Sony PMW-150 XDCAM 422

F11 @ 2000 lux is the broadcast standard. The EX-1 is F10 @ 2000 lux so F9 @ 2000 lux is just o.k., nothing to write home about.
 
So basically f/9 at 2000lux means it requires roughly 3+ times the amount of light as broadcast spec shouldercams.
Click to expand...
No, it's not quite that bad! Broadcast cameras are rated at 2000 lux, and the difference between f/8 and f/11 is one f-stop, so double the light. f/9 is 1/3 of the way from f/8 to f/11, so 1/3 less than double, so... it's 2/3 of one f-stop slower than typical.

The difference between an EX-1 (f10 @ 2000 lux) and f9 at 2000 lux is 1/3 of an f-stop. A difference, yes, but not a big deal.
 
Barry_Green said:
No, it's not quite that bad! Broadcast cameras are rated at 2000 lux, and the difference between f/8 and f/11 is one f-stop, so double the light. f/9 is 1/3 of the way from f/8 to f/11, so 1/3 less than double, so... it's 2/3 of one f-stop slower than typical.

The difference between an EX-1 (f10 @ 2000 lux) and f9 at 2000 lux is 1/3 of an f-stop. A difference, yes, but not a big deal.
Click to expand...

Ah ok. I mistook the 2/3'' broadcast cams as f/11 1000lux. heh. So its actually f/11 2000lux.
But wow, never knew the EX1 was F10 @ 2000 lux. That's really impressive.

Just for fun, whats the average lux rating for modern, large sensor cameras like, say, the gh2/7d/fs100?
 
The AF100 is rated at f8, the F3 is rated at F11. Can't find a published spec on the FS100, and I don't think the manufacturers of DSLR type camcorders do that testing or publish that spec.
 
Barry_Green said:
The AF100 is rated at f8, the F3 is rated at F11. Can't find a published spec on the FS100, and I don't think the manufacturers of DSLR type camcorders do that testing or publish that spec.
Click to expand...

Wait, what? the af100 is worst than the EX1??? aren't large Sensor cameras supposed to be far superior in sensitivity? Or am i missing something? Isn't the f3 one of the most sensitive cameras around, there's no way it can be the same as the 2/3'' shouldercams.... hmmm..... or is it just because the f3 is so good at high DBs that you can push it so far to expose in almost no-light with very little noise? Does the rating take into account iso/gain?
 
Last edited:
The AF100 is natively rated at 400 ISO. The EX1, in 1080p, is 400 ISO, in 720p it's 500 ISO, in 1080i it's 800 ISO. The F3 is natively rated at 800 ISO.

The thing is, an AF100 can be pushed to 2000 ISO with little visible noise, but you can't push an EX1 to 18dB of gain without seeing a lot of noise. And the F3 can be pushed further and stay cleaner.

The rating of f-stop at 2000 lux is based on the native ISO, no gain added. If you want to talk about with gain, that's where they start talking about the "minimum illumination" specification, where you'll see something crazy like "0.28 lux", which is what the FS100 was rated at -- and that presumes using a super-slow shutter and automatic gain so probably 30dB of gain in that...
 
Barry_Green said:
The AF100 is natively rated at 400 ISO. The EX1, in 1080p, is 400 ISO, in 720p it's 500 ISO, in 1080i it's 800 ISO. The F3 is natively rated at 800 ISO.

The thing is, an AF100 can be pushed to 2000 ISO with little visible noise, but you can't push an EX1 to 18dB of gain without seeing a lot of noise. And the F3 can be pushed further and stay cleaner.

The rating of f-stop at 2000 lux is based on the native ISO, no gain added. If you want to talk about with gain, that's where they start talking about the "minimum illumination" specification, where you'll see something crazy like "0.28 lux", which is what the FS100 was rated at -- and that presumes using a super-slow shutter and automatic gain so probably 30dB of gain in that...
Click to expand...

Ah ok. that makes sense.
I never bother with the min illumination specs that much though...as i would never want to shoot at 30db or 1/30.. haha

*ps, is 7lux at f/3.5 and iso 4000 (I'm assuming 4000 as they said auto gain, which i believe would mean max gain, and the max iso for the ea50 is 4000) good? that's the rating for the ea50, which I'm quite interested in. Is it good, or just adequate?
 
Last edited:
It's a useless rating because we don't know what the image looks like at those settings.

The problem with "minimum illumination" ratings is that those are rated for the lowest-light conditions the camera can make an image in. They don't say anything about how good that image is!
 
Barry_Green said:
It's a useless rating because we don't know what the image looks like at those settings.

The problem with "minimum illumination" ratings is that those are rated for the lowest-light conditions the camera can make an image in. They don't say anything about how good that image is!
Click to expand...

True, i guess. heh.
How dark exactly is 7lux? I was messing about with an android app that claims to be able to give exact lux values using the light sensor in the phone... It measured 6 lux for a dark-ish restaurant environment (it was very dark, candlelight on each toble and a couple of low-power lamps on the walls.
Refer to second picture here for reference.
http://style-canvas.blogspot.sg/2011/11/nagomi-my-favourite-omakase-place.html


Is the 6lx accurate? I don't think it'll be entirely accurate as it isn't a proper light sensor, but who knows! :D
 
Donald Ong said:
Ah ok. I mistook the 2/3'' broadcast cams as f/11 1000lux. heh. So its actually f/11 2000lux.
But wow, never knew the EX1 was F10 @ 2000 lux. That's really impressive.
Click to expand...


The new PMW200 is rated at f11 @ 2000 lux. So it improves on the performance of the EX1, and does fully meet broadcast standards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top