Web Analytics
   Date   

Re: Freefly Wave - test footage?

Marc Srour
 

Hi Rob,

 

Thanks a lot for the link! Seems like colours are pretty good out of camera and can take some minimal grading.  

 

Marc

 

Marc Srour

Producer

ABL Films

Producer & Motion Control Specialist

Kinisi by ABL Films

marc@...

+357 99308521

Cyprus

 

 


Re: Freefly Wave - test footage?

Rob van Gelder
 

Hi Marc,

This cameraman, Khun Sittipong in Thailand, has done some tests with it:




Rob van Gelder
Lighthouse Film Service
Bangkok - Thailand
Head of maintenance / international contacts
rob@...
+66 2946 1616 (office)
+66 82572 4441 (cell)



Freefly Wave - test footage?

Marc Srour
 

Hi everyone! I'm looking into the Freefly Wave as an alternative camera for those quick, lower budget tabletop shoots. Obviously there's no comparison in terms of quality to even an older Phantom or Weisscam, but it might make up for it in terms of accessibility and workflow.

From the spec sheet, I am worried about the bit depth, file format, and compression ratio, which might cause big problems with banding and crushed blacks, especially in tabletop and other studio environments. The videos on the Freefly website also don't inspire much confidence to be honest, although I'm not sure if those artefacts is down to web compression.

Unfortunately, being on a tiny island means I can't easily get one for a test day :) Is there anyone on list that has one or has shot with one, and would be able to send me a take in the native format (or a transcode to ProRes)? Preferably something on black with good lighting, but I would take anything.

Thank you very much!

Marc

--
Marc Srour
Producer / Motion Control Specialist
ABL Films
Cyprus


Re: shooting LED wall - banding and sawtooth artefact

Sean Porter
 

Hey James,

Was there a good reason to install them in a different orientation?

Yes and no.  We needed a vertical curved cyc type installation, and the panels were originally arranged in a long horizontal curve.  So to simplify configuration it was decided to split the horizontal wall in half, rotate each section 90 degrees and build the wall that way...  in hindsight, our downfall.

Do you recall the led manufacturer?

They were ROE Diamond panels with a Brompton processor.
 
Who teched your wall and who was responsible for the content?

I'm not going to throw anyone under the bus.  Content was captured via a Meta Two 360 camera, stitched with Mistika and mapped/positioned in Unreal.
 
LED Walls should have a Hz rate locked in step with your camera. At least that’s how we do it on the tv show I work on

We found no difference ultimately whether the camera was genlocked or not.  The panels, processor, etc were all genlocked together running at 48hz.  Camera was at 24fps and we tested multiple shutter angles, ultimately working at 144.

We had another, flat, natively oriented panel array adjacent to the curved wall, and it exhibited no sawtooth artifacts.

At one point my AC cleverly suggested we try the camera on it's side, rotated 90deg (we were using a square portion of the sensor).  This actually got rid of the sawtooth artifacts but introduced other artifacts we didn't have time to address.  In the end we mitigated the effect as best we could in camera and it'll be a combo of DI tools and VFX to clean up anything remaining in the edit.

Cheers
Sean Porter
DP
Oregon


Re: shooting LED wall - banding and sawtooth artefact

Jason Norman
 

Was there a good reason to install them in a different orientation?
Do you recall the led manufacturer?
Who teched your wall and who was responsible for the content?

LED Walls should have a Hz rate locked in step with your camera. At least that’s how we do it on the tv show I work on

Jason M. Norman
I.A.T.S.E 728
Lighting Console Programmer
Network Systems Specialist
Lucid Lighting Co.
Los Angeles, CA
(c) 360.481.5379


Re: shooting LED wall - banding and sawtooth artefact

Video Assist Hungary
 

Sawtooth is a refresh rate issue in the wall. Basically the wall is not refreshing fast (or slow!) enough to fill the camera image. Yes, it’s much more noticeable when the camera is angled to the wall, but even with head on it’s there - only it’s a very thin horizontal line. It’s easier to see on some flat colors - usually greyish or greenish, not very saturated. It’s also visible more when panning the camera up and down. The lines stay stationery on the camera, indicating it is connected to sensor refresh. 
It can be solved by meticulously adjusting the wall parameters and genlock timings with the sensor. 



Balazs Rozgonyi
Fillscrn
Tech director


On 2021. Oct 1., at 20:11, Sean Porter <seancporter@...> wrote:

We just wrapped an LED shoot in Thailand where we experienced a sawtooth artifact effect.  we spent many hours troubleshooting and ultimately we believe it was due to the orientation of the panels themselves - they were installed 90deg from their native arrangement and we think the top-to-bottom refresh of the camera was conflicting with the now left-to-right refresh of the display. Panels arranged correctly did not display the sawtooth artifact, so be cognizant of your installations.

hopefully this helps future efforts =)

Sean Porter
DP
Oregon


Re: shooting LED wall - banding and sawtooth artefact

Sean Porter
 

We just wrapped an LED shoot in Thailand where we experienced a sawtooth artifact effect.  we spent many hours troubleshooting and ultimately we believe it was due to the orientation of the panels themselves - they were installed 90deg from their native arrangement and we think the top-to-bottom refresh of the camera was conflicting with the now left-to-right refresh of the display. Panels arranged correctly did not display the sawtooth artifact, so be cognizant of your installations.

hopefully this helps future efforts =)

Sean Porter
DP
Oregon


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?

Ganzo
 

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?

Ganzo
 

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




1 - 20 of 1905