Web Analytics
   Date   

Re: Sony AXSM 512GB S48 Card Failure/Repair

esl34@...
 

Thanks for the prompt responses, everyone.  And thanks of course to CML for providing this forum that reaches so many.  A Sony rep kindly reached out moments after I posted the email and I think we're on the path to repair (if possible).  
 
All the best,
Eric
 
___________
 
Eric Liner
Producer, Cinematographer
607.254.2191 (office)
607.227.0350 (cell)
esl34@...
http://www.facebook.com/birdofpreymovie


Re: Sony AXSM 512GB S48 Card Failure/Repair

Kirk Miles
 

Sony recently replaced some XQD media for us that was still under warranty.

I reached out to Sony service and support at 877-591-7669. I spoke to a friendly human being who sent an email , and the rest of the process was completed through correspondence.

I provided them with proof of purchase, and they replaced the media in a reasonable amount of time.  If you do not have a proof of purchase, I don’t know that they will be of assistance.

I recognize you are concerned about a much lower volume, proprietary media for professional use only, whereas XQD is used in some professional and some consumer products.  Just letting you know our experience. 

Kirk Miles
GEAR
Austin TX 

Sent from a phone. 

On Jun 30, 2021, at 9:03 AM, esl34@... wrote:

Hey all, 

I've got a Sony AXSM512GB S48 card that stopped working while in camera (F55//R7).  AXS Utility will recognize it but can't repair, mount, or reformat.  I called Sony (thru standard channels) and the phone rep was unable to provide any help or locate someone that could...and never got back to me with more info as promised.  Any advice from those that may have experienced similar? Sony are you out there?  I'm really hoping this isn't a $2500 bookmark!

Thanks,
Eric
________________
Eric Liner
Producer, Cinematographer
607.254.2191 (office)
607.227.0350 (cell)
esl34@...
http://www.facebook.com/birdofpreymovie


Sony AXSM 512GB S48 Card Failure/Repair

esl34@...
 

Hey all, 

I've got a Sony AXSM512GB S48 card that stopped working while in camera (F55//R7).  AXS Utility will recognize it but can't repair, mount, or reformat.  I called Sony (thru standard channels) and the phone rep was unable to provide any help or locate someone that could...and never got back to me with more info as promised.  Any advice from those that may have experienced similar? Sony are you out there?  I'm really hoping this isn't a $2500 bookmark!

Thanks,
Eric
________________
Eric Liner
Producer, Cinematographer
607.254.2191 (office)
607.227.0350 (cell)
esl34@...
http://www.facebook.com/birdofpreymovie


Re: Camera Test: ARRI LF, Blackmagic Ursa 12K, RED Monstro and Achtel 9x7 compared side-by-side

David Brillhart
 

Thank you Pawel, and team. Very helpful in knowing what tool will provide specific results. Your 9x7 rules when it comes to clarity. Perfect for the natural cinematography work. And to see the LF very specifically tuned for a traditional film look. Enlightening. 

David Brillhart 
Cinematographer, Sacramento, USA

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 2:14 AM Pawel Achtel ACS <pawel.achtel@...> wrote:

Hi Everyone,

 

Here is range of camera tests performed earlier this year for GSCA Innovations (Technical) Committee.

In the line-up we have some cameras that were of interest to the Giant Screen/IMAX community and evaluated for that purpose. These tests is not a “competition”, but rather practical approach to determine strengths and weaknesses of each camera as they greatly vary in price and performance. Due to COVID restrictions I designed the tests in an attempted to push each camera beyond its limits, so that any limitations are clearly visible without having to view the material on IMAX® screen.

 

                https://vimeo.com/530522840

                password: love

 

If anyone requires source (raw) camera files to perform their own evaluations, please let me know. Comments, as usual, welcome J

 

Disclosure: my company, Achtel Pty Limited, develops, makes, and offers 9x7 digital cinema cameras and for this reason I have recused myself from most of the tests in order to avoid any potential conflict of interest. Much effort was put to ensure ethical and unbiased approach to the testing.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Pawel Achtel ACS B.Eng.(Hons) M.Sc.

“Sharp to the Edge”

 

ACHTEL PTY LIMITED, ABN 52 134 895 417

Website: www.achtel.com

Mobile: 040 747 2747 (overseas: +61 4 0747 2747)

Mail: PO BOX 557, Rockdale, NSW 2216, Australia

Email: Pawel.Achtel@...

Facebook: facebook.com/PawelAchtel

Twitter: twitter.com/PawelAchtel

Skype: Pawel.Achtel

--


Camera Test: ARRI LF, Blackmagic Ursa 12K, RED Monstro and Achtel 9x7 compared side-by-side

Pawel Achtel, ACS
 

Hi Everyone,

 

Here is range of camera tests performed earlier this year for GSCA Innovations (Technical) Committee.

In the line-up we have some cameras that were of interest to the Giant Screen/IMAX community and evaluated for that purpose. These tests is not a “competition”, but rather practical approach to determine strengths and weaknesses of each camera as they greatly vary in price and performance. Due to COVID restrictions I designed the tests in an attempted to push each camera beyond its limits, so that any limitations are clearly visible without having to view the material on IMAX® screen.

 

                https://vimeo.com/530522840

                password: love

 

If anyone requires source (raw) camera files to perform their own evaluations, please let me know. Comments, as usual, welcome J

 

Disclosure: my company, Achtel Pty Limited, develops, makes, and offers 9x7 digital cinema cameras and for this reason I have recused myself from most of the tests in order to avoid any potential conflict of interest. Much effort was put to ensure ethical and unbiased approach to the testing.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Pawel Achtel ACS B.Eng.(Hons) M.Sc.

“Sharp to the Edge”

 

ACHTEL PTY LIMITED, ABN 52 134 895 417

Website: www.achtel.com

Mobile: 040 747 2747 (overseas: +61 4 0747 2747)

Mail: PO BOX 557, Rockdale, NSW 2216, Australia

Email: Pawel.Achtel@...

Facebook: facebook.com/PawelAchtel

Twitter: twitter.com/PawelAchtel

Skype: Pawel.Achtel

_._,_._,_


Re: Earth at Night in Color - cameras used?

Roberto Schaefer, ASC, AIC
 

Thank you Pedro, the link to the gocreative show was super helpful. I'll be testing the camera along with my A7SII on tuesday and report back on my reults for the special looks I'm trying to achieve.
--
Roberto Schaefer, ASC, AIC
it's colder than Venice, CA
The Key To The Light Is In The Dark


Re: Earth at Night in Color - cameras used?

Pedro Emauz
 

Hi,
In this interview, Alex Williamson, one of the executive producers of the show, says they used a bunch of systems but the workhorse was the Canon ME-20 camera, up-rezed to 4K. They also used adapted astronomy lenses, one being the Astro lens.

another show, Netflix's Night on Earth, used the Sony A7s2.

Both shows only shot at night in full moon (6 days either side of the full moon cycle).

Pedro Emauz
DP
Lisboa PT

On 8 May 2021, at 14:33, Ganzo <roberto@...> wrote:

Does anyone know for sure which cameras were used to make the Apple TV+ show "Earth at Nigh in Color"? The images are stunning and I have read that they only shot for about 3 nights per month in order to have the full moon source. Eery article mentions the amazing super low light capable cameras but they never state what kind they are. I've guessed that they use the Canon ML or ME cameras capable of the equivalent of 4 million asa (+75db gain). 
I tested that camera when it was first introduced but under different conditions and parameters.
-- 
Roberto Schaefer, ASC, AIC
it's warmer in Venice, CA
The Key To The Light Is In The Dark


Earth at Night in Color - cameras used?

Roberto Schaefer, ASC, AIC
 

Does anyone know for sure which cameras were used to make the Apple TV+ show "Earth at Nigh in Color"? The images are stunning and I have read that they only shot for about 3 nights per month in order to have the full moon source. Eery article mentions the amazing super low light capable cameras but they never state what kind they are. I've guessed that they use the Canon ML or ME cameras capable of the equivalent of 4 million asa (+75db gain). 
I tested that camera when it was first introduced but under different conditions and parameters.
--
Roberto Schaefer, ASC, AIC
it's warmer in Venice, CA
The Key To The Light Is In The Dark


Re: Sony FX9 camera test

alfonso parra
 

Michael, I'm sorry but I have not compared the two ISO values, I would not dare to guess the results, but if I make an analogy with the 800/4000 values in these I do not notice a difference at all, neither in the DR nor in anything except for a minimum increase in noise to 4000 but not observable in the pictures but in the measurements of the same with charts. 
Regards

Alfonso Parra ADFC
www.alfonsoparra.com
Tel Colombia 57 311 5798776
Tel Spain 34 639109309
Instagram alfonso_parra_adfc



El 24/04/2021, a las 11:49 a.m., Michael Sanders <lists@...> escribió:

Alfonso.

Have you done a comparison between Scinetone at 320 and at High base 1600 ISO?  I’ve struggled to see any difference between the two but would love to know what you think.

Michael.

Michael Sanders

London based Cinematographer and host of The Camera Channel podcast, available on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

+ 44 (0) 7976 269818








On 24 Apr 2021, at 16:54, alfonso parra <info@...> wrote:

I completely agree with you, although the difference in DR is not very large in the two ISO values, it is observable that the roll-off of the highlights is more pleasant at ISO 320 than at 800. 
It is really very interesting to carry out the tests, but it seems even more so that it is sharing the results and being able to contrast them with other colleagues. I am infinitely grateful for the time you dedicate to your tests and that you share the results with us, I think it makes us all better cinematographers. 
Regards



Re: Sony FX9 camera test

sid firstframe.com
 

“Of course there are differences from budget to high end, but not having a high end camera is no longer an excuse for not producing incredible looking content.”....
Exactly. Thank you Alister. 

SID LEVIN FILM+EDIT
FIRSTFRAME INC | BOSTON USA
firstframe.com | 9785010488 cell


From: cml-raw-log-hdr@... <cml-raw-log-hdr@...> on behalf of alister via cml.news <alister=ingenioustv.com@...>
Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2021 11:25:00 AM
To: cml-raw-log-hdr@... <cml-raw-log-hdr@...>
Subject: Re: [cml-raw-log-hdr] Sony FX9 camera test
 
Hi Alfonso.

This agrees with my own findings. A touch more DR at 320 than 800. For me though the biggest difference becomes visible during practical shooting where at 320 ISO the final highlight roll off is visually slightly more pleasing than at 800 where the cut-off is sharper. The range isn’t greatly different when measured, but the smoothness is better at 320.

But as you point out these are small differences and not really something that will mean one shot is useable and the other not, just from a personal perspective I would try to use 320 ISO rather than 800 where possible as the lower noise and smoother highlights are just that little bit better. It gets even more confusing if you try to find the optimum settings on the FX3 as there is very little guidance on which ISO is 0dB and you can very easily end up at -12dB in some circumstances (with strong black clipping). And if you do ever play with the Alphas and FX3 be aware the ISO ratings are 1.3 stops different to the pro cameras for the standard gamma curves, but the same for the log gamma curves, I have no idea how or why this should be.

Camera tests are great learning exercises but even the most meticulous tests can miss things that don’t show up until the camera is put to use. For example I spent a lot of time comparing the FX6, FX9 and Venice and broadly everything was as expected, Venice is that little bit better. As you discovered more even noise in each channel,  better colour consistency, fewer processing artefacts and a touch more useable DR. I found the FX6 and FX9 to be quite similar in some areas but different in others. They have very different fixed pattern noise with the FX6 showing horizontal noise bands and the FX9 showing a fair amount of smear in high contrast but low light. But one thing I completely missed, even though I looked at various zone plates was that the FX6 is much more prone to coloured moire than the FX9 or Venice with very fine red and blue textures. Next time I need to add R, G and B zone plates to my tests. This difference wasn’t found until real world filming and I just happened to be shooting fabric with the right texture at the right distance. Now I’ve seen this I can reproduce it easily, but I didn’t spot it during my testing. It does also explain one discovery in the test which was that even though the FX9 has a 6K sensor it did not resolve significantly more than the 4.2K FX6 sensor and the Imatest plots didn’t look greatly different. But now I know the FX6’s OLPF is not as well optimised as the FX9’s.

This is a wonderful time to be a cinematographer. There are so many choices. There are lower cost but great performing cameras for personal projects or low budgets and the more expensive flagship cameras that are just that little bit better when the budget will allow. 

But whether you are using the budget camera or the flagship camera it really is going to be the skill of the operator that will make the greatest difference. Material shot well with an FS7 will look better than badly shot Venice material (of course this is not a surprise). From the audiences perspective the well shot FS7 (or other lower cost camera) should not look deficient, they will not know or care that it was shot on an FS7. As an owner of an FX9 I feel it is a great camera. But if a job came in tomorrow where the budget or some other aspect meant that Venice or an LF was more appropriate, then I would have no hesitation moving to the better camera, why wouldn’t you? But at the same time I know that if I had to cut in some FX3 crash cam or some other shot that could only be done with a small, light camera, from the audiences perspective they should not be aware that the “lesser” camera was used. Of course there are differences from budget to high end, but not having a high end camera is no longer an excuse for not producing incredible looking content.


Alister Chapman 

Cinematographer - DIT - Consultant
UK Mobile/Whatsapp +44 7711 152226


Facebook: Alister Chapman
Twitter: @stormguy



www.xdcam-user.com    1.5 million hits, 100,000 visits from over 45,000 unique visitors every month!  Film and Video production techniques, reviews and news.


















On 23 Apr 2021, at 23:19, alfonso parra <info@...> wrote:

Alister, I have tested the FX9 camera with the S-cinetone curve with the value 320 ISO / 0Db

In the analysis of the Stouffer scale, the total RD with a value of 320 ISO is 9.37 stop and with a ISO 800 it is 9.78, that is, approximately a little more than 1/3 of a stop with this last value of ISO. Now, if we consider a certain amount of noise, for example, the medium value, which is the one that usually coincides with other RD tests, at 320 ISO is 9.97 stops, while with a value of 800 ISO it is 9.21, around 2/3 more stop. The average SNR for example in Y is 48.6, while at a value of 800 ISO it is 46.2, that is, an increase of 2.4 Db. The best signal-to-noise ratio is clear at 320 ISO which allows for that greater dynamic range. Now, I wanted to contrast that difference with a black and white texture chart to assess where I am missing the detail. In whites at 320, a little more detail is observed in the highlights, up to 4 1/3, while with 800 at that value there is already a slight loss of detail in some areas of the textures, although it is not yet clipping. in such a way that I would consider that the real difference between using those two ISO in the highlights is slightly more than 1/3 of a stop at 320 ISO. In the shadows the range really remains more or less the same, with 5 stops of detail, although at those 5 stops below the middle gray I have observed a little more noise at ISO 320. Actually, it seems to me that the range Dynamic at 800 "slides" down relative to 320 ISO and that shift could be over 1/3 stop. The difference with respect to the S-log3 curve seems to me to be still similar. Evaluating the medium gray in relation to the white of 90%, the medium gray is located as you indicated at 44% A value that is within the values ​​relative to the STD curves.

If I consider the RD of the S-cinetone at 320 ISO it would be 4 above the medium gray and between 4 ½ and 5 below. If I consider the RD of the S-cinetone at 800 ISO it would be between 3 ½ or 3 2/3 and five below. The differences are not visually noticeable and it is necessary to go into detail to be able to see them. If an increase in sensitivity with the S-Cinetone curve is needed due to the existing light conditions, it is possible to work at 800 considering that small loss of RD in the highlights. The noise level in the shadows is good enough not to have an observable loss of image quality.

 I really don't know if the differences we can find are worth it, but I think that taking the tests is a learning process, at least that's how I understand it, and it serves to understand, compare and ultimately to decide. It does not matter so much if the differences are great or not, but the knowledge itself that is obtained.

At present I believe that there are no great differences, nor great discoveries when we do camera tests and you have to go into a lot of detail to observe them. A famous Colombian boxer used to say that “it is better to be rich than poor”, and paraphrasing it we can say that it is better to shoot with a good camera than with a bad one, or that it is preferable to shoot with a very good camera rather than with a good camera, but The truth is that the difference in the image between a good camera and a very good camera is invisible to the viewer, and the difference will be in the look of the cinematographer, although it is true that improvements in cameras sometimes have no impact both in the image quality but in the options that the cinematographer has to work with. For example, with the FS7 excellent images are obtained as with the FX9, but with this we have the Dual ISO which is very practical.

In the end, we learn and learn as Art says in a bottomless pit… fortunately.

 Let me know Alister if these results agree with your tests

Regards

Alfonso Parra ADFC
www.alfonsoparra.com
Tel Colombia 57 311 5798776
Tel Spain 34 639109309
Instagram alfonso_parra_adfc





Re: Sony FX9 camera test

 

Alfonso.

Have you done a comparison between Scinetone at 320 and at High base 1600 ISO?  I’ve struggled to see any difference between the two but would love to know what you think.

Michael.

Michael Sanders

London based Cinematographer and host of The Camera Channel podcast, available on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

+ 44 (0) 7976 269818








On 24 Apr 2021, at 16:54, alfonso parra <info@...> wrote:

I completely agree with you, although the difference in DR is not very large in the two ISO values, it is observable that the roll-off of the highlights is more pleasant at ISO 320 than at 800. 
It is really very interesting to carry out the tests, but it seems even more so that it is sharing the results and being able to contrast them with other colleagues. I am infinitely grateful for the time you dedicate to your tests and that you share the results with us, I think it makes us all better cinematographers. 
Regards


Re: Sony FX9 camera test

alfonso parra
 

I completely agree with you, although the difference in DR is not very large in the two ISO values, it is observable that the roll-off of the highlights is more pleasant at ISO 320 than at 800. 
It is really very interesting to carry out the tests, but it seems even more so that it is sharing the results and being able to contrast them with other colleagues. I am infinitely grateful for the time you dedicate to your tests and that you share the results with us, I think it makes us all better cinematographers. 
Regards

Alfonso Parra ADFC
www.alfonsoparra.com
Tel Colombia 57 311 5798776
Tel Spain 34 639109309
Instagram alfonso_parra_adfc





Re: Sony FX9 camera test

alister@...
 

Hi Alfonso.

This agrees with my own findings. A touch more DR at 320 than 800. For me though the biggest difference becomes visible during practical shooting where at 320 ISO the final highlight roll off is visually slightly more pleasing than at 800 where the cut-off is sharper. The range isn’t greatly different when measured, but the smoothness is better at 320.

But as you point out these are small differences and not really something that will mean one shot is useable and the other not, just from a personal perspective I would try to use 320 ISO rather than 800 where possible as the lower noise and smoother highlights are just that little bit better. It gets even more confusing if you try to find the optimum settings on the FX3 as there is very little guidance on which ISO is 0dB and you can very easily end up at -12dB in some circumstances (with strong black clipping). And if you do ever play with the Alphas and FX3 be aware the ISO ratings are 1.3 stops different to the pro cameras for the standard gamma curves, but the same for the log gamma curves, I have no idea how or why this should be.

Camera tests are great learning exercises but even the most meticulous tests can miss things that don’t show up until the camera is put to use. For example I spent a lot of time comparing the FX6, FX9 and Venice and broadly everything was as expected, Venice is that little bit better. As you discovered more even noise in each channel,  better colour consistency, fewer processing artefacts and a touch more useable DR. I found the FX6 and FX9 to be quite similar in some areas but different in others. They have very different fixed pattern noise with the FX6 showing horizontal noise bands and the FX9 showing a fair amount of smear in high contrast but low light. But one thing I completely missed, even though I looked at various zone plates was that the FX6 is much more prone to coloured moire than the FX9 or Venice with very fine red and blue textures. Next time I need to add R, G and B zone plates to my tests. This difference wasn’t found until real world filming and I just happened to be shooting fabric with the right texture at the right distance. Now I’ve seen this I can reproduce it easily, but I didn’t spot it during my testing. It does also explain one discovery in the test which was that even though the FX9 has a 6K sensor it did not resolve significantly more than the 4.2K FX6 sensor and the Imatest plots didn’t look greatly different. But now I know the FX6’s OLPF is not as well optimised as the FX9’s.

This is a wonderful time to be a cinematographer. There are so many choices. There are lower cost but great performing cameras for personal projects or low budgets and the more expensive flagship cameras that are just that little bit better when the budget will allow. 

But whether you are using the budget camera or the flagship camera it really is going to be the skill of the operator that will make the greatest difference. Material shot well with an FS7 will look better than badly shot Venice material (of course this is not a surprise). From the audiences perspective the well shot FS7 (or other lower cost camera) should not look deficient, they will not know or care that it was shot on an FS7. As an owner of an FX9 I feel it is a great camera. But if a job came in tomorrow where the budget or some other aspect meant that Venice or an LF was more appropriate, then I would have no hesitation moving to the better camera, why wouldn’t you? But at the same time I know that if I had to cut in some FX3 crash cam or some other shot that could only be done with a small, light camera, from the audiences perspective they should not be aware that the “lesser” camera was used. Of course there are differences from budget to high end, but not having a high end camera is no longer an excuse for not producing incredible looking content.


Alister Chapman 

Cinematographer - DIT - Consultant
UK Mobile/Whatsapp +44 7711 152226


Facebook: Alister Chapman
Twitter: @stormguy



www.xdcam-user.com    1.5 million hits, 100,000 visits from over 45,000 unique visitors every month!  Film and Video production techniques, reviews and news.


















On 23 Apr 2021, at 23:19, alfonso parra <info@...> wrote:

Alister, I have tested the FX9 camera with the S-cinetone curve with the value 320 ISO / 0Db

In the analysis of the Stouffer scale, the total RD with a value of 320 ISO is 9.37 stop and with a ISO 800 it is 9.78, that is, approximately a little more than 1/3 of a stop with this last value of ISO. Now, if we consider a certain amount of noise, for example, the medium value, which is the one that usually coincides with other RD tests, at 320 ISO is 9.97 stops, while with a value of 800 ISO it is 9.21, around 2/3 more stop. The average SNR for example in Y is 48.6, while at a value of 800 ISO it is 46.2, that is, an increase of 2.4 Db. The best signal-to-noise ratio is clear at 320 ISO which allows for that greater dynamic range. Now, I wanted to contrast that difference with a black and white texture chart to assess where I am missing the detail. In whites at 320, a little more detail is observed in the highlights, up to 4 1/3, while with 800 at that value there is already a slight loss of detail in some areas of the textures, although it is not yet clipping. in such a way that I would consider that the real difference between using those two ISO in the highlights is slightly more than 1/3 of a stop at 320 ISO. In the shadows the range really remains more or less the same, with 5 stops of detail, although at those 5 stops below the middle gray I have observed a little more noise at ISO 320. Actually, it seems to me that the range Dynamic at 800 "slides" down relative to 320 ISO and that shift could be over 1/3 stop. The difference with respect to the S-log3 curve seems to me to be still similar. Evaluating the medium gray in relation to the white of 90%, the medium gray is located as you indicated at 44% A value that is within the values ​​relative to the STD curves.

If I consider the RD of the S-cinetone at 320 ISO it would be 4 above the medium gray and between 4 ½ and 5 below. If I consider the RD of the S-cinetone at 800 ISO it would be between 3 ½ or 3 2/3 and five below. The differences are not visually noticeable and it is necessary to go into detail to be able to see them. If an increase in sensitivity with the S-Cinetone curve is needed due to the existing light conditions, it is possible to work at 800 considering that small loss of RD in the highlights. The noise level in the shadows is good enough not to have an observable loss of image quality.

 I really don't know if the differences we can find are worth it, but I think that taking the tests is a learning process, at least that's how I understand it, and it serves to understand, compare and ultimately to decide. It does not matter so much if the differences are great or not, but the knowledge itself that is obtained.

At present I believe that there are no great differences, nor great discoveries when we do camera tests and you have to go into a lot of detail to observe them. A famous Colombian boxer used to say that “it is better to be rich than poor”, and paraphrasing it we can say that it is better to shoot with a good camera than with a bad one, or that it is preferable to shoot with a very good camera rather than with a good camera, but The truth is that the difference in the image between a good camera and a very good camera is invisible to the viewer, and the difference will be in the look of the cinematographer, although it is true that improvements in cameras sometimes have no impact both in the image quality but in the options that the cinematographer has to work with. For example, with the FS7 excellent images are obtained as with the FX9, but with this we have the Dual ISO which is very practical.

In the end, we learn and learn as Art says in a bottomless pit… fortunately.

 Let me know Alister if these results agree with your tests

Regards

Alfonso Parra ADFC
www.alfonsoparra.com
Tel Colombia 57 311 5798776
Tel Spain 34 639109309
Instagram alfonso_parra_adfc





Re: Sony FX9 camera test

alfonso parra
 

Alister, I have tested the FX9 camera with the S-cinetone curve with the value 320 ISO / 0Db

In the analysis of the Stouffer scale, the total RD with a value of 320 ISO is 9.37 stop and with a ISO 800 it is 9.78, that is, approximately a little more than 1/3 of a stop with this last value of ISO. Now, if we consider a certain amount of noise, for example, the medium value, which is the one that usually coincides with other RD tests, at 320 ISO is 9.97 stops, while with a value of 800 ISO it is 9.21, around 2/3 more stop. The average SNR for example in Y is 48.6, while at a value of 800 ISO it is 46.2, that is, an increase of 2.4 Db. The best signal-to-noise ratio is clear at 320 ISO which allows for that greater dynamic range. Now, I wanted to contrast that difference with a black and white texture chart to assess where I am missing the detail. In whites at 320, a little more detail is observed in the highlights, up to 4 1/3, while with 800 at that value there is already a slight loss of detail in some areas of the textures, although it is not yet clipping. in such a way that I would consider that the real difference between using those two ISO in the highlights is slightly more than 1/3 of a stop at 320 ISO. In the shadows the range really remains more or less the same, with 5 stops of detail, although at those 5 stops below the middle gray I have observed a little more noise at ISO 320. Actually, it seems to me that the range Dynamic at 800 "slides" down relative to 320 ISO and that shift could be over 1/3 stop. The difference with respect to the S-log3 curve seems to me to be still similar. Evaluating the medium gray in relation to the white of 90%, the medium gray is located as you indicated at 44% A value that is within the values ​​relative to the STD curves.

If I consider the RD of the S-cinetone at 320 ISO it would be 4 above the medium gray and between 4 ½ and 5 below. If I consider the RD of the S-cinetone at 800 ISO it would be between 3 ½ or 3 2/3 and five below. The differences are not visually noticeable and it is necessary to go into detail to be able to see them. If an increase in sensitivity with the S-Cinetone curve is needed due to the existing light conditions, it is possible to work at 800 considering that small loss of RD in the highlights. The noise level in the shadows is good enough not to have an observable loss of image quality.

 I really don't know if the differences we can find are worth it, but I think that taking the tests is a learning process, at least that's how I understand it, and it serves to understand, compare and ultimately to decide. It does not matter so much if the differences are great or not, but the knowledge itself that is obtained.

At present I believe that there are no great differences, nor great discoveries when we do camera tests and you have to go into a lot of detail to observe them. A famous Colombian boxer used to say that “it is better to be rich than poor”, and paraphrasing it we can say that it is better to shoot with a good camera than with a bad one, or that it is preferable to shoot with a very good camera rather than with a good camera, but The truth is that the difference in the image between a good camera and a very good camera is invisible to the viewer, and the difference will be in the look of the cinematographer, although it is true that improvements in cameras sometimes have no impact both in the image quality but in the options that the cinematographer has to work with. For example, with the FS7 excellent images are obtained as with the FX9, but with this we have the Dual ISO which is very practical.

In the end, we learn and learn as Art says in a bottomless pit… fortunately.

 Let me know Alister if these results agree with your tests

Regards

Alfonso Parra ADFC
www.alfonsoparra.com
Tel Colombia 57 311 5798776
Tel Spain 34 639109309
Instagram alfonso_parra_adfc




Re: good camera body for steadicam to intercut with Venice footage

Cynthia Brett Webster
 

I would recommend the Sony FX9 as the FX6 and FX3 have an image Sharpening feature that cannot be defeated, at least with the present firmware... SONY are you listening?

Cynthia Webster DP
Los Angeles



On Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 6:38 AM Michel Suissa <michel@... wrote:

Hi Roberto,

i would second the suggestions already posted.
Sony FX9, FX6 and FX3 as the “mirrorless” cinema camera companion of the rest of the Sony cinema camera line are excellent choices. 

Note that the FX6 could be the hardest one to get due to very high demand and relatively low supply. 

Depending on preference, other options on the market could be the Panasonic GH line, the RED Komodo or even Blackmagic cinema cameras.


cheers 

--
Michel Suissa 
The Studio-B&H


Re: good camera body for steadicam to intercut with Venice footage

 

Andrew.

All very good points, I was thinking purely along the lines of picture matching but off course its not just the pictures.

The weight is a real problem, I’ve just come of the phone to a friend whose bought an FX9 and thinking about buying an FX6 as a second camera and I was saying just how insanely light it is. We were trying to balance one on a Ronin S with a Sony 24 - 105.  Combined weight is well within the limits of the FX6 payload but the body is so light it would’n’t balance.

Michael Sanders

London based Cinematographer and host of The Camera Channel podcast, available on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

+ 44 (0) 7976 269818








On 22 Apr 2021, at 09:41, Andrew McClymont (Alpha) <andrewmc@...> wrote:

5. In this case, putting professional anamorphic lenses on a lightweight camera essentially means mounting the lens to the Steadicam rig, and the camera to the lens.
Which is a lot of fun for quick lens changes ...

Also, small cameras can actually be too light.
To get a full-size rig working properly, I would be adding a weight plate to an A7S/FX3.


Re: good camera body for steadicam to intercut with Venice footage

Michel Suissa
 

Hi Roberto,

i would second the suggestions already posted.
Sony FX9, FX6 and FX3 as the “mirrorless” cinema camera companion of the rest of the Sony cinema camera line are excellent choices. 

Note that the FX6 could be the hardest one to get due to very high demand and relatively low supply. 

Depending on preference, other options on the market could be the Panasonic GH line, the RED Komodo or even Blackmagic cinema cameras.


cheers 

--
Michel Suissa 
The Studio-B&H


Re: good camera body for steadicam to intercut with Venice footage

Daniel Chung
 

Roberto,

If you are shooting 2x or 1.8x anamorphic I would recommend looking at the Sony FX9, Z CAM F6, S1H or Kinefinity Mavo LF if you want a 4K final output. After the FX9 my guess is the Z CAM will match the Venice the closest. 

A7S III and FX6 won’t give you the same resolution with anamorphic 

I have Z CAM and Kinefinity here if you want to try. S1H is easily borrowed.

Dan






On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 at 19:43, Ganzo <roberto@...> wrote:
On the show I'm starting we might not be able to source a 4th Venice body so I'm considering an alternative for the steadicam use. There will be day, night, all lighting conditions. Any knowledgable suggestions for a camera body PL mount that can handle anamorphics that might be more available? In the UK. We're shooting 6K and framing 2:1 by pillarboxing.
--
Roberto Schaefer, ASC, AIC
London, England
The Key To The Light Is In The Dark


Re: good camera body for steadicam to intercut with Venice footage

Andrew McClymont (Alpha)
 


On 22 Apr 2021, at 6:20 pm, Michael Sanders via cml.news wrote:


It maybe worth trying to get your hands on an A7s3 or an FX6, effectively the same camera but the FX6 has TC in and Variable ND ...


As a Steadicam operator, I would much rather deal with an FX9 or even an FX6 if necessary, than an A7S or FX3.

1. We operators like SDI. We’re not looking at an on-board monitor or viewfinder, so we need a robust and reliable connection to the rig.
2. HDMI-SDI converters are annoying, often produce at least a frame or more of image lag, and are prone to intermittent signal failure.
3. We like the ability to power the camera (if necessary) from the rig.
4. Lens mounts need to be super-solid to avoid vibration
5. In this case, putting professional anamorphic lenses on a lightweight camera essentially means mounting the lens to the Steadicam rig, and the camera to the lens.
Which is a lot of fun for quick lens changes ...

Also, small cameras can actually be too light.
To get a full-size rig working properly, I would be adding a weight plate to an A7S/FX3.

So … MiniLFs are a great Steadicam camera.

Andrew McClymont
Cinematography
Sydney AUSTRALIA

Mobile:
0417 265524
Mail:






 



Re: good camera body for steadicam to intercut with Venice footage

 

(Sorry for not signing - I did it via the web interface which didn’t automatically add my signature!)

Michael Sanders

London based Cinematographer and host of The Camera Channel podcast, available on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

+ 44 (0) 7976 269818








On 22 Apr 2021, at 09:20, Michael Sanders <lists@...> wrote:

Roberto..

It maybe worth trying to get your hands on an A7s3 or an FX6, effectively the same camera but the FX6 has TC in and Variable ND where as the A7s has no variable ND or TC in but does has IBIS.  Both can record RAW on an external recorder and are insanely good in low light.  They aren't as good as the Venice obviously but you'd be amazed at good they are. There's also the FX3 which is a kind of Cinevised A7s3.

Depending on what you are doing to the pictures they might just work.
 


21 - 40 of 1918