Quality of EX1 and HPX500

ROne, all very confusing the way you explain it in your quote. If that were the case, a grayscale ramp would appear stepped if the luma were sampled at 8 bits only.
Another thing is you misquoted the s/n spec on the EX series. It is 54dB according to Sony's published specs. (Check your manual.)


adamr316,
Yes, it looks like we're all trying to say the same thing different ways with different pieces of information omitted. When we talk about 8-bit in graphics, we're talking the total aggregate bit rate. We use 24-bit to describe a system with three 8-bit lumanence planes, one for red, one for blue and one for green.

<sarcasm on>
The bottom line is, EX is just a consumer level cam, and really looks like crap with noise and banding, and I'm just blind, because a 12' projection screen, viewed from 8' away is just too small to show what a crappy picture the EX puts out.
<sarcasm off>
 
Noise floor is what's left after you remove the signal. If the s/n is 54dB, then, by definition, the noise floor is -54dB. ;)

Intersting side note: in film ISO standards, 32dB s/n is considered excellent image quality.
 
basspig said:
I've been watching EX footage on a 154" screen, viewed from 9' and driven by a 30-bit 2K projector and frankly I haven't seen anything from film that "annihilates" the better digital productions. And then there's the factor that you might be comparing different cameras under different shooting conditions. I would be very surprised if it were possible to pull more than 10 f-stops out of film without producing a lot of grain and artifacts. Take someone like Philip Bloom, who knows how to shoot with an EX camera and put his work against anything else out there shot on film, or any of the best digital systems, and it would be hard to tell which camera shot which picture. The exposure lattitude I get out of the EX3 seems significantly greater than what I got out of FujiColor or Kodak Ektar films on my 35mm SLR years ago. I have prints and high end scans of negatives I've shot under various lighting conditions, and while the film today does quite well, I think it's met its match in the digital world.
Since I've had my projection system, which produces a far supior contrast ratio to the Barco offering, being 12,000:1 vs Barco's 2000:1, I am seeing details deep into the shadows as well as the highlights, that my LCD panels before it could not differentiate. The EX picture thrives on a big screen with deep color support. I've shot some interior room shots with bright noon-day sun on snow-covered landscape streaming in the window directly in the shot, and no fill lighting and it looked like what my own eyes see. I never could do that with film, without using a flash or photofloods to fill, unless I wanted a black silhouette shot of the subject backlit by the window.
It wasn't until I saw EX footage, practically wrapped around to my peripheral vision, sitting close to a wall-sized screen, that I really started to appreciate the EX picture.
Click to expand...

While teh EX is great, modern filmstock has more dynamic range. We have yet to see a digital sensor beat film, although the new Red MX comes close. that said, we have squeezed almost 13 stops out of our EX1 - more than we could with Red until we get our sensor upgrade, and the EX1 roll-off is very pretty and film-like..
 
It's very interesting that you managed to pull 13 f-stops out of the EX1, given that the human eye has a max of 14 f-stops of dynamic range.

My understanding of the dynamic range from reading SMPTE journals and other publications over the years, is that regular NTSC video is 4-5 f-stops, film 7-9 f-stops. Now we have the EX1 with 10 f-stops out of the box (no profiles or cine gammas in use) and possibly quite a bit more with tweaking.

Indeed the EX1 highlight handling is amazingly smooth in CINE gamma. I had the backlighting situation from hell this week... my client was a chamber trio, of piano, violin and cello. This was shot in a mansion, with french windows all behind the musicians, whilst the room was essentially dark inside with the musicians facing the interior room which had far fewer windows. I was looking at that in person and thought "uh-oh..." I wanted to put a kicker light, but it was going to take a powerful light to compete with noon-day sunlight.
So I set it up as best I could, and got a pretty acceptable image on the LCD. When I got back to the studio, I pushed open the quartertones in post and brought out the shadow details. But that wasn't really necessary, though it made it look better on dim CRT and LCD TVs. But just tonight, I watched the raw uncorrected footage on a really bright (oversized for the room) projection system, pushing out 63 FT lamberts on the 12' screen in front of me, and the stuff that appeared crushed to black on the TV and LCD were visible with rich detail, such as the wood grain on the side of the Steinway A model piano, and the walnut trim along the baseboards. Yet the outdoor scene of the estate's landscape was beautifully-preserved--much better than I've seen in any big budget motion picture on Blu-ray in which a similar indoor scene has badly blown outdoor scenery coming through the windows. A patch of direct sun that was hitting the white carpet on the floor was beautifully rendered--the pattern of the bare tree branches that were between sun and floor was nicely preserved. Highlights that looked clipped on the LCD were full of detail on the projector for some strange reason. And I could see the dim reflection of the cellist's right arm in the dark part of the side of the piano, which was completely obscured with the less bright displays. Yet the shadows were clean and completely free of noise.

I have to add a word about the EX's great audio... because of the impossibly small budget (don't get me started, the family lives in a --I checked the real estate values--$6M mansion on an estate and they were unwilling to pay my price for a multitrack recording, because a studio in NJ would do it for $200) the salvation was that I could plug my studio condensers into the camera directly and get sound quality that is indecernable from the 24/96 multitrack gear I normally use in parallel. I listened with amazement this evening at the subtle detail in the strings, the unfettered dynamics and the total lack of hiss. I could hear the HVAC in the house, which was very quiet for HVAC (better be, at the price that home cost!) and every little creak, every turn of a music book page. The pianist in a gig I did two weeks earlier was amazed that the system picked up a minor metallic twang in her piano that she never noticed sitting and playing. The audio is beyond reproach, and as long as 2 channels is okay (as it is for recital competition entries), the EX is just perfect for this kind of work.

With its great picture and sound, my EX3 salvaged what would have been a disaster of bad lighting and lack of budget.
 
film 7-9 f-stops
Click to expand...
??? Film from five years ago resolved 13 f-stops. That was before Vision3. Vision3 is said to add two stops, so ... I haven't seen any tests that confirm it, but that would put Vision3 35mm stock at 15 stops. Kodak's charts show response from 6 stops under to 8 stops over.

An EX1 does resolve 10, I've tested it.
 
That's hard to believe. 15 f-stops is more than human vision can resolve. If this is true, there must have been MASSIVE improvements in film in just the past five years.
 
Wow. Your example faithfully mimmicks the chamber trio shoot I did on Monday at noon. But the highlights are more badly blown in this example, though the quality of the blowout is very similar to the EX3's.

Here's what I was dealing with:
picture.php
 
I hate to come back from the dead just to burst your guys bubble, but the ex1 is capable of 11 stops, barely, at the extreme, controlled tests best. Whoever said you got 13 stops, well, your either throwing out numbers, or measured incorrectly.

Second of all, the gamma curves on the ex1 have absolutely ZERO effect on the dynamic range. They modify how the captured dynamic range is stored and presented. This has been tested numerous times, and thought you guys would have picked up on this by now.

Also, 20 year old 35mm has more resolution and latitude than the ex series could dream of.

Have a good day!
 
I was noticing on scarletuser that when Jim J. was trying to show the resolution of the new sensor he was using an oscilloscope tracing for a machine reading.

1265973099.jpg


The problem I see with this was that the if you trace the two shapes they come to a point before the area where Red was claiming their resolution ends at about 3200.

I'm reminded of the EX1 resolution tests where they trumpets would seem to indicate that the EX1 was resolving 1100 line pairs, which is above the Nyquest limit of ~900 lp. I figure the rest is due to aliasing or artifacts that imitate resolution. (And I don't think that's a bad thing.)

The original Red One has reportedly been tested with everywhere from 11 stops to 13.5 stops. Red says its 13.5 based on a machine test.

There is machine testing of f stops, chart testing and real world experience. Don't be surprised if they give different results especially since a lot will depend on the quality of the monitor used to view the test. :engel017:
 
The original Red One has reportedly been tested with everywhere from 11 stops to 13.5 stops. Red says its 13.5 based on a machine test.
Click to expand...
I am unaware of any claim by Red that the original resolved 13.5 stops. Their testing with a Stouffer chart claimed 11.3 stops. They might be claiming 13+ with the new Mysterium X, but are you sure they claimed more than 11.3 with the original?
 
One comment about perceived sharpness..

The rate of rolloff due to MTF or Modulation Transfer Function of a camera system, which starts with the optics and ends with the low pass or antialias filter in the front end, plays an important role in the perception of picture clarity.

For instance, a camera that measures out to 3K may resolve finer detail, but if the MTF curve is a gradual rolloff, starting at a low spacial frequency, then the picture will appear soft.

In contrast, a 2K camera that has a flat MTF response over its range will *appear* as if it resolves more fine detail. But it is a trick of the eye. Because we humans are sensitive to the amplitude of detail data. Fine detail that is way down in the noise is not perceived. That's why the camera system that maintains full amplitude to the upper end of its resolution limit will appear sharper, even though the finest detail spacial frequencies are completely missing (above 2K).
 
basspig said:
"Consumer" is a rather inapplicable term here.. the EX series is manufactured by the Sony Broadcast Division, whose products are intended for professional use. Try walking into a museum or other public place with an EX3 strapped to your person and see how far you get before security nabs you for having a professional camera in their facility. :)
Click to expand...

I don't think consumers would opt in large numbers for such a complex, heavy and expensive cam. This is why they don't sell EX1s at Best Buy.
 
Fohdeesha said:
I hate to come back from the dead just to burst your guys bubble, but the ex1 is capable of 11 stops, barely, at the extreme, controlled tests best. Whoever said you got 13 stops, well, your either throwing out numbers, or measured incorrectly.

Second of all, the gamma curves on the ex1 have absolutely ZERO effect on the dynamic range. They modify how the captured dynamic range is stored and presented. This has been tested numerous times, and thought you guys would have picked up on this by now.

Also, 20 year old 35mm has more resolution and latitude than the ex series could dream of.

Have a good day!
Click to expand...

Dynamic range is all about noise floor. Use home-brewed NR that is truly excellent and you get a few more stops dynamic range. Curves affect dynamic range at an aesthetic level. If your clipping does not look awful then it's safer to clip or near-clip.
 
Ultimate dynamic range is about quantizing resolution. You can't derive information that isn't there, if it falls between steps, or below the bottom step. The blessing of gamma curves is they let you 'cheat' to some degree, the dynamic range of a given bit depth, by compressing dynamic range to fit a more restrictive container.


Only very wealthy, or discriminating consumers would want such a camera. People who spend a quarter million on their home theater, for instance..
 
Oh, you must mean Micheal Fremer and his ilk... Anyone up for a $300,000 Goldmund Reference II turntable?

A quarter mil seems about right for the average $6M home here in CT... I know a friend of a friend in Meriden who owns a $60K pair of Wilson loudspeakers. I know... he 'ain't sh*t' at that price range. :happy:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top