Page 2 of 20 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 191
  1. Collapse Details
    #11
    Senior Member squig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,678
    Default
    This is the backdrop I used for the tests. I tried an outdoor scene first but with all the detail and high contrast the codec just turned the pans to mud and I couldn't even see the bloody pole!

    rs test.jpg


    Mods could you please sticky this thread.
    GAMMA Post-Apocalyptic feature behind the scenes production blog http://gamma-movie.com/behindscenes.php


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #12
    Senior Member Samuel H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Madrid, Spain
    Posts
    7,329
    Default
    New result, again thanks to squig, who is on a quest to collect every budget camera in the market...

    GH3: 15.5ms (three measures: 15.4, 15.7, 15.4)

    That puts it clearly ahead of the DSLR pack, with a shutter that is as fast as those from the video and cine cameras. Impressive. Pity about the DR, which still seems a lot worse than the competition.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    318
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel H View Post
    New result, again thanks to squig, who is on a quest to collect every budget camera in the market...

    GH3: 15.5ms (three measures: 15.4, 15.7, 15.4)

    That puts it clearly ahead of the DSLR pack, with a shutter that is as fast as those from the video and cine cameras. Impressive. Pity about the DR, which still seems a lot worse than the competition.
    That's quite a respectable showing for the GH3. I presume that this is in normal mode and not ETC? ETC mode on the GH2 was much better than normal w.r.t. rolling shutter. I would expect the same to be true of the GH3.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #14
    Senior Member FrameFarmMedia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,886
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel H View Post
    Pity about the DR, which still seems a lot worse than the competition.
    But still much improved over the GH2

    What is the DR measurement for the GH3? I only have gone by my eye and it looks a lot better than GH2 and on par with 5D2 but that is just my eye.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #15
    Senior Member squig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,678
    Default
    On the neutral setting with everything dialled down to -5, Samuel measured it at 9.3 stops. I've done some real world comparisons to the 5D MKIII and D5200 and it's apparent that the GH3 has less dynamic range. The GH3 noise level/pattern is much better than the 5D and D5200 up to 1600 ISO, there's no fixed pattern noise.

    The saga continues.
    GAMMA Post-Apocalyptic feature behind the scenes production blog http://gamma-movie.com/behindscenes.php


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #16
    Senior Member Samuel H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Madrid, Spain
    Posts
    7,329
    Default
    ^ that

    I wouldn't have posted that "9.3" number, since we're not sure yet about what the optimal settings are for the GH3
    but now that it's online... this is the chart with those settings (in thirds of a stop):


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #17
    Senior Member FrameFarmMedia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,886
    Default
    thanks. I would have guessed 1-2 stops more than GH2 by eyeball but have never measured (I'm not that technical minded).

    I have found that the GH3 has much more recoverable shadows than the GH2.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    318
    Default
    Ok, so there is obviously no way to test this yet, unless John Brawley or another BMD rep decides to submit a sample, but because I'm bored at the moment, I'm going to make a prediction on the performance of the BMC-Pocket. JB has stated a couple of times that the chip in the Pocket is an S16, 1080p version of the ~2.5k chip in the BMC mk1. Knowing that the number of active photosites on the Pocket sensor is about 64% of that of its big brother, and assuming all other things being equal, we would expect a readout time of about 64% of the BMC sensor as well. That would put the Pocket at 15.6 ms, within the ballpark of the GH3 and dedicated video cameras. Not bad at all, really.

    Of course, this in only informed speculation. It may not be that simple, and I could be totally wrong. The one sample video we've seen had a decent amount of movement, and no perceptible jello, so I bet it's not that far off. I'm curious to see how close to the truth that 15.6 ms number will be.


    Update: Looks like I was off. My estimate falls short by 2.2ms.
    Last edited by Wesley Byram; 12-12-2013 at 10:00 AM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #19
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    17
    Default
    I joined dvxuser pretty much so that I could say THANK YOU for putting this thread together. Jello has been so much a part of the DSLR video experience, it's incredible in a way that no-one thought to comprehensively measure it before now. I love how people are reverse engineering the cameras to reveal the really important stuff the manufacturers won't tell us. These results show you can't necessarily make assumptions based on sensor size, or the previous implementations of a given manufacturer.

    I see a lot of jello in some of my NEX-5N footage. I always thought it was a combination of my crappy technique, use of non-stabilized vintage lenses, refusal to use any kind of stabilization, and copious coffee intake. Now I know it's actually the camera's fault

    Seriously though, I'm thinking of getting a D5200, just to have something that's slightly better balanced with Nikkor lenses than using 5N+adaptor. And according to the results here, the D5200 has around a third less rolling shutter than the 5N. I tried putting my lenses on a friend's D5100, and I liked the ergonomics a lot better.

    Interesting that jello on the 5N is less at 60fps than at 24fps. Anyone have any guesses as to whether any other settings on the camera could affect the amount of rolling shutter?


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #20
    Senior Member Samuel H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Madrid, Spain
    Posts
    7,329
    Default
    You're welcome

    AFAIK, the only settings that will affect rolling shutter are things like fps and cropped view and such. Basically, read-out speed is a very deep characteristic of the sensor, there's not much you can do to make it faster, except read it in a completely different way.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 2 of 20 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •