Differences in lattitude?

DavidBeier

DavidBeier

Veteran
I love working in digital. I love the flexibility and the workflow. But if there's one thing that still makes me ach for super 16mm sometimes it's the greater lattitude of film. I've heard that the new Genisis cameras are indisinguishible from film (I certainly can't tell the difference) and I'm curious if that applies to the lattitude as well. I also remember often hearing that the HVX200 has a higher lattitude than the DVX100. Anyone care to enlighten me to the lattitude of:

DVX100
HVX200
Canon XL2
Canon XLH1
JVC HD100
Sony Z1
Varicam
CineAlta
Genis
16mm film
35mm film
 
lol ... I know the DVX has filmlike lattitude ... Nancy Schrieber that won the best cinematography award at Sundance in 04 with NOVEMBER goes on and on about it in the BTS commentary on the DVD ... talking about how this glare or that light was blown out and how the DVX rolled it off so gently and filmmicly, and I hear that the HVX has even more lattitude ...

But that's quite a shopping list you have there, hahaha!

EDIT: keyword is "like" I saw some DVX stuff projected right after 16mm that wasn't lit all that well and the DVX stuff looked better, and even more filmic because of the lighting, but film lattitude is film lattitude and DV lattitude is DV ... DVX is one of the best but ...
 
I heard the lattitude of the HVX is 1/2 stop to 1 stop more than the DVX. HVX maybe 7 stops? The varicam reports in at 11 stops!?!? But realize that it takes it's limited Bit convertor and spreads it out over those 11 stops - so out of 256 tones availible for example - it allocates 32 to lower, 32 to lower mid, etc. etc. Yes it can spread out to 11 stops but your spreading it thin with any type of video. Therefor the graduation may be more stiar steppy. I don't understand the whole 12 bit 10 bit DSP process but from what I understand their still is some type of compression that brings it back down to 8 bit tonal scale. Am i making any sense??? I really don't know exactly what I'm talking about if it isnt evident already.
 
But I'm glad to hear someone else out there is as much obsessed over lattitude like i am. Someday I'll do a littitude test with my DVX and HVX side by side. someday...
 
Personally, I think lattitude is really the last true strength of film. Just about everything else I've found can look just as good with digital. Honestly, lattitude is really the only thing that occasionally makes me long for Super 16mm.

Anyway, I did some more research.

Acorrding to Barry, Pansonic claims the lattitude of it's cameras are:

DVX-7 stops
HVX-8 stops
Varicam-10 stops

Others have indicated that film is typically 11 stops but special stocks can go as high as 13 stops. I've heard that the Genisis and D20 claim to have 12 stops. The Human eye can apparently handle 15 stops (go us!).
 
Yes. I totally agree with you. I'm all about Latitude. Maybe we should start a forum called latitudeobsessor.com - I think the latitude and the continual graduation scale is the last true strength of film. I just got my HVX a week ago and went out and shot some skies. Yes, it has more latitude and if it is just one stop - it goes a long way. Also my indor stuff seemed more of a gradual tonal scale than the DVX. Are you aware of how the Varicam spreads out it's tones to get the 10 stops? Documentation of how this works is somewhere online - maybe panasonics site.
 
I have read some comments about other cameras and their lattitude stops. Red for instance is viewing lattitude as very important. I think they are hoping for somewhwere between 9 and 12 stops for the Red one camera. By the sound of comments from both Mike Curtis and Jarrad the footage is something else. I would not be surprised if the Red camera has 11 stops. That would be incredible for sure, who knows we will soon find out.

Yes i think one of the Red team mentioned the stops on the varricam and the way that camera counted everything up was not quite the way Red would do it or words to that affect. Although new to all this i fully support what you guys are saying. What good is a camera with great resolution if the bright sky or water reflections etc looks poor.



Michael
 
Hello all,

The electronic camera with the most stops of dynamic range is the Dalsa Origin, which runs about 12+ stops and is noise free. Images are recorded in 4K RAW 16bit DPX files. I've seen images from every available electronic camera, and IMHO nothing compares to the Origin.

Having been involved in a number of tests with all of the above mentioned camera formats (except Genesis- otherwise all electronic and photo-chemical) I can tell you that dynamic range depends on many factors, including (on the electronic side) signal set-up- knee point/slope, nominal T-stop, gain and ped settings. On the photo-chemical side; stock, processing, nominal T-stop, and quality of DI scan will all effect dynamic range. Not usually much of a problem these days, but internal lens flare will also effect latitude.

You can't say that any format will always and automatically give you the maximum number of stops possible. You're shooting conditions/lighting/set-up/lab/post will all effect it. But the numbers put forward by the manufacturer are generally the maximum amount of latitude possible with a relatively noise/grain free image. Although the dynamic range is certainly fudged by some folks out there.

As far as TV goes, it seems to me the average contrast ratio of a interior scenes seem to run no more than about 6-7 stops, sit-coms run more like 3-5. Still, it's far better to have the latitude and not use it, than need it and not have it.

Keep in mind I just started working for Dalsa, so I'm biased; but really, I can tell you truthfully.... THERE'S NOTHING LIKE THE ORIGIN RIGHT NOW!
 
When I first started shooting digital 35mm stills, the latitude thing drove me nuts.
But what I discovered along the way is that, 99% of the time, if I lit properly, and I metered correctly, that it didn't matter. The range of digital is more than present what I want in my finished images.

Digitial however is LESS forgiving of error in EXPOSURE than film is. You have much less ability to correct it in post.

Also color correction with film and light has no impact on your lattitude, but with digital it has a very real impact on your levels.

But I also learned that with digital, as you gain skill and experience, usually NEEDS less correction in post. As you learn to interpret what you see on the LCD with what you WILL see infinished product, and to correct for it BEFORE SHOOTING, your digital exposures get much closer to your intended result. That instant feedback loop, combined with some skill and experience in the operator, makes up for a stop or two of lattitude that you now very seldom need.

Plus, once you get used to the range of digital, that reduced lattitude can be helpful too. Sometimes it's handy to "lose detail" in the shadows or hightlights, it can make it a lot easier to light a scene when you know everything 3 stops under will be "more or less black" so you can stop adding flags to take stuff to -5.

When watching a movie... who really notices things that happen in the blacks and whites of the frame? Ok, besides the film buffs who get off on noticing.... who among the actual intended audience really notices?

Now I'm extrapolating my still photo experience into video, and that may be a mistake... but this is where I am right now.
 
^
Interesting points but I'm not sure I entirly agree. The bottom line is that, in direct sunlight, some digital is still difficult to work with (Origion sounds like a dream but I'm on an HVX budget). I LOVE sunlight. I think it looks gorgeous. I think I can spend hours lighting a scene and still not have something that looks as good as the sun. So, for me, the lack of lattitude is a big deal and the only thing that still frustrates me about a medium I support and adore.

And I think that people DO notice the lack of lattitude of video. Blownout highlights are always a give away to me and while people might not articulate a dislike of them, they probably notice them. Keep in mind that I'm pretty sure digital still cameras have more lattitude than video ones so our situations are a bit different.

I do agree that sometimes, the lack of lattitude can be a plus. I do like how much easier it is to achieve silloutte and blow out when I want (my first 16mm film, I tried doing a silloutte but the film actually had more lattitude than they advertised and I still had a fair amount of detail). I wonder if one day we'll have a lattitude control along with our other image controls.
 
the DVX looks nice in Direct sunlight, i have never heard a complint. Just make sure the highlights on the skin are Just a few IRE points below 100. ITs bright enough to look pleasing, but still exposed. I imagine sunlight looks even better on HVX....
 
DavidBeier said:
^
Interesting points but I'm not sure I entirly agree. The bottom line is that, in direct sunlight, some digital is still difficult to work with (Origion sounds like a dream but I'm on an HVX budget). I LOVE sunlight. I think it looks gorgeous. I think I can spend hours lighting a scene and still not have something that looks as good as the sun. So, for me, the lack of lattitude is a big deal and the only thing that still frustrates me about a medium I support and adore.
Click to expand...

Just because it's daylight doesn't mean the gaffer and grips have nothing to do. They fly silks. They bouce for fill. They use big huge lights to remove shadows, or use big huge flags to create them.

I tend to look for a shady spot to shoot my stills... But then, the only requirement is that I get a good interesting picture that makes the models and the clothes look great.

In cinema, the script tends to dictate where you have to shoot. Then it's time for the crew to move in and manage the environment.
 
Why don't we spend more time MAKING art and less time TALKING about the boring parts of art? Besides, my mom can see 32 stops of latitude.
 
TimurCivan said:
the DVX looks nice in Direct sunlight, i have never heard a complint. Just make sure the highlights on the skin are Just a few IRE points below 100. ITs bright enough to look pleasing, but still exposed. I imagine sunlight looks even better on HVX....
Click to expand...



I would love to see someone elses footage of direct sunlight. I try to stay away from it as much as possible. My footage, for the most part, always turns out with way to much contrast. I bounce light quite a bit, but sometimes the position of the sun doesn't line up with the background I need etc.....11 stops of lattitude would be a dream come true! maybe one day some of us poor folk can have the pleasure of that much range
 
AFter August 26th i will post a clip here. The film i shot is premiering then. I can show you what im talking about.

But if you want a TIP, keep your MP at about -3. in reality when its that bright very little is true black. ACtually very little in Film is true black. Keeping the darkest parts just above black is the secret to making a more organic image. Its my preference anyway.
 
TimurCivan said:
AFter August 26th i will post a clip here. The film i shot is premiering then. I can show you what im talking about.

But if you want a TIP, keep your MP at about -3. in reality when its that bright very little is true black. ACtually very little in Film is true black. Keeping the darkest parts just above black is the secret to making a more organic image. Its my preference anyway.
Click to expand...

Thanks for holding off on that Timur, but when you do post, remember to call me, because there is a TON more direct sunlight footage than actually made it to the final cut.

M
 
DavidBeier said:
Why don't you spend more time MAKING art instead of telling others to MAKE art and reading posting on threads you seem to think are pointless? I'm really tempted to make a "your Mom" joke too but that would be immature....
Click to expand...

That was an encouragement to go film, not a mean comment. And the my mom thing was a joke, not an attack at you, besides it was a MY mom joke not a YOUR mom joke. Anyhow, my intentions werent to be mean, just to bring everyone back to the real point of why we're all here...to make movies!:costumed-smiley-047
Mr. T says "Go make a movie".
 
conrad_johnson said:
That was an encouragement to go film, not a mean comment. And the my mom thing was a joke, not an attack at you, besides it was a MY mom joke not a YOUR mom joke. Anyhow, my intentions werent to be mean, just to bring everyone back to the real point of why we're all here...to make movies!:costumed-smiley-047
Mr. T says "Go make a movie".
Click to expand...

I know. The you're Mom part was meant to be a joke as well (I hope niether of us attempt comedies for a while). Sorry to come off so strong but I do think it's a bit dismissive when so often people come on threads like this and say something along the lines of, "all that matters is the story." I realize you weren't intending to be mean and I apologize for coming accross rude but I think a statement like that is rather unfair. I think we all know that the big picture is telling stories and making movies. That's the motto I've lived by for the last several years and I assume that most people here do the same. That said, I don't believe in pretending the technical side doesn't exist. Mastering the technical aspects can greatly enhance one's story telling. Everything is a tool. I had to read a book in college called In the Pond. It had some interesting concepts but it was written by a Korean (I think) who clearly had very little grasp of English. Ultimatly, the story lost much of it's potency because the writer couldn't use his tools to their fullest potential. Music, cinematography, editing, and composition are all esential to telling your story and learning to make them work for you is a large part of what makes a great filmmaker.

Besides, this is a technical board. We aren't on the "writing" boards but rather the "cinematography" forum of a site named after a type of camera. There are going to be technical discussions so I don't think it's really appropriate to say, "lets not talk about this just make a movie." I agree that one should be wary of losing sight of the forest for the trees and certainly many people get so involved in the technical aspects that they end up losing their desire to make films. That said, if you don't know what you're doing, you're audience isn't gonna stay with you. People can't enjoy your story if they can't see your actors or hear what they are saying.

Besides, I make films for myself and the visuals are important to me. I wanna be able to see the bright sky without having the actors in pure black sometimes!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top