Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Mysterium-X dynamic range...

I guess I'm much less sensitive to "skew" than other people because I studied that 2009 Red Reel at the event and nothing stuck out at me in regards to rolling shutter artifacts, and there was plenty of motion on display. The half-frame from flashes is the only rolling shutter artifact I seem to see on a semi-regular basis, not skew problems.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I guess I'm much less sensitive to "skew" than other people because I studied that 2009 Red Reel at the event and nothing stuck out at me in regards to rolling shutter artifacts, and there was plenty of motion on display. The half-frame from flashes is the only rolling shutter artifact I seem to see on a semi-regular basis, not skew problems.
Click to expand...

Hey David, you or anyone know if the MX is rumored to solve the "half-frame from flashes" artifact?
 
C.H.Haskell said:
Hey David, you or anyone know if the MX is rumored to solve the "half-frame from flashes" artifact?
Click to expand...

Well the read-reset time was reduced by almost half, so the problem should be reduced, though that's no excuse for not setting up your light properly in the first place, because if you don't and you use lights that are subject to it, it can happen anyway.
 
Bare with me... I'm still trying to get my head around this 12 bit more DR thing.

The new MX sensor has 13 reported stops of Dynamic Range where it used to have 11. If you've still got 12 bits of available information, and you're exposing to the extremes of the sensor's limitation, i.e from black all the way up to pure white, you're now going to get potential banding in the new sensor where before you wouldn't?
 
Tyler Black said:
Bare with me... I'm still trying to get my head around this 12 bit more DR thing.

The new MX sensor has 13 reported stops of Dynamic Range where it used to have 11. If you've still got 12 bits of available information, and you're exposing to the extremes of the sensor's limitation, i.e from black all the way up to pure white, you're now going to get potential banding in the new sensor where before you wouldn't?
Click to expand...

Please don't assume that we are doing things in a conventional way.

Jim
 
Alex Mack said:
Likewise. Too much attention is given to rolling shutter, IMO.
Click to expand...

Perhaps for your applications. Just because it isn't always visible to the human eye doesn't mean it can't cause headaches in post.
 
Originally posted by Jim
Please don't assume that we are doing things in a conventional way.
Click to expand...

I would never assume you're doing anything but the unconventional:cheers2:
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Because dynamic range is a marketing tool, so don't believe what anyone tells you, it's nearly useless information in the abstract. If one company or person uses a method of measuring dynamic range that is different than another, then the figures are useless as a point of comparison. Plus there is a difference between recorded range and useable range, and everyone decides what is "useable" differently.

A practical example would be the recent comparisons between the Sony F35 (considered probably the king of dynamic range right now) and the new MX sensor and the new ARRI Alexa sensors -- what seems to be the result of these tests is that the dynamic range is similar but the noise is lower in the new sensors. And less noise gives you more flexibility in color-correction, so more of that range is useable. But the recorded measurable range may be rather similar.

So the only time you are going to get a realistic view of the differences between two cameras is to shoot your own tests and color-correct them, because that can also be a factor in what information is useable and able to be manipulated. In other words, the recording format can have an effect on what the sensor can output.

So Sony releasing "X" figures for dynamic range and Red releasing "Y" and ARRI releasing "Z"... well, it has little value.

An even when an outside party does their own comparison test, even that has to be taken with a grain of salt. Their testing methodology could be potentially flawed or simply represents their own personal way of working with digital images. But at least a side-by-side comparison does make certain differences more immediately visible than specs released by manufacturers, which is just a different form of information to be weighed.

On the other hand, common sense tells you that it is unlikely for an 8-bit prosumer HDV camera to capture the same dynamic range, with the same ability to be manipulated, as better cameras and recording formats working at a higher bit-depth and with better compression schemes.
Click to expand...

great post. wish this were stickied!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jannard said:
Please don't assume that we are doing things in a conventional way.

Jim
Click to expand...

So a log or other some other magic non-linear scenario?

So this would put a more strain on the Rocket and Graeme's work schedule, but has no compromise for finished product since we don't go back to .R3D. Right? Will it require that I keep in mind where the info lies when exposing any more than a linear exposure? I guess it wouldn't, in fact I guess it might be the opposite..? We might not want to expose to the right "as much"? I need to learn about this.

Looking forward to reading about the new tricks and how they affect the work.
 
So when you increase the ISO you now really are moving the dynamic range to give you more latitude in the highlights? I hypothesise you could get the crushed blacks look and extremely mild highlights all sorted in camera very quickly and easily.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I guess I'm much less sensitive to "skew" than other people because I studied that 2009 Red Reel at the event and nothing stuck out at me in regards to rolling shutter artifacts, and there was plenty of motion on display. The half-frame from flashes is the only rolling shutter artifact I seem to see on a semi-regular basis, not skew problems.
Click to expand...

This type of thing can become extremely pronounced in slow CMOS sensors with extremely long lenses, for shooting wildlife, for example. The vDSLRS become incredibly shaky/skewed from 300mm - 600mm. Also, when you mount a camera like Red on an RC chopper, the extreme vibrations can cause problems. The new MX sensor is not going to be quite as good as CCD on a remote helo, but it should be a big, big improvement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top