Dynamic Range Test

I think reading his methodology on provideocoalition, he is using a backlit chart to test for dynamic range.

Edit. I type to fast and did not read your last post on the backlit chart he used.
 
Mike@AF said:
How is it that you don't have one? One would think Panasonic would work something out for you with a dealer to get one of the first ones off the line. Just doesn't seem right.
Click to expand...

probably because panasonic already is letting him hold on to a pre-pro "indefinitely" for free which for obvious reasons is quite a perk considering I don't think there's many major changes between his 99% model and the production model ;-)
 
Zak Forsman said:
one stop.
Click to expand...

so if by the tenth stop it hit 0%, most likely it occurred somewhere between 9-10 stops, so perhaps 9.5 is a better approximation from this basic test? My somewhat more extensive tests with my 7D show almost identical latitude.
 
nyvz said:
so if by the tenth stop it hit 0%, most likely it occurred somewhere between 9-10 stops, so perhaps 9.5 is a better approximation from this basic test? My somewhat more extensive tests with my 7D show almost identical latitude.
Click to expand...

It's been tested properly by Barry and showed 10.5. Zak said in his earlier post that his test was quick and dirty, but I think his reading of 10 is pretty accurate for real world expectations.
 
Homunculus said:
I'm not getting Leo Ticheli's test but I might of just figured it out if he is saying it held from 250 to 1250 and with his hint that "if you can count you can figure it out", I can only assume that each bar goes up by increments of 100 ASA which would mean logically speaking that he is saying the AF100 held 10 stops since 250 to 1250 is 10 increments of 100. Can you confirm this Leo?
Click to expand...
I don't understand how that math works. I was under the impression that stops were powers of two. This would be just over 3 stops from 250 to 1250. 250, 500, 1000, 1250... Going from 100 would be another 1.33 stops.

Without knowing the highlight or shadow range how can you calculate DR from his post? Or does the waveform assume a certain range?
 
I would think that to actually compare something like DR you would want the two cameras showing the same chart with the same lighting, or using a standardized chart like Barry mentioned.

Since this hasn't been done yet to my knowledge I don't think we know for sure how it measures up. Not to mention hat grayscale charts only tell you so much ( not as useful as how colors clip or how the noise degrades IQ)
 
joesiv said:
I don't understand how that math works. I was under the impression that stops were powers of two. This would be just over 3 stops from 250 to 1250. 250, 500, 1000, 1250... Going from 100 would be another 1.33 stops.

Without knowing the highlight or shadow range how can you calculate DR from his post? Or does the waveform assume a certain range?
Click to expand...

right, iso250-iso1250 is a difference of 2.33 stops. Hard to imagine how this fits into an evaluation of the camera's latitude, though it is an interesting observation if Leo meant that he felt the scene brightness appeared relatively usable at all of those settings. Then again if I'm not mistaken it wasn't unusual for people to talk about film latitude in terms of how well you could pull a "normal" image from an image X stops over or under exposed, so this observation is a bit similar to that kind of idea.
 
oh ok then i understood it wrong and have no idea how Leo is deriving dynamic range numbers from his test. i guess it wasn't really a dynamic range test so we are still back to square one. and since as someone mentioned Zak Forsman's test indicates 9 plus stops rather than 10 or 10.5 then that means the verdict is definitely still out
 
Homunculus said:
oh ok then i understood it wrong and have no idea how Leo is deriving dynamic range numbers from his test. i guess it wasn't really a dynamic range test so we are still back to square one. and since as someone mentioned Zak Forsman's test indicates 9 plus stops rather than 10 or 10.5 then that means the verdict is definitely still out
Click to expand...

Will it stop you buying or using one?

What will you do with the info once you know or work it out?

Your eyes dont know or care about the DR... they just get on with the business of seeing stuff and your brain makes a decision about whether you like it or not.
 
I thought Barry shot a chart and got 10.5 stops...why is the verdict still out? I know it was a pre production model..but I highly doubt they lowered the DR. The footage SNOW and VERSE clearly shows it to be a remarkable camera...it could have the DR of an egg for all I care!
 
Shooter said:
Will it stop you buying or using one?

What will you do with the info once you know or work it out?

Your eyes dont know or care about the DR... they just get on with the business of seeing stuff and your brain makes a decision about whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...

+1
 
you're making an assumption about my test. it wasn't 9.5 stops or I would have said "9.5 stops". don't forget, my test started at just under 100 IRE. on the last click, it was dancing between 0% and 2%. I'd safely say I was seeing 10 stops at a minimum. probably a hair more.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
I thought Barry shot a chart and got 10.5 stops...why is the verdict still out? I know it was a pre production model..but I highly doubt they lowered the DR. The footage SNOW and VERSE clearly shows it to be a remarkable camera...it could have the DR of an egg for all I care!
Click to expand...

when barry tested those 10.5 charts on a PRE PRODUCTION model he also explicitly said that "the final production model may have LOWER or higher dynamic range". the reason being that since that particular model was pre production, the engineers were still tweaking things and there was a possibility accordign to Barry that they may have been forced to lower the DR somewhat in the production model in order to keep other things in order such as noise levels, etc. After all in a product designed for mass production it's best to have a more uniform performance than the ability to have 'peaks' of high performance dotted with nasty 'unprofessional' problems like noise etc. So there is a possibility they would have had to lower DR by a stop or something along those lines in order to make the performance of the AF100 more consistent and uniform across the board. OR there is simply inconsistency in the testing as there has been in any other DSLR tests which has resulted in some people testing the Canon 5dmkii at 8.5 stops and others testing it at almost 11 stops all in video mode
 
which by the way to me personally the raw NUMBERS of the dynamic range don't matter as much. what matters is the relativity of the tests what I mean is. I don't care of the af100 tests at 2 stops of DR or 18 stops because abstract numbers don't mean anything. I care about what it LOOKS like and the only reason I'm personally concerned about the numbers at the moment is because I was expecting a very CLEAR VISUAL superiority in DR in the AF100 over the other DSLR's like canons and gh1. But thus far what I have seen shows a very similar (sometimes slightly less, other times slightly more as in the af100/gh2 comparison video) dynamic range and so I am forced to turn to the numbers hunt to see where they all stand. In reality if the DSLR's are 8 and AF100 is 10 then that warrants it's several thousand dollars more expensive price tag. If DSLR's are 11 or 12 stops of DR then I'd expect a "professional" product that costs 3000-4000$ more to have 14 or 15 stops of DR as compared to its consumer level nonprofessional brethren.
 
Homunculus said:
If DSLR's are 11 or 12 stops of DR then I'd expect a "professional" product that costs 3000-4000$ more to have 14 or 15 stops of DR as compared to its consumer level nonprofessional brethren.
Click to expand...


I disagree. I didn't think the added cost would mean I'd be getting an image that I couldn't get with a DSLR like the 7D. What I did think was that I'd be able to get an image that improves on the areas that many DSLRs fail(really just moire and aliasing) but with the added convenience of a video camera design and functionality.

Now, if the camera had been priced at $10,000-$15,000, then I'd be looking for more image wise. But at $5000, I think what I've been seeing from the AF-100 is phenomenal.

I should add that I don't have my camera just yet, so I'm basing my opinion off of all the test footage coming in lately. Hopefully I'll have my cam in the next couple weeks though!
 
jaypass said:
I disagree. I didn't think the added cost would mean I'd be getting an image that I couldn't get with a DSLR like the 7D. What I did think was that I'd be able to get an image that improves on the areas that many DSLRs fail(really just moire and aliasing) but with the added convenience of a video camera design and functionality.
Click to expand...

me too. these were my exact expectations.
 
I understand wanting to know with that price tag that what you are getting is superior to the dlsrs, but I'd wager that's been proven by what people have seen in person with the camera more than anything else - because all these large sensor cameras can look great on your computer and after issues have been shot around or edited out. Even the D90 looked great on certain videos..so I know the feeling of "What does it really look like?"
The reaction by so many people is what leads me to believe there is something special here ( along with the videos I've seen). I think this is the HOly grail that everyone always talked about for INDIES. First it was 24p and cinema like color - done. Then it was more resolution (HD) - done. Then shallow DOF and interchangeable lenses - Now all three or four in one camera - done.
This is THE camera of the moment, until the holier than holy grail starts being wished for 4k, 10bit this 4:4:4 color that.....and on and on. If you are a broke film maker or low budget film maker, the AF100 is The camera for NOW. Just my opinion though...
 
If DSLR's are 11 or 12 stops of DR then I'd expect a "professional" product that costs 3000-4000$ more to have 14 or 15 stops of DR as compared to its consumer level nonprofessional brethren.
Click to expand...
lmfao
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top