so this test is similar to Boyle's results in that regard and additionally, in a way, it's another confirmation of the need to rate this beast higher than 800.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Seen this test as well, indeed very different to Boyle's. It's odd .

Oddness remover tool just above.

: )

 

[Aaron Lochert]

Seen this test as well, indeed very different to Boyle's. It's odd...

One test lit for each camera's native sensitivity and the other lit for the same level across all cameras. ISO 500 on Venice means on Boyle's test, it's being underexposed 2/3 from it's native compared to Alexa, so it's getting some help there.

 

[Goker Goren]

 

[Curtis boggs]

The iris over/under test is good at revealing what happens at the point of clipping and what happens deep in the noise floor.

I just hope that people understand that with any digital system once you've hard clipped/over exposed into the heavens and hard crushed/under exposed into the noise floor there's nothing left to salvage.

Honestly, worked the same way for film. There is a point where nothing exists.

Never a more true statement, .. once it's gone, it's gone!

 

[David J. Buchanan]

DEB is almost useless on anything but Dragon.

These old standards don't translate well to the new sensor(s).

I still prefer legacy but that's only because they haven't came up with anything better in the color science area, esp since there are three new sensors since Dragon.

 

[Phil Holland]

DEB is almost useless on anything but Dragon.

DEB has now transformed into a new algorithm if you have opened RCX anytime recently called "Chromatic Noise Reduction". It's actually fairly different than DEB of yesteryear and is a proper CNR method now.