PDA

View Full Version : Abel Cine Measures Sensitivity & DR



cowpunk52
05-27-2011, 05:00 PM
http://blog.abelcine.com/2011/05/27/sony-fs100-ratings-and-dynamic-range/

Danielvilliers
05-27-2011, 05:39 PM
At least two stops less dynamic range that the standard F3, what is the reason to balk about that they have the same sensor when the difference in performance is so huge. Perhaps I miss the point of this camera, it was meant for people shooting only at night.

HHL
05-27-2011, 05:53 PM
At least two stops less dynamic range that the standard F3, what is the reason to balk about that they have the same sensor when the difference in performance is so huge. Perhaps I miss the point of this camera, it was meant for people shooting only at night.

I don't know what they were trying to do.....but that low light mojo is LITERALLY off the charts. Amazing stuff! Perhaps you are right....F3 + FS100 = SLOG + low light king? We'll see what it's legacy becomes....

HHL
05-27-2011, 06:08 PM
Example....btw....this was shot with a lens that isn't noted for low-light ability (to put it lightly)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjJ5R7Xc-3M&feature=related

HHL
05-27-2011, 06:16 PM
Another. (Same not so great in low light lens)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu0-T-aNnfw&feature=related

Mitch Gross
05-27-2011, 09:16 PM
To put the +30db / 16,000 ISO concept into perspective, it means that using a T1.3 lens key light exposure is 1/10th of a footcandle.

That's insane.

Even at a T2.8, the key is still about half a footcandle. And there's still almost ten stops of Dynamic Range. Sure +30db has noise, but it is way lower than one would ever expect at such ridiculous gain. It is an incredibly quiet sensor.

J Davis
05-27-2011, 11:01 PM
Nice chart Mitch, srry for dumb question but is this cam do +1db gain increments or only +3db gain increments?
Also this is off topic but is there back focus adjustment on the FS100?

Duke M.
05-28-2011, 05:50 AM
Hey, wait a minute.

The scope shot only seems to show 10 stops of DR. Yet the chart has 11 stops of value clearly visible, without getting into whites. The dome on the light meter is another value whiter that's clearly visible. I don't think this is a valid test of DR range.

Also, the F3 is ISO 500 at -3db. The FS100 is ISO 500 at 0db gain. Is there no -3db on the FS100? (Which would make the ND filter situation less dire if -3db is ISO 200 or 300. I heard there wasn't on the preproduction model, what about the production models? Anyone have one?)

Washington Irving
05-28-2011, 06:00 AM
Yea that DR test doesn't make sense.
A (albeit non-scientific) test here: http://nofilmschool.com/2011/05/sony-fs100-compare-sony-f3/
seems to suggest that there's only around half a stop difference between the fs100 and the F3.

FelixGER
05-28-2011, 07:37 AM
Only 10 stops? This must be wrong!
What I donīt like so much is the missing cinetone 3 and 4 gammas. Cinetone 1 is a lot darker in the midtones.

@Mitch Gross (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/member.php?44533-Mitch-Gross): How do you know DR @30 DB is still 10 stops?

David W. Jones
05-28-2011, 09:25 AM
I tend to take threads posted on the internet about dynamic range or resolution of a particular camera, or camera vs camera with a grain of salt.
Here is a little thread... http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?58888-THE-DYNAMIC-RANGE-OF-35MM-MOTION-PICTURE-FILM......

FelixGER
05-28-2011, 09:50 AM
When you compare cine 1 of the FS 100 and the F3 you can see the F3 going well beyond 100 IRE. Maybe the Fs100 was set to cine 2 which uses only legal broadcast values.

F3: http://www.imagebanana.com/view/hc4jbumb/F3.PNG
FS100: http://www.imagebanana.com/view/pqzppeuc/fs100.PNG

Doctor Wu
05-28-2011, 11:31 AM
I see only ten stops on that display and when you look at the F3 scope, it shows at least two stops greater.

That's good for a videocamera. It only pales in comparison to the F3. Stuff I've seen from preproduction models also suggests the F3 has significantly greater DR.

I'll do my own tests when I get mine, thought I don't expect 11/12 stops from it.

NeedCreative
05-28-2011, 12:51 PM
I see 10 stops too, but the 5D Mark II has also been measured with 10 stops in video mode in some tests, so clearly these tests aren't strictly controlled. I'd say it has similar DR to the 5D Mark II, which is not bad at all. Especially considering it's additional low light performance over the 5D.

Duke M.
05-28-2011, 01:10 PM
Maybe I don't understand, but here's what I see.

34539

NeedCreative
05-28-2011, 01:17 PM
Maybe I don't understand, but here's what I see.

34539

I see that too but I'm talking about the scope. From the output it clearly looks like 11 stops doesn't it? I'm no expert in charts though. Something's amiss here, either in the test or our understanding of it.

I think a greyscale chart with 18 steps is what you really need to measure against and they likely did. Something like this: http://www.dsclabs.com/images/New%20Images/GreyScales/DX1-72dB.jpg

One would expect about 10-11 stops from the FS100 though, leaning towards the 10 range.

Here's what the 5D2 has... looks like just over 10 to me: http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/aadams/story/canon_5d_how_much_dynamic_range_does_it_have_reall y/

One more thing. We don't know how Zacuto is doing their tests, but they show 11.2 stops of DR with the 5D2:

http://provideocoalition.com/images/uploads/NAB11AWP1000307.jpg

They also show the same DR rating for the F3. So who knows who is exactly right? Go in expecting the DR of a 5D2 approximately and you'll be happy.

S. Matthews
05-28-2011, 01:49 PM
wait until you can test it yourself, what is an acceptable range of DR on a chart can very from person to person. With all of these tests we need to consider where it is comming from and how it was done, and then take it with a grain of salt and use it is a jumping off point for a measure of the camera's true capabilities.

Thanks for this it's very informative, especially the low light tests.

Have a good one!

Razz16mm
05-28-2011, 02:05 PM
No front lit printed greyscale chart can show more than about 6-1/2 stops DR between black and white due to the difference between maximum reflectivity of matte white media and the maximum density of black inks. The standard 11 step chip chart is calibrated in 1/2 stops for a 5-1/2 stop range. It is intended to measure the critical mid tone scale range. It takes three separate exposures bracketing 3 stops over and 3 stops under nominal exposure to get an approximate DR measurement of 11-1/2 stops. A back lit transparency chart is the most consistent way to measure the full DR of modern cameras.

Doctor Wu
05-28-2011, 02:29 PM
Right, I was going to say that the grey chart used for that still looks like it's calibrated for 1/2 stops.

nyvz
05-28-2011, 03:46 PM
Maybe I don't understand, but here's what I see.

34539

That is just the still from the ISO tests, not from the DR test. Clearly they used a proper wide latitude backlit chart for latitude testing.

nyvz
05-28-2011, 03:52 PM
When you compare cine 1 of the FS 100 and the F3 you can see the F3 going well beyond 100 IRE. Maybe the Fs100 was set to cine 2 which uses only legal broadcast values.

F3: http://www.imagebanana.com/view/hc4jbumb/F3.PNG
FS100: http://www.imagebanana.com/view/pqzppeuc/fs100.PNG

The FS100 does not use the same picture profile system as XDCAM EX cameras like the F3 and EX1/3 . It sounds like they used the cinematone1 gamma mode, which from what I was told by a Sony rep was designed around mimicking a particular negative film response curve as opposed to cinematone2 which I can't seem to recall exactly but I think he said was designed to mimic something like a positive film response curve. Basically cinematone1 is the gamma mode to use.

What is interesting, though, is when I used the FS100 briefly at a sony event, knee adjustments were available no matter what gamma mode was selected, which is unlike XDCAM EX cameras where cinegamma overrides the knee option so that knee can only be used with std gamma modes.

cheezweezl
05-28-2011, 04:14 PM
That is just the still from the ISO tests, not from the DR test. Clearly they used a proper wide latitude backlit chart for latitude testing.

did i miss the part where that was clearly stated? because i didn't see anything about how the DR test was done. only a screen shot of the wfm.

nyvz
05-28-2011, 06:19 PM
did i miss the part where that was clearly stated? because i didn't see anything about how the DR test was done. only a screen shot of the wfm.

No you definitely didnt miss it, it's really unclear in the article, I just inferred based on how they did previous DR tests on their blog. Best case scenario they did do the DR test with properly set up backlit charts but with very little explanation or analysis so the "measurements" and conclusions mean next to nothing to me, worst case they actually did do it with some kind of front lit chart and the conclusions mean absolutely nothing to me. I definitely take other people's tests, especially those from organizations with a stake in upselling particular products, with a grain of salt. And with such incredibly sparse documentation of preparation, methods, analysis, etc I'd make it a really big grain of salt.

Mitch Gross
05-28-2011, 08:39 PM
The Dynamic Range testing was in fact done with a backlit transparency chart, a product of DSC Labs. The front lit chart was for mapping color response and to measure noise in the various color channels when applying so much gain.

I stepped in briefly for this testing; Andy's the one who did the work. He completely knows what he is doing and we often double-check one another to make sure we're thinking along proper lines. He & I (and a particularly important person from Sony) agreed that the camera showed just shy of 10 stops of Dynamic Range. We also agreed that for what this camera is that this response is pretty sweet.

morgan_moore
05-29-2011, 12:28 AM
The Dynamic Range testing was in fact done with a backlit transparency chart, a product of DSC Labs. The front lit chart was for mapping color response and to measure noise in the various color channels when applying so much gain.

I stepped in briefly for this testing; Andy's the one who did the work. He completely knows what he is doing and we often double-check one another to make sure we're thinking along proper lines. He & I (and a particularly important person from Sony) agreed that the camera showed just shy of 10 stops of Dynamic Range. We also agreed that for what this camera is that this response is pretty sweet.

Having watched - at vimeo quality - Mr Bloom non science test of the three sub $20k S35 cameras and the 5d to my eye the colours and banding of the vid cams went so wrong (almost flourecent skies ) at the high end (esp the banding of the Af100) that the fully blown look of the 5d is far preferable and the DR testing useless without some analysis of banding, colour solidity and to transition blown

This is why the 5d always looks great but fails in tests, the tests are flawed

what dya think?

S

Washington Irving
05-29-2011, 02:07 AM
We also agreed that for what this camera is that this response is pretty sweet.
Have you tested any other cameras in the same way? It would be good to see how the DR of the FS100 is relative to some other cameras I've used. Such as the 5d, AF100 and F3.
Comparing one DR test to another is almost impossible and perhaps knowing the DR of this camera relative to others would be more useful.
Personally I was hoping it would hit 11 stops.
Thanks for the test.

Doctor Wu
05-29-2011, 02:44 AM
They've tested the F3 in the same way at abelcine. Just go to their blog and search for "f3 dynamic range".

As for the Panny Af100, there's been a few tests by dvxuser members and others who have found its DR to to be 10+.

Now that's somewhat better than what abelcine reports for the FS100, but abelcine's is just one test mind you. And we'll have to wait until there's more tests done before handing the gold star in this particular category of performance to the AF100.

I myself could afford the F3 with a set of Cine primes, but instead I'm getting the FS100 and will use my nikons and canon stills. Why? Because I've been working in post production and coloring for the past two years, and because my client base as a shooter dried up, there's really no business sense buying a 40K rig when the clients aren't there anymore for me. Without enough clients, any purchase, becomes a "personal" purchase and should fit into your budgets as such.



Have you tested any other cameras in the same way? It would be good to see how the DR of the FS100 is relative to some other cameras I've used. Such as the 5d, AF100 and F3.
Comparing one DR test to another is almost impossible and perhaps knowing the DR of this camera relative to others would be more useful.
Personally I was hoping it would hit 11 stops.
Thanks for the test.

cheezweezl
05-29-2011, 03:04 AM
I myself could afford the F3 with a set of Cine primes, but instead I'm getting the FS100 and will use my nikons and canon stills. Why? Because I've been working in post production and coloring for the past two years, and because my client base as a shooter dried up, there's really no business sense buying a 40K rig when the clients aren't there anymore for me. Without enough clients, any purchase, becomes a "personal" purchase and should fit into your budgets as such.

I'm in almost the same boat. I do shoot quite a bit but I'm spending more time in the edit/color suite as of late. I was so sure I was gonna buy the F3 and just rent it out when I wasn't using it. However, I already see F3's with cine lenses renting for $300/day or less here in LA. History tells me that once more F3's hit the streets the rental price will only drop from there. After all, I can rent a Red MX with glass, drives, and a 17" monitor for $300/day. So once I saw that the FS100 was producing footage that is nearly identical to the F3 for a little over 1/3 the cost, it was a no-brainer.

So 10 stops, 9 stops, 11 stops, whatever. The footage I have seen looks killer and the low light performance is making my toes tingle. I'm positive that paired up with a good external recorder, the FS100 will produce some badass footage, period.

Shipsides
05-29-2011, 08:38 AM
Hey, wait a minute.

The scope shot only seems to show 10 stops of DR. Yet the chart has 11 stops of value clearly visible, without getting into whites. The dome on the light meter is another value whiter that's clearly visible. I don't think this is a valid test of DR range.

Also, the F3 is ISO 500 at -3db. The FS100 is ISO 500 at 0db gain. Is there no -3db on the FS100? (Which would make the ND filter situation less dire if -3db is ISO 200 or 300. I heard there wasn't on the preproduction model, what about the production models? Anyone have one?)

We are using an 18 step back lite gray scale chart to determine the DR of the camera, yes you can count 11 gray chips on the front lite chroma du monde, but they are not representing actual stop of light difference. The back lite chart gives much more accurate stop differences. I can see the confusion because I showed the front lite chart in the blog. I preformed this test with a Sony representative in the room, and we all agreed it was fair.

Cinetone2 had less range overall compared to CineTone1, with less stops in the low end of the curve. The FS100 does not have a -3 gain on it.

Shipsides
05-29-2011, 08:41 AM
Have you tested any other cameras in the same way? It would be good to see how the DR of the FS100 is relative to some other cameras I've used. Such as the 5d, AF100 and F3.
Comparing one DR test to another is almost impossible and perhaps knowing the DR of this camera relative to others would be more useful.
Personally I was hoping it would hit 11 stops.
Thanks for the test.

We have an F3 ISO test on the blog, which was done in the same way. I also did this same test with the AF100 and other cameras.

FelixGER
05-29-2011, 08:44 AM
How much gain -> noise do you guys think is maximum for professional narrative work (without denoising in post)?
+6?

Shipsides
05-29-2011, 08:51 AM
No you definitely didnt miss it, it's really unclear in the article, I just inferred based on how they did previous DR tests on their blog. Best case scenario they did do the DR test with properly set up backlit charts but with very little explanation or analysis so the "measurements" and conclusions mean next to nothing to me, worst case they actually did do it with some kind of front lit chart and the conclusions mean absolutely nothing to me. I definitely take other people's tests, especially those from organizations with a stake in upselling particular products, with a grain of salt. And with such incredibly sparse documentation of preparation, methods, analysis, etc I'd make it a really big grain of salt.

Nyvz,

Thanks for the note, I've updated the blog with a note about the use of the 18 step back lit chart. It should have been stated more clearly what are methods were in preparing this data. If you check out our F3 dynamic range blog then you can see my exact method. This test was done with a Sony rep in the room, who also Ok'd posting it on our blog. It was not intended to be an upsell another product versus this one, we have stake in selling a huge variety of cameras so it is not in my interest to speak negative about any one camera. We try to be as unbiased as possible and still support or vendors, it's a tricky situation that I hope you can understand.

Shipsides
05-29-2011, 08:54 AM
How much gain -> noise do you guys think is maximum for professional narrative work (without denoising in post)?
+6?

I think +18 is still acceptable and I showed the camera to a couple of television production companies and they agreed after going through post with the footage.

FelixGER
05-29-2011, 09:04 AM
JESUS!
Thatīs more than incredible!

Thank you for the info.
I have another question. On your dynamic range test, middle grey was @ about 25 IRE instead of 50?
Thatīs pretty low I think. On the F3 mid-grey only drops from 50 to 40 IRE, whenswitching form REC709 to cinetone 1.
Iīm not sure how much cinetone 1 is usable on the FS100 if mid-brightness drops so much.

But maybe Iīm interpreting the chart wrong.

Shipsides
05-29-2011, 09:19 AM
JESUS!
I have another question. On your dynamic range test, middle grey was @ about 25 IRE instead of 50?
Thatīs pretty low I think. On the F3 mid-grey only drops from 50 to 40 IRE, when switching form REC709 to cinetone 1.
Iīm not sure how much cinetone 1 is usable on the FS100 if mid-brightness drops so much.

That's a good point. It does drop that middle value considerably when exposing for the brightest white, especially when compared to the F3. We could interpret the chart differently and choose the middle gray point one stop higher, giving us 3 stops above and 6 below. That would probably be more accurate to how it would actually be used.

I only had the FS100 in house for a couple hours again, after all of these good comments I've decided to do a more in-depth analysis on all the different gamma modes. Just need to get our demo camera in.

J Davis
05-29-2011, 09:20 AM
Hi Andy can you help me out with two questions. The smallest increments are +3db right?
And also is there back focus adjustment?

Shipsides
05-29-2011, 09:24 AM
Hi Andy can you help me out with two questions. The smallest increments are +3db right?
And also is there back focus adjustment?

Yes +3 is the small increment of gain increase, which would equal a half stop push (+6db is a full stop). There is no back focus (flange focal depth) adjustment on the mount, however both the HotRod PL adapter as well as the 16x9 PL adapter that we will be stocking can be shimmed for proper back focus.

J Davis
05-29-2011, 09:43 AM
thanks andy, was hoping for 1/3rd stop but half is fine


... however both the HotRod PL adapter as well as the 16x9 PL adapter that we will be stocking can be shimmed for proper back focus.

sweet :)

nyvz
05-29-2011, 09:39 PM
We also agreed that for what this camera is that this response is pretty sweet.

Oh? My understanding as far as numbers that get thrown around for latitude for similar cameras was that under 10stops puts it in the range of 3 year old 1/2" cameras with ~9x less imaging area and ~9x smaller photosites. Compared to similar sized sensor cameras at competing prices, it is also less than most video-capable DSLR cameras despite their relatively small photosites and utilized imaging area while shooting video and even below the AF100 with its 1/2" sensor-sized photosites. Less than 10 stops is a figure that does not sound all that compelling in that context. Also, given that the FS100 is described as having the same sensor as the F3 which at the sensor level appears to be capable of capturing as many as 13-14 stops of latitude when considering performance in slog mode. Even the F3, which is apparently crippled in latitude by all non-slog gamma options clipping to white 2-3 stops earlier than at the sensor level, seems to be far ahead of the FS100 despite having the "same sensor". Anyone is likely to find these numbers suspect given those details, and I'm sure many of us were hopeful that we would not be sacrificing latitude by using such a new clean sensor and when moving from our $1500 DSLRs to this $5000 camcorder, but this test seems to imply we may be making compromises. It is hard to imagine how Sony could get so little performance out of a sensor with so much potential. Perhaps this can be optimized using different picture profile settings after more extensive testing?

Mitch Gross
05-29-2011, 10:19 PM
You seem to imply a conspiracy here where there is none. Dynamic Range is often attenuated in a Pictice Profile matrix to get the most out of a camera's capture format. In essence the sensors ALWAYS are capable of more than the rest of the camera can handle. The F3 can do more complex work because it is a more complex machine. It's not like the F3 has the identical guts of the FS100 with some bogus circuit boards tossed in to pad out the space. There is more going on there so it costs more. Unlike what some would choose to believe, Sony does not manufacture a single camera design and then turn off features for the cheaper models. Each model is an optimized design based on the parameters at hand, one of which is price point.

cheezweezl
05-30-2011, 12:19 AM
Does the fs100 have a gamma setting that allows illegal levels like the f3 does? And would recording externally allow more dr than recording internally?

David G. Smith
05-30-2011, 12:40 AM
The more I see and hear about this camera the more happy I am that I have five grand stuffed away in my sock drawer and a pre-order deposit in for it at Abel Cine. This camera is going to be loads of fun to shoot with. 10 stops of dynamic range on the test bench, this sh*t is getting crazy!

Doctor Wu
05-30-2011, 01:16 AM
The AF100 may have a bit more latitude, but I'll take what looks like cleaner images coming out of that FS100 sensor and the sensitivity over that extra DR.

What kills me is not having the HD-SDI out most of all. but too bad. You makes your choices, you live (shoot) with it. Until Panny release the AF200 :evil:

Shipsides
05-30-2011, 06:36 AM
The FS100 has a different DSP (digital signal processor) than the F3, which makes it a completely different camera. It has the same sensor yes, but just about everything else is different behind that sensor. I just went through some of my old tests with the AF100 and in CineD I get very similar DR results - just about 10 stops.

FelixGER
05-30-2011, 07:14 AM
Maybe we get 10.5 stops when using cinegamma 1 and raising Master black just a little and black gamma (middle, +5)

Danielvilliers
05-30-2011, 09:45 AM
Oh? My understanding as far as numbers that get thrown around for latitude for similar cameras was that under 10stops puts it in the range of 3 year old 1/2" cameras with ~9x less imaging area and ~9x smaller photosites. Compared to similar sized sensor cameras at competing prices, it is also less than most video-capable DSLR cameras despite their relatively small photosites and utilized imaging area while shooting video and even below the AF100 with its 1/2" sensor-sized photosites. Less than 10 stops is a figure that does not sound all that compelling in that context. Also, given that the FS100 is described as having the same sensor as the F3 which at the sensor level appears to be capable of capturing as many as 13-14 stops of latitude when considering performance in slog mode. Even the F3, which is apparently crippled in latitude by all non-slog gamma options clipping to white 2-3 stops earlier than at the sensor level, seems to be far ahead of the FS100 despite having the "same sensor". Anyone is likely to find these numbers suspect given those details, and I'm sure many of us were hopeful that we would not be sacrificing latitude by using such a new clean sensor and when moving from our $1500 DSLRs to this $5000 camcorder, but this test seems to imply we may be making compromises. It is hard to imagine how Sony could get so little performance out of a sensor with so much potential. Perhaps this can be optimized using different picture profile settings after more extensive testing?

I feel the same than you. The more I hear about this camera the more I am disappointed. When it was first bandied around as having the same sensor as the F3, I was hopping for about the same image quality, with different form factor, professional features etc that would be the differentiating factor. I was not hopping for an slog quality f3 latitude but around the basic F3 performance. The same philosophy you see in the dslr camera world , same sensor/image quality but different functionality like body construction, framerate, autofocus etc. But the more details comes out of this camera, from the only 8 bit output and now DR show that it is much bellow the f3 in not only functionality form factor but more importantly image quality. I am sure that 12800 and more iso performance test videos and drooling will come to us in the near future but sincerely did we need better low light quality than the F3 (which is already unheard of) at the expense of dynamic range. Do people need to go to infra red filming, do anyone know about lighting, CRI index of poor sodium outdoor light, directional light etc... When filming mostly during sunny days when everything is blowing. Look at the complaints about the skin tone blowing of the AF100. The lowly gh2 does a better job at it and most dslr.

There is one thing I saw into that hdslr revolution is the look not only of dof but higher dynamic range of the photo cameras. This is what defined the look, some would say the film look, that became so popular. Now Sony would like us to abandon the DSLR for a 2 to 5 time more expensive camera for about the same image quality and contrary to the Af100 this one has to be rigged a lot like a dslr. Many will say a lot of blah blah blah about the electronic etc, but something that the dslr revolution showed is that the video world is greatly overpriced. Look at the $ 900 gh2, true hd quality, no moire/aliasing, hdmi output or the 5d mark2 a $ 2500 vista vision digital camera. So I am not a dreamer, tell me it is marketing and not price performance/technology that is driving those camera manufactures. You can even call it conspiracy for me it is just plain marketing. The gh2 is already a little marvel, I just hope the same level of image quality for the Canon 5d mark3 with better low light and dr hopefully (with the bigger sensor), to show again how the gear in the video world is so overpriced compared to current technology. Mostly to those people people that chant the gospel of those companies.

Shipsides
05-30-2011, 10:07 AM
There is one thing I saw into that hdslr revolution is the look not only of dof but higher dynamic range of the photo cameras. This is what defined the look, some would say the film look, that became so popular. Now Sony would like us to abandon the DSLR for a 2 to 5 time more expensive camera for about the same image quality and contrary to the Af100 this one has to be rigged a lot like a dslr. Many will say a lot of blah blah blah about the electronic etc, but something that the dslr revolution showed is that the video world is greatly overpriced.

I think it's important to think of the economics of the video world versus the DSLR world. DSLR's sell many 100s of thousands more than video camera. A professional video camera is made for a small crowd of people that would require such a device. A DSLR is made for everyone from professional photographers, to hobbiest, to your parents going on vacation. So a DSLR will always cost less, and be geared towards photography. If the GH2 works for you then by all means use it, many others need the functions of a video camera. It's all about the right tool for the job.

mico
05-30-2011, 10:35 AM
FS100: no DSLR moire, real audio,1080 60p, clean HDMI output, can take any lens, Real HD resolution, S35 sensor, extreme clean low light ability, long camera battery life, can use a variety of HDMI recorders for 4:2:2 high bitrate acquisition making it ready for BBC approval, apparently much better rolling shutter, so damn small and light I can transform it into whatever camera I want. Price is right considering I can't get most of these things on any DSLR and to get some of these things on a dslr I would have to purchase some add ons making them cost wise closer to the cost of the FS100. I can't wait to get my hands on this.

Hidef1080
05-30-2011, 12:42 PM
This happens with every new camera release.
As more information comes out some will rule it out because it does not reach their needs. As well they should because people know what they need and at 5k the camera needs to be as close to those needs as possible.

As many times as I heard “the same sensor as the F3” I think some of us [I did anyway] thought of this camera as a potential sleeper and it very well could be but we just need more cameras out there before we'll really know.


I have seen some good video from this camera so the numbers may not tell the whole story.

Cory Braun
05-30-2011, 02:27 PM
I feel the same than you. The more I hear about this camera the more I am disappointed. When it was first bandied around as having the same sensor as the F3, I was hopping for about the same image quality, with different form factor, professional features etc that would be the differentiating factor. I was not hopping for an slog quality f3 latitude but around the basic F3 performance. The same philosophy you see in the dslr camera world , same sensor/image quality but different functionality like body construction, framerate, autofocus etc. But the more details comes out of this camera, from the only 8 bit output and now DR show that it is much bellow the f3 in not only functionality form factor but more importantly image quality. I am sure that 12800 and more iso performance test videos and drooling will come to us in the near future but sincerely did we need better low light quality than the F3 (which is already unheard of) at the expense of dynamic range. Do people need to go to infra red filming, do anyone know about lighting, CRI index of poor sodium outdoor light, directional light etc... When filming mostly during sunny days when everything is blowing. Look at the complaints about the skin tone blowing of the AF100. The lowly gh2 does a better job at it and most dslr.

There is one thing I saw into that hdslr revolution is the look not only of dof but higher dynamic range of the photo cameras. This is what defined the look, some would say the film look, that became so popular. Now Sony would like us to abandon the DSLR for a 2 to 5 time more expensive camera for about the same image quality and contrary to the Af100 this one has to be rigged a lot like a dslr. Many will say a lot of blah blah blah about the electronic etc, but something that the dslr revolution showed is that the video world is greatly overpriced. Look at the $ 900 gh2, true hd quality, no moire/aliasing, hdmi output or the 5d mark2 a $ 2500 vista vision digital camera. So I am not a dreamer, tell me it is marketing and not price performance/technology that is driving those camera manufactures. You can even call it conspiracy for me it is just plain marketing. The gh2 is already a little marvel, I just hope the same level of image quality for the Canon 5d mark3 with better low light and dr hopefully (with the bigger sensor), to show again how the gear in the video world is so overpriced compared to current technology. Mostly to those people people that chant the gospel of those companies.

I'm in the same boat. In fact, I would have been perfectly happy if the camera was only 8 bit, had no HD-SDI, but it had the same internal recording look as the F3. I'd say about 95% of the times that I watch an F3 video I am amazed at how good it looks. Asides from the low light videos, I have yet to be impressed by any of the FS100 videos I have seen. It resembles more the AF100 than the F3, at least to my eyes. It's a shame, because I was initially very excited about this camera.

rgdfilms
05-30-2011, 03:55 PM
I'm in the same boat. In fact, I would have been perfectly happy if the camera was only 8 bit, had no HD-SDI, but it had the same internal recording look as the F3. I'd say about 95% of the times that I watch an F3 video I am amazed at how good it looks. Asides from the low light videos, I have yet to be impressed by any of the FS100 videos I have seen. It resembles more the AF100 than the F3, at least to my eyes. It's a shame, because I was initially very excited about this camera.

I'll make it look badass when I get mine next week... Just need that PL adaptor from 16x9 Inc.

Danielvilliers
05-30-2011, 04:04 PM
I am not going to moan all my life about this camera. I am truly disappointed by it now that I know what it is, if the conclusion of the DR test are 100% confirmed. I do understand that for some functionality with a certain level of image quality is the good balance for the price. For me it is image quality the priority. Tomorrow you give me a box with only a button to press play and a 10 bit uncompressed 12+ stops DR output, like a film camera and I am happy. Perhaps because I am used to work in raw in my photo cameras and I would like to get a bit close to that quality and I am not talking about the resolution but everything else.

The radical design form factor of this camera would lead you to believe in this way (barebone system). A very medium format photo camera like form factor, with an upper lcd, very small form factor, etc... More so that from the first day Sony associated it with the F3 sensor. I might be a fool, but I don't think there is any innocence in that. They deliberately did that so that most would see it as a baby F3 having more or less the same image quality than its bigger brother.

If they said they had a Super 35 camera with X,Y,Z feature etc, I would have judged this camera by its own merits. In fact they made a much more clever approach than Panasonic. Many see the Af-100 as an upgraded Pana lowly (For some) panasonic GH1 or GH2 photo camera, that has video function bolted on it. On the contrary Sony associated the FS-100 to the higher end Cine Alta F3. Many, I guess like myself will be disappointed that it ends to the sensor by name and low light qualities. They are not in any other way comparable, form factor, functionality or image quality wise. We just got the badge or the cap.

FelixGER
05-30-2011, 04:33 PM
What I learned from reading a lot of camera (video and photo) reviews is that DR varies pretty extremely.
I read GH2 reviews that stated 11,5 stops range (which it doesnīt have. Not even near this range) and reviews talking more about 9,x stops.

I think Abel Cine measured the true DR.

Are there more DR tests from Abel cine (aside from F3) available? Maybe from smaller sensor cams?

Shipsides
05-30-2011, 04:54 PM
I'll go through the different gamma modes again when we have a full production camera. I honestly thought that people would have expected these results, but I can see that we all want a full report. So I'll work on one as soon as possible.

FelixGER
05-30-2011, 04:59 PM
You guys are awesome! :)
I would by stuff only from you if you had an european outpost!

Maybe you could do the full report on video rather than a written review, like on the F3.

Cory Braun
05-30-2011, 05:39 PM
I'll make it look badass when I get mine next week... Just need that PL adaptor from 16x9 Inc.

I'm looking forward to it. I'm excited to see what people on here do with the camera.

Duke M.
05-30-2011, 06:18 PM
I am not going to moan all my life about this camera. I am truly disappointed by it now that I know what it is, if the conclusion of the DR test are 100% confirmed.

Daniel, your solution is simple. The FS100 is going to perform in the DR of the best prosumer cameras, but with a big sensor and fabulous low light capabilities. Its priced similar to them too. It performs within its price group with two extra super features.

All camera companies use a tiered pricing system. If those aren't the features you want, buy the F3 and be done with it.

rgdfilms
05-30-2011, 06:30 PM
People are never happy. If you want a camera that can shoot RAW with a s35 chip, pony up and buy a Red MX or a used Red MX. Focus on the content. This camera looks amazing! I own a Red MX and a 5D Mark II and I'm really excited about the FS100's capabilities.. Do I give a rat's ass that it only has 10 stops of DR? Hell no! Get real! If you want F3 performance, then shell out the $14,000 and buy an F3 then!! That simple! Or just build your own camera...

cheezweezl
05-30-2011, 06:39 PM
I love how people are bummed that the FS100 performs comparably to the AF100. Is it just me or isn't the FS100 basically sony's version of the AF100? Same price point. Same sort of codec, same 1080p 60 frame slomo, etc. And if you're gonna do that comparison, then you basically trade ND filters and HDSDI for a bigger sensor and much better low light performance. Take your pick. If you're bummed that it doesn't stack up to the F3, then cough up $14k and buy an F3. But don't call it a scam because you saw that it was the same sensor (which is true) and assumed everything else would be the same.

And most importantly, NOBODY has this camera yet. Even these DR tests are based on the preproduction model. Once the cam hits the streets, it's possible that someone will cook up a picture profile much like the superflat or cinemarvels that will give us a little more latitude. Until then, it's mostly just BS.

Washington Irving
05-30-2011, 06:47 PM
Can you make custom picture profiles on the FS100? because it seems that it's software limiting the DR as the sensor is the same on the F3.
That would be cool anyway.

NeedCreative
05-30-2011, 06:53 PM
From my own two eyes, I'd say the FS100 has a significantly better image than the 5D Mark II in a number areas including noise/low light and detail (especially horizontally), and a lack of significant aliasing, moire, etc. That and the fact that it is a real camcorder as opposed to being a stills cam is enough for me. So it doesn't have more DR than a 5D Mark II? So what? It's the same and far better in every other respect. Same goes for AF100 - same DR, worse picture every other way.

For $2500 you do not get a proper video camera out of the 5D2. I know, I own one. Its wonderful for what it is but it is saddled by limitations, softness, noise and aliasing that practically kills it as a meaningfully useful tool in many situations.

All of that said now... I agree... Sony could likely have pulled more DR out of this sensor (well clearly they have in the F3) at the same cost. Marketing comes into play. I have no doubt that in a year or two we will see a better camera at a better price. Same features cheaper or more capability such as S-log at perhaps an intermediate price point between the FS100 and F3 or maybe even cheaper? Who knows. In the meantime there is no doubt based on the specs, the tests, and holding one in my hands that the FS100 has the 5D Mark 2 beat as a digital cinema camera. And in the right hands, working around its limitations, the 5D2 can still hold up on a big screen. So that's saying a lot.

speedracerlo
05-30-2011, 06:54 PM
it's not the sensor that's limiting the DR, but the processing chip which is an 8-bit processor vs the F3's 10-bit processor and everything past the sensor is different between these two cameras
There will probably be more S35 EXMOR chip cameras after the FS100, maybe even coming down to the consumer level cams, but the processing chips will also be different from the FS100 which will make it very different from each other

NeedCreative
05-30-2011, 06:57 PM
People are never happy. If you want a camera that can shoot RAW with a s35 chip, pony up and buy a Red MX or a used Red MX. Focus on the content. This camera looks amazing! I own a Red MX and a 5D Mark II and I'm really excited about the FS100's capabilities.. Do I give a rat's ass that it only has 10 stops of DR? Hell no! Get real! If you want F3 performance, then shell out the $14,000 and buy an F3 then!! That simple! Or just build your own camera...

Amen.

NeedCreative
05-30-2011, 06:59 PM
And most importantly, NOBODY has this camera yet. Even these DR tests are based on the preproduction model. Once the cam hits the streets, it's possible that someone will cook up a picture profile much like the superflat or cinemarvels that will give us a little more latitude. Until then, it's mostly just BS.

Amen to that too. Freaking out over a chart isn't useful. All we have seen thus far is amazing pictures in low light and regular light that slot in between an AF100 and F3 nicely, and beat a 5D2 in many respects. But the proof is in hands-on a production camera, and that has yet to happen. Soon, we all hope... soon.

cheezweezl
05-30-2011, 07:29 PM
Can you make custom picture profiles on the FS100? because it seems that it's software limiting the DR as the sensor is the same on the F3.
That would be cool anyway.

Who knows? Exactly my point. I know that my ex1 has a crazy paint menu for a cam that price. The only thing I have read is that the FS100's menus aren't as deep. But still there must be something or else there wouldn't be programmable picture profiles. I know I am going to get mine and immediately start looking for the sweet spot.

Now that the camera is almost here, we have another wave of BS coming. People will look at the image right out of the box, and slam it. It happened with the ex1 before those people realized that you have to paint Sony cameras. Panasonic makes really nice presets that can be used immediately. Sony cams generally don't look tat great with default settings....

Mitch Gross
05-30-2011, 10:43 PM
If it was all just the sensor then RED would not be able to keep improving their processing software and then encouraging people to go back to their old files to see how much better they can look. A sensor is incredibly important, but it is also just the start. As noted, the important limiting factor here is that it is an 8-bit limiting output, which means that one simply cannot process the image in the same way as on the F3 without experiencing excessive banding and other artifacts. Sony chose to do this so that the camera could use an inexpensive (SD cards) and well-accepted codec format (AVC-HD can be edited native on most systems).

The camera looks a lot better than some of you seem to have prematurely concluded. There's Dynamic Range and then there's Dynamic Range. Andy will do some more testing as I'm sure will many others, and you should do for yourself as well. It's a sweet camera and used properly will deliver terrific images at a great value, at least IMHO.

trez
05-31-2011, 02:36 AM
it's not the sensor that's limiting the DR, but the processing chip which is an 8-bit processor vs the F3's 10-bit processor

The chip wordlength is definitely not 8bit. It's the ultimate stream format (codec) that is 8 bit. Video chip needs to have much greater bit precision to able to do its tasks properly.
I agree the chip itself and its algorithms are probably different in F3 and FS100. I just wonder whether the difference in DR really arises from the chip limitation or if it's Sony's deliberate strategy

David W. Jones
05-31-2011, 04:44 AM
Bottom line... Cameras have progressed to the point that if you can't get a quality result out of a modern camera in 2011, it's not the cameras fault.

Shipsides
05-31-2011, 04:50 AM
Can you make custom picture profiles on the FS100? because it seems that it's software limiting the DR as the sensor is the same on the F3.
That would be cool anyway.

You can customize the picture profiles, there is less adjustment than found on the F3 but plenty to play with. Once we get the full production unit I will do another test on Video going over the different gamma modes again. Like cheezweezl said it might be possible to dial in a flatter look for more range.

Washington Irving
05-31-2011, 06:12 AM
I've read that the 5d has 10 stops but I assume that that is with a super flat profile. I'd be happy if we can push the FS100 to 11 stops with a similar profile. I guess that DR becomes subjective at that point and depends on what each user finds to be usable.

Bottom line... Cameras have progressed to the point that if you can't get a quality result out of a modern camera in 2011, it's not the cameras fault.
I can and have been achieving results that satisfy me and my clients. But I do a lot of work trying to flatten the image out both in post and in camera. I recently shot with a red MX and the extra dynamic range meant a lot less work to achieve the look i wanted. Now that camera is priced and specced well above the FS100, but the FS100 is priced and specced higher than a DSLR so I had hoped that the DR would have been higher also. It doesn't make it a crap camera by any means. The image and the specs are excellent. I had just hoped it would be more, but the camera's not out yet so arguing about it is probably premature anyway.

cgold
05-31-2011, 06:14 AM
My question is, what is the sensors native ISO? On the F3 everyone was told it was 800, but you could set it to -3 to sacrifice some dynamic range for a cleaner signal. A sensors native ISO should not be affected by the processor right? Because the actual photosites can only hold so much of an electric charge (or something to that effect).

If the F3 and the FS100 have the same sensor and that sensor starts to clip at 800 ISO then shouldn't the dynamic range tests be done at +3 db on the FS100? Just to see (it may very well be that the dynamic range that the FS100 is capable of processing is within the clipped range so Sony decided to start one step lower for the cleaner signal, I am just curious.)

FelixGER
05-31-2011, 08:18 AM
I watched this comparison video of the F3 and the FS100 ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3V8HdXsj0c ) and made two screenshots.

Look at this comparison picture:
http://www.bilderload.com/daten/compareVP6QD.jpg

For me DR seems very similar. The sky and shadows have similiar details. This was in Gamma REC709 on both cams.

Now look at cinetone 1 on the FS100:
http://www.bilderload.com/bild/112695/cine12B8C0.jpg

Just looking at it, not measuring anything, cinetone 1 seems to be more contrasty with considerably less dynamic range.

What do you guys think?

NeedCreative
05-31-2011, 08:20 AM
I think the F3 looks far nicer. Gotta tweak up those FS100 picture profiles...

I am not seeing a huge DR difference though. Just that the default FS100 profile looks lousy as expected and the cinetone aren't much better (but probably grade nicely)

FelixGER
05-31-2011, 08:26 AM
I donīt find it taht lousy. Standard Gamma just looks flat and desaturated. Almost like a LOG File. F3 looks more like a finished look.

NeedCreative
05-31-2011, 09:15 AM
I donīt find it taht lousy. Standard Gamma just looks flat and desaturated. Almost like a LOG File. F3 looks more like a finished look.

I think any ungraded flat profile (or for sure LOG) looks lousy. It's meant to be graded. We do not live in a flat desaturated world (for the most part :) )

Mitch Gross
05-31-2011, 09:58 AM
If you can really judge these things after it goes through YouTube compression then you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din.

FelixGER
05-31-2011, 02:33 PM
xD!^^


Another thing:
Iīm curious if the F3, FS100 has less noise than Red One MX

NeedCreative
05-31-2011, 05:20 PM
If you can really judge these things after it goes through YouTube compression then you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din. I don't think the H.264 compression present on Youtube or anything else massively effects the colors one is seeing. That's what is being seen and judged. And I've seen and shot plenty of flat/neutral and LOG to know.

Besides, you of all people know that ungraded Flat and especially LOG looks lousy. It's designed to be graded; don't need YouTube to tell us that. :)

morgan_moore
06-02-2011, 12:58 PM
Earlier in this thread I made a studiously ignored comment about wide DR being of little value if the roll to blown was not acceptable

Im not sure what compressions this image has been subjected too (I grabbed and cropped it from Mr Blooms AF/F3 vid)

But I guess it is a good representation of how an image may look (Ive seen the same on early dig stills cameras)

Note the 'roll to blown' around the light source bottom left - there is no Roll just a horrid haloed chop yellow-white - nothing in between - and that means you have to avoid blown like the plague and cant ETTR and that costs usable DR and noise in the real world..

Crop from the F3 image..

http://dslr4real.tv/smmspace/webimages/dslr4real/randoms/rolloff.jpg

Aditional Edit

A camera that produces an image like this MOCK UP woud be described as having a smaller DR, but because of the smooth 'filmlike' rolloff is IMO far more useable because you dont have to stop down (pushing you mids into the noise floor) to avoid the bad roll off at the top end..

http://dslr4real.tv/smmspace/webimages/dslr4real/randoms/rolloff2.jpg

And the levels in PS..

http://dslr4real.tv/smmspace/webimages/dslr4real/randoms/rolloff3.jpg

Jean-Philippe
06-02-2011, 01:31 PM
Bloom tend to grad his shot pretty heavilly, so this shot might have nothing to do with what the camera outputed...

morgan_moore
06-02-2011, 01:35 PM
indeed - we can draw nothing from this because it is not a controlled process of testing - Im interested in how people like Mitch with the kit and raw files woud test it

But I see it in real world on my EX1, in Blooms vid you see the effect a little in the F3, more on the FS100 and loads more on the AF100 while the 5d is just white

S

Rockin the 5d .. - the sky is lost but the roll to blown makes it OK

http://dslr4real.tv/smmspace/webimages/dslr4real/reelstills/1.jpg

PS I think the new Sony cameras are great for many other reasons than the DR

Andrew Reid
06-02-2011, 01:36 PM
Good illustration. Highlights and bokeh need to be soft, it is almost as much part of the cinematic look as 24p.

NeedCreative
06-02-2011, 01:40 PM
That F3 xmas shot was heavily graded with significant diffusion added with Magic Bullet Looks. You can't judge on that.

morgan_moore
06-02-2011, 01:48 PM
so point me to something we can judge on ..

and you can see the same effect on the bridge shots in the bloom vid - that are 'undgraded' but compressed

S

cheezweezl
06-02-2011, 05:37 PM
ex1 blows in the same manner as the xmas shot. goes all yellow and poof turns white.


EDIT: ok, just shot a lightbulb with the FS100. exposed so that part of the bulb was blown and part wasn't. i had to turn on the zebras (set to 100+) to verify that part was blown because the transition was soooooo smooth. i tried again by shooting this little rubber ball that lights up different colors. the transition from the color to blown white was smooth like chocolate mousse. mind you, i'm only looking at the lcd at this point so it could be lying to me to some extent. but based on my experience with the ex1, i think i would have seen a nasty blowout line if there was one. i wish i could post a pic but my sdhc cards just showed up at my house and i won't get them until tonight. i can say with confidence that the nasty blowout in bloom's xmas footy has to be a product of grading.

Washington Irving
06-02-2011, 05:46 PM
Surely the roll is just profile thing? I mean you make the 5d clip like crazy if you want. Do we know how much we can customise the profile on the FS100 yet?

cheezweezl
06-02-2011, 06:21 PM
ok, for what it's worth (best i can do at the moment), here are two screen shots. these are shots of the lcd taken with my iphone. i had to take them at an angle to minimize moire which is still present. however, this should give you some idea of how the camera handles blowout. i realize that this isn't proof of anything and this isn't the best thing i could shoot to test this, but this is what is outside my office and i know this is worlds better than what i would see on my ex1.

in the first shot, you can see by the histogram that this is well exposed and nothing is blowing.

https://files.me.com/fisherfilmworks/572bfc

in the second shot, you can tell by the histogram that there is quite a bit of clipping going on, yet the image still looks pleasing. nice gradients, nothing nasty.

https://files.me.com/fisherfilmworks/5ixvwn

cheezweezl
06-02-2011, 06:32 PM
just put the same lens on my 7d and dialed in the same iso, wb, and shutter, and framed up the same shot. the image looks almost the same except, there are ugly yellow blooms on either side of the dark vertical line on the left side of the screen. i was using the neutral profile on the 7d. the fs100 is set to cinetone1 with the black levels raised a bit to avoid crushing.

EDIT: ok, just got a break and went outside. nice blue sky day today. i obviously went 0db and since i cant adjust my iris (,yet. hurry up birger), i had to use my shutter to set exposure. so, using the zebras set to 100+, i lined up a shot where half of the sky was blown, and the other half still blue. i turned off the zebras and what i saw was a nice natural transition from blue to white. no hard lines. no yellow (or any other color) tinge. also, the top of the parking deck that was exposed to sunlight was blowing gradually the higher the wall got. that falloff was also very nice. of course detail was lost in the white but it was a clean falloff. very red-mx-like.

i'm starting to forget about the cheesy plastic top handle and starting to think about the beautiful imagery to come...

NeedCreative
06-02-2011, 07:14 PM
Thanks cheez. Looks and sounds good to me. I'm actually surprised you're finding the 7D handles highlights worse. I look forward to comparing to my 5D Mark II when I get the FS100 Monday.

cheezweezl
06-02-2011, 07:39 PM
Thanks cheez. Looks and sounds good to me. I'm actually surprised you're finding the 7D handles highlights worse. I look forward to comparing to my 5D Mark II when I get the FS100 Monday.

a half blown sky on the 7d is a horrifying experience. if your WB is off by a hair it gets even worse. what i just saw on the lcd looked like red falloff. not like any prosumer or dslr cam i have ever worked with. fingers crossed that it's not just the lcd making nice for me. will go out tomorrow in the sun with a card and record some stuff. post to come....

cheezweezl
06-03-2011, 07:20 PM
When you compare cine 1 of the FS 100 and the F3 you can see the F3 going well beyond 100 IRE. Maybe the Fs100 was set to cine 2 which uses only legal broadcast values.

F3: http://www.imagebanana.com/view/hc4jbumb/F3.PNG
FS100: http://www.imagebanana.com/view/pqzppeuc/fs100.PNG

I just confirmed that cinematone 1 does allow illegal levels. Highlight clipping occurs at 110 IRE

AS SHOT - notice the blown area on the right side of the frame

https://files.me.com/fisherfilmworks/a64665

https://files.me.com/fisherfilmworks/9ajm95

Corrected highlights to 100IRE and blacks brought down to 0IRE (as best i could with FCP's crappo 3-way...)

https://files.me.com/fisherfilmworks/evydre

https://files.me.com/fisherfilmworks/a97pe3

FelixGER
06-04-2011, 03:57 AM
If someone has the time he could test the different gamma modes.
Iīm not sure if cinetone 1 is the best gammamode because it drops brightness quiet a bit and seems more contrasty than standard (with a good kneepoint)

cheezweezl
06-04-2011, 08:03 AM
If someone has the time he could test the different gamma modes.
Iīm not sure if cinetone 1 is the best gammamode because it drops brightness quiet a bit and seems more contrasty than standard (with a good kneepoint)

You're right, it drops the mids quite a bit. However, it also preserves highlights and seems to stretch DR. I say "seems" because I haven't done any real tests. So yes, the image from the camera may be dark at times with C1 but you can grade it and keep your highlights.

Postmaster
06-04-2011, 08:54 AM
Too dark is not one of the FS100 problems :evil:

Shipsides
06-19-2011, 10:00 AM
I posted an updated DR test on our blog - http://blog.abelcine.com/2011/06/17/sony-nex-fs100-dynamic-range-test/

Andy

David G. Smith
06-19-2011, 10:17 AM
I have watched that several times, great work. Thanks Andy.

Rick Burnett
06-19-2011, 11:00 AM
That's a nice update! :)

cheezweezl
06-19-2011, 09:34 PM
Am I missing something? In the video he says 11.5 stops range. However, the wfm shows 4 stops above middle grey and 5.5 stops below. Isn't that 10.5 stops?

speedracerlo
06-19-2011, 10:27 PM
I think you count from 0 so the range from 0 to +4 = 5 stops and 0 to -5.5 is 6.5 stops = 11.5
notice how the middle gray is split in two

Rick Burnett
06-19-2011, 11:44 PM
Am I missing something? In the video he says 11.5 stops range. However, the wfm shows 4 stops above middle grey and 5.5 stops below. Isn't that 10.5 stops?

I'm going to have to agree with you here. I went back and looked at their old review (http://blog.abelcine.com/2011/05/27/sony-fs100-ratings-and-dynamic-range/#more-12208) which goes from +4 to -5 which they called 10 stops. This one goes from +4 to -5.5 which is 10.5 stops (and matches the AF100 as well).

Does the chart start counting in half increments at the bottom range? Just wondering why it goes in 1 stops then goes to a .5 stop increment.

Rick Burnett
06-19-2011, 11:44 PM
Am I missing something? In the video he says 11.5 stops range. However, the wfm shows 4 stops above middle grey and 5.5 stops below. Isn't that 10.5 stops?

I'm going to have to agree with you here. I went back and looked at their old review (http://blog.abelcine.com/2011/05/27/sony-fs100-ratings-and-dynamic-range/#more-12208) which goes from +4 to -5 which they called 10 stops. This one goes from +4 to -5.5 which is 10.5 stops (and matches the AF100 as well).

Does the chart start counting in half increments at the bottom range? Just wondering why it goes in 1 stops then goes to a .5 stop increment.

cheezweezl
06-20-2011, 12:28 AM
I think you count from 0 so the range from 0 to +4 = 5 stops and 0 to -5.5 is 6.5 stops = 11.5
notice how the middle gray is split in two

Middle grey is split in two so you can easily identify middle grey. It's split like that on the chart if I'm not mistaken.

Beyond that, I don't understand your math. Can you clarify?

My math goes like this, stops are as follows. -5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4. That's ten stops. Add the "-5.5?" and that's another half stop.

Right?

cheezweezl
06-20-2011, 12:31 AM
I'm going to have to agree with you here. I went back and looked at their old review (http://blog.abelcine.com/2011/05/27/sony-fs100-ratings-and-dynamic-range/#more-12208) which goes from +4 to -5 which they called 10 stops. This one goes from +4 to -5.5 which is 10.5 stops (and matches the AF100 as well).

Does the chart start counting in half increments at the bottom range? Just wondering why it goes in 1 stops then goes to a .5 stop increment.

I don't know what the deal with that is? The -5.5 stops has a question mark by it. Does that mean that they aren't really sure what that means?

The old test had the same question mark by the -5 stop mark

speedracerlo
06-20-2011, 03:47 AM
I think you're right, it looks like 10.5 stops and Andy must have misread it..

FelixGER
06-20-2011, 05:03 AM
Ups...

Razz16mm
06-20-2011, 05:27 AM
Not sure you can show more than 10.5 stops on a waveform monitor. Frame images of the DSC chart viewed on a wide gamut monitor would be more useful.

Edit: Linear DR of an NTSC waveform monitor from 0-110 IRE is about 6.5 stops.

Shipsides
06-20-2011, 06:57 AM
I can see an argument for reading 10.5 off that original chart, I was trying to be conservative at the time I guess. With my new test I pushed it to the extremes.

Razz16mm, you can show many more stops than 10.5 on a waveform, it will show anything that you feed it.

Mitch Gross
06-20-2011, 07:01 AM
If you compare the old waveform v. the new, you can clearly see there is at least one more bar than there was before.

cheezweezl
06-20-2011, 08:08 AM
If you compare the old waveform v. the new, you can clearly see there is at least one more bar than there was before.

Gotcha. I did see one more bar on this test, which was labeled as -5.5. So to me, it looked like half a stop more than the first test. So if i understand what you and Andy are saying, you label the stops that you see as definite, then estimate the latitude from the other stuff that is not clearly defined? I think that's where my confusion is coming from.

stevedocmaker
06-20-2011, 08:35 AM
From what I'm reading and hearing, if you'll notice, Andy say "almost 11.5 stops" several times. Also, if you count the steps visible in on the waveform, you'll see 12. I don't know what the WF looked like with the prototype, nor the other cameras, but I can see how one would interpret this as over 11 stops.

I also think it's interesting that the WF shows Cine 1 with the highlights stretched out, and the blacks crushed. I don't have my camera yet - does this translate to a softer rolloff in the highlights in a real image?

cheezweezl
06-20-2011, 08:39 AM
I also think it's interesting that the WF shows Cine 1 with the highlights stretched out, and the blacks crushed. I don't have my camera yet - does this translate to a softer rolloff in the highlights in a real image?

That's the idea. Then you can use the black gamma settings to help pull some of those shadow details up.


BTW, here is the link to the original test, if anybody doesn't have it...

http://blog.abelcine.com/2011/05/27/sony-fs100-ratings-and-dynamic-range/

Barry_Green
06-20-2011, 10:41 AM
Does the chart start counting in half increments at the bottom range? Just wondering why it goes in 1 stops then goes to a .5 stop increment.
No, it's always 1 stop increments.

The reason we would call that a half stop is because it's not cleanly and clearly resolved away from the noise at the bottom. It's obvious that the camera is resolving something, because it's jutting up out of the noise floor, but it's not clearly resolving that stop because it's still "connected" to the noise, on the waveform. I might have been more generous and called that a resolved stop.

And yeah, that's 10.5 stops. Don't know why Andy is calling it 11.5. Just count the bars that are displayed -- it's 10 and a half, if you want to call that last one a half stop.

Rick Burnett
06-20-2011, 10:45 AM
Thanks Barry, not having a lot of test chart experience myself I was trying to figure out what was going on there. I could see saying 10.5 being pretty close.

cheezweezl
06-20-2011, 10:53 AM
Thx Barry for the clear explanation.

cheezweezl
06-20-2011, 10:57 AM
Andy, you mentioned black gamma settings at the end of the video. I am stretching those out, myself. If you have a chance, could you test these settings out and see what, if any, effect black gamma has on knee settings. I don't have all the fancy test gear or your brain :-) it would be awesome to see those results.

speedracerlo
06-20-2011, 03:48 PM
I just counted the bars again and the old test did have 10.5 bars and the new one has 11 bars, maybe 11.5?
I think it was wrong to read those numbers, counting the bars makes more sense to me now

like Cheeze said above
I think maybe with the ITU 709 or Standard Gamma with 80% knee point -1 slope with some black gamma levels turned up might resolve the shadow bars a little better? I don't know..

Razz16mm
06-20-2011, 04:26 PM
I can see an argument for reading 10.5 off that original chart, I was trying to be conservative at the time I guess. With my new test I pushed it to the extremes.

Razz16mm, you can show many more stops than 10.5 on a waveform, it will show anything that you feed it.

Technical signal levels for broadcast HD video are the same as for NTSC. 100 IRE legal max white is 700mv. 1 IRE is 7mv. This range expressed in dB is 20log(700mv/7mv) = 40dB. Divide that by 6dB/stop and you get roughly 6.7 stops of linear DR that a legal broadcast signal can display, that is with equal height steps per stop value on the scope. The standard reflective 11 step chip chart displays 5.5 stops from black to 90 IRE with equal separation between steps with linear gamma = 1. Cameras are capable of capturing much more range than that these days, which is why gamma curves are used to compress the extra range into legal values and retain some detail in both shadows and highlights that would otherwise be lost. But you do not get the full DR displayed on screen or on the scope. MTF values for detail contrast at the extreme ends of the range are compromised. Screen shots of the DSC back lit DR chart would give a more useful impression of how the various cameras and gamma curves display relative values at the extreme ends of the scale in both highlight and shadow IMO. The S-log curve applies some of the same kind of knee and compression at the highlight end of the range that you see in the shadow compression with the gamma curves you have shown for instance.

As far as HD video is concerned, all of these new gen cameras are effectively "HDR" capture devices. It comes down to how well various camera settings map the available DR into the final HD image and what creative control you have over that in camera and in post.