Page 81 of 95 FirstFirst ... 317177787980818283848591 ... LastLast
Results 801 to 810 of 944
  1. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    282
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by jcs View Post
    SlashCam.de usually seemed to do pretty good thorough tests, including with charts. Their FX9 skintone footage didn't look as good as their C500 II footage (which doesn't match e.g. the REDUser test where the FX9 looked a bit better than the C500 II), and their test charts make the FX9 look quite poor, lower resolution, even blurry- this doesn't match any FX9 footage I've seen. What lens, was it in focus (chroma issues)? The charts look swapped based on the example FX9 & C500.

    Again, the charts seem backwards....
    Oh... Kay.. Iíll just let that simmer. :/) FWIW. The slashcam results were published several weeks apart, the c500ii before they even had a copy of the fx9 to review. So it bends credibility to suggest that somehow the samples were switched. They were quite critical of the detail from the fx9. These results square very well with the detail we see compared in the reduser tests. Again Iím not making any claims. Simply pointing to the evidence. I donít think it really matters which camera is more detailed, only that if weíre making pronouncements, that we get it right. My assumption is that they probably display about the same, except in higher iso /under exposure, where the Sony is applying more noise reduction and thus smearing detail.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    Bronze Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Beverly Hills, CA
    Posts
    2,325
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry G View Post
    Oh... Kay.. Iíll just let that simmer. :/) FWIW. The slashcam results were published several weeks apart, the c500ii before they even had a copy of the fx9 to review. So it bends credibility to suggest that somehow the samples were switched. They were quite critical of the detail from the fx9. These results square very well with the detail we see compared in the reduser tests. Again Iím not making any claims. Simply pointing to the evidence. I donít think it really matters which camera is more detailed, only that if weíre making pronouncements, that we get it right. My assumption is that they probably display about the same, except in higher iso /under exposure, where the Sony is applying more noise reduction and thus smearing detail.
    Given the sensor resolutions are similar, I'd expect similar results if doing similar downsampling (there are many methods + OLPF will make a difference too). The SlashCam FX9 chart has green chroma issues- there's something wrong- lens, focus, etc. The Venice example I'd expect to look similar to the FX9 in the same way the C700 FF would be similar to the C500 II. The Venice chart doesn't have green chroma issues and looks acceptable (no lens or chroma issues). Note that even though these results don't look great for the FX9, I still posted it. And still stand by my earlier comment that the FX9 wins for IQ vs. the C500 II. Others here who've done detailed reviews have made a similar ranking (e.g. ranking the FX9 just behind the Alexa and Venice).

    Again, haven't read anyone making 'too sharp' comments about the C500 II, and on 4K displays the FX9 does look more detailed from all the example I've seen. In the example from the AF tests, the FX9 has a lot more skin detail + more color variation. The C500 II's loss of detail/color may be part of Canon's processing of face/skin (which would not happen on a test chart) or related to the output / display mode. It's fine if they are doing that, though would be useful to be able to turn it off (same as other cameras with such features).

    WRT color science, from: https://www.newsshooter.com/2020/01/...-the-sony-fx9/
    The biggest surprise came from a test conducted by Pawel Achtel ACS. Pawel has a system where he can measure a cameras sensor response to certain colors. This is a very technical test, but it has the ability to map the color gamut that a sensor is producing. What was quite a shock, was that not only did the FX9 outperform the FS7 M2 by a considerable margin, but it also produced the best result of any digital cinema camera that has been tested. This includes most of the top tier cinema cameras that are on the market today.
    Impressive if true, though when cost is no object Alexa Mini LF will likely be the top pro choice (where max IQ is the goal and AF isn't needed).


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by jcs View Post
    Note the WB is off on the FX9 shot (too much green):

    Attachment 138362

    FX9 +20 (magenta) in Photoshop ACR (only change):

    Attachment 138363

    To my eye the FX9 looks more detailed and color is pretty excellent compared to prior Sony offerings. The C500 II has lower contrast and a pastel look (lower satuation)- the FX9 could be adjusted to match if that's a preference. See the video full screen in 4K to examine detail (at smaller scales, higher contrast looks more detailed).
    I am referring to AF, not WB or IQ.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    6,534
    Default
    That AF test/video was posted back on page 75 (#750) if you're interested in reading some reactions about it.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    Senior Member puredrifting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, Ca.
    Posts
    10,379
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by jcs View Post
    Doesn't the FX9 have the same or similar sensor to the Venice?
    The FX9 does not have the same sensor as the Venice. This was straight from the slideshow at the Sony FX9 Training I attended and we asked the design engineer for the FX9. He did say that the sensor technology used in the FX9 is closer to the Venice than the FS7 MKII.
    It's a business first and a creative outlet second.
    G.A.S. destroys lives. Stop buying gear that doesn't make you money.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    Bronze Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Beverly Hills, CA
    Posts
    2,325
    Default
    I watched and upvoted that post- agree the FX9 wins for AF. Most agree that's the case? IQ still has some doubters, even after the REDUser ramp tests (where the FX9 in a 709 profile did amazingly well against raw & log cameras). Note I don't currently own any Sony lenses (all Canon, mostly L)- comments based on examples and tests posted online so far. I prefer Canon stills division raw (amazing recovery possible) and color science for video (1DX II, EOS R). From what I've seen so far, the C500 II looks like a true 4K C300 II (owned and sold) and similar to the C700 FF (briefly tested). FX9 looks like an $11K Venice + AF and dVND.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    Senior Member Liam Hall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Worldwide
    Posts
    3,086
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by JPNola View Post
    This discussion makes me feel bad for not caring about any of this nearly as much as any of the participants in the discussion.
    Itís enough to make you want to become a sound recordist. Never seen so much pointless naval gazing mixed with FUD.
    New Website: www.liamhall.net
    TWITTER: @FilmLiam
    INSTAGRAM: @picsbyliam


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

  8. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    900
    Default
    what he said
    (BTW - what's FUD?)


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

  9. Collapse Details
    Senior Member James0b57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,460
    Default
    It’s a term used when you want others to stop exploring hypotheticals that aren’t in line with your experience and knowledge.


    (Originally: Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. Which is referencing a disinformation tactic used to manipulate a population or a market. Perhaps on the internet it is just casually passing along bad information. Which would be “fear uncertainty and disinformation”. In a way, it could be said that Liam wants the speculations to stop, so he uses the term FUD to cause fear, uncertainty, or doubt in those that may have different views. This fear of public shame and doubt of one’s own opinions could decrease or stop the amount of observational or speculative comments made. Which is kind of how the FUD tactic works. So, he is using the term FUD to cause a form of FUD. Ah, but look at me, i’m naval gazing... )
    Last edited by James0b57; 02-18-2020 at 01:21 AM.


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

  10. Collapse Details
    Bronze Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Beverly Hills, CA
    Posts
    2,325
    Default
    You guys are obviously having fun posting in this thread, else why spend time here: is irony ferrous humor?

    Earlier in this thread it was stated that people can't agree on color, then proceeded to take a color perception test and everyone got great or perfect scores. That was pretty funny, right?

    Searching for truth is fun, like solving a puzzle. If the arguments aren't to your liking: Where-can-I-go-specifically-on-the-Internet-to-argue-with-people


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 81 of 95 FirstFirst ... 317177787980818283848591 ... 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
  •