Web Analytics
   Date   

Sony FX9 camera test

Art Adams
 

The differences that exist between the very best and the least good of the large sensor cameras are small. Small enough that give them to a competent operator, shoot some random typical scenes with the care you would normally take on a feature, grade all with equal skill and a blind test a general audience would have one hell of a hard time categorically identifying any individual camera. They are certainly unlikely to be saying “wow, look how dramatically better that camera is”.

 

I think that depends. Is this the kind of “typical” scene you’d shoot on a feature when on a stage under controlled lighting, or shooting against the setting sun at the end of the day with the sun in the shot? (I just saw a stunning shot exactly like this at the ASC Awards that ppears in Nomadland—a film I have yet to see but looks to be beautifully shot). And other kinds of productions have different constraints. Is a “typical” feature scene the same as a “typical” episodic television scene, commercial scene, corporate scene or documentary scene? And isn’t it equally important to capture the atypical scenes? Often you don’t get to plan when those happen. They just happen.

 

There are a lot of cameras that will choke when shooting into bright clipped highlights. They most definitely do not respond the same. A general audience -might- notice consciously, but what really matters is that a cinematographer will notice. That’s who we have to keep happy. The general audience doesn’t choose the cameras or lenses or lighting. They are affected by those choices, but they don’t know why. They don’t notice consciously but they feel the impact of those choices.

 

Different cameras have always behaved differently in extremes, perhaps for very low light you might get a better result from a $4K FX3 that can produce beautiful, low noise, high dynamic range images at ridiculously low light levels while other considerably more expensive cameras would really struggle to deliver anything useable.

 

Once again, it depends. There are many cameras out there that have remarkable low light performance… if you don’t need to see much detail in the shadows because there’s a lot of noise reduction going on, and that kills shadow detail. There are some cameras whose dynamic range distribution changes a bit at those higher ISOs such that the mid-tones work nicely but highlights clip sooner, which can be problematic at night around streetlights and office windows. There are some cameras whose noise characteristics will produce a hue shift if you decide to pull the image up a bit later, because the noise tends to have color to it if you dig in too deeply so you really need to get the exposure right.

 

Then in extreme highlights perhaps a Venice/Arri LF will do much better. But really, for normal day to day shooting the differences are not vast as they are all using similar sensor technology and the majority allow us to record raw so we can move the image processing into post production.

 

Raw doesn’t save a clipped image. It may help in making it look less bad, but raw isn’t a magic solution for a lot of problems. And quite a few projects do not shoot raw for budgetary reasons: docs, commercials, even TV series and low budget features.

 

Most of what’s produced these days is graded heavily and often little remains of the cameras original colour palette. There’s a whole industry that revolves around the production of LUT’s and transforms that can very convincingly make almost any camera look like any other.

 

It's important to talk to colorists about this as they will tell you they absolutely have more control in pushing colors around with some cameras than others. That’s not just down to the sensor hardware alone. I’ve known colorists who will use ARRI’s LogC to grade material from other cameras because there’s something about the underlying math that makes it easier to manipulate color information.

 

They will also tell you that it is possible to make one camera look like another as long as you make the camera that looks better match the camera that looks worse. It doesn’t work the other way, and all cameras do not look the same. That is a myth that is easily dispelled through testing or speaking to a colorist.

 

And, lastly, not every project is graded by a master colorist.

 

If all cameras were equal we’d be watching Marvel movies shot on $5,000 cameras, and we aren’t.

 

Yes, in side by side, direct comparison tests or through careful evaluation with charts you will find differences, because there are differences. But as Alonso’s test shows the difference between Venice and the FX9 is not huge and nor is the difference between the FX9 and FS7.

 

Maybe it’s just me, but I saw a lot of differences.

 

Often these differences only become clear when you dig very deeply into the image.  As I said, these small differences can matter and they are real, so when you have the budget why would you choose to use anything but what you feel is the very best. That won’t ever change. But there is not a vast difference between what you can get from a $60K camera and a $6K camera.

 

Once again, maybe it’s just me, but I see some significant differences. More expensive cameras do have obvious advantages if you know what to look for, or if you need to drag a shot back from the brink because, for whatever reason, the situation became “atypical.”

_______________________________________________________
Art 
Adams
Cinema Lens Specialist
ARRI Inc.
3700 Vanowen Street
BurbankCA 91505
www.arri.com 

818-841-7070
x4212
 
aadams@...

Get all the latest information from www.arri.comFacebookTwitterInstagram and YouTube.






This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system; you may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. Please send us by fax any message containing deadlines as incoming e-mails are not screened for response deadlines. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet.



Re: Sony FX9 camera test

alister@...
 

Well Art, we will have to agree to disagree.

The differences that exist between the very best and the least good of the large sensor cameras are small. Small enough that give them to a competent operator, shoot some random typical scenes with the care you would normally take on a feature, grade all with equal skill and a blind test a general audience would have one hell of a hard time categorically identifying any individual camera. They are certainly unlikely to be saying “wow, look how dramatically better that camera is”.

Different cameras have always behaved differently in extremes, perhaps for very low light you might get a better result from a $4K FX3 that can produce beautiful, low noise, high dynamic range images at ridiculously low light levels while other considerably more expensive cameras would really struggle to deliver anything useable. Then in extreme highlights perhaps a Venice/Arri LF will do much better. But really, for normal day to day shooting the differences are not vast as they are all using similar sensor technology and the majority allow us to record raw so we can move the image processing into post production. Most of what’s produced these days is graded heavily and often little remains of the cameras original colour palette. There’s a whole industry that revolves around the production of LUT’s and transforms that can very convincingly make almost any camera look like any other.

Yes, in side by side, direct comparison tests or through careful evaluation with charts you will find differences, because there are differences. But as Alonso’s test shows the difference between Venice and the FX9 is not huge and nor is the difference between the FX9 and FS7. Often these differences only become clear when you dig very deeply into the image.  As I said, these small differences can matter and they are real, so when you have the budget why would you choose to use anything but what you feel is the very best. That won’t ever change. But there is not a vast difference between what you can get from a $60K camera and a $6K camera. 


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 19 Apr 2021, at 16:59, Art Adams <aadams@...> wrote:

>>>You are not suddenly going to see a camera with dramatically greater image quality unless you do something radically different. 
 
I’m going to disagree with that.
 
  1. You can create great looking images with any camera… but the critical difference is how they react when you stress them (clip highlights, under/over expose, how they handle saturated colors and secondary colors, etc.). Any camera can look great under controlled or mostly controlled conditions. It’s when they are used under completely uncontrolled and unpredictable conditions that their differences show up… and quickly.
  2. They may all be capable of creating pretty images, but the images they create will still be different. There’s a lot that goes into color and dynamic range: it’s part hardware and part software. The sensors may be somewhat the same but how the signal is processed differs greatly.
 
Cameras still do not perform equally well under all conditions, or all look the same. And, generally, there are no financially-expedient shortcuts around certain aspects of physics.
_______________________________________________________
Art 
Adams
Cinema Lens Specialist
ARRI Inc.
3700 Vanowen Street
BurbankCA 91505
www.arri.com 

<image993273.png>
818-841-7070
x4212
 
<image148587.png>
aadams@...

Get all the latest information from www.arri.comFacebookTwitterInstagram and YouTube.






This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system; you may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. Please send us by fax any message containing deadlines as incoming e-mails are not screened for response deadlines. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet.




Sony FX9 camera test

Art Adams
 

>>>You are not suddenly going to see a camera with dramatically greater image quality unless you do something radically different. 

 

I’m going to disagree with that.

 

  1. You can create great looking images with any camera… but the critical difference is how they react when you stress them (clip highlights, under/over expose, how they handle saturated colors and secondary colors, etc.). Any camera can look great under controlled or mostly controlled conditions. It’s when they are used under completely uncontrolled and unpredictable conditions that their differences show up… and quickly.
  2. They may all be capable of creating pretty images, but the images they create will still be different. There’s a lot that goes into color and dynamic range: it’s part hardware and part software. The sensors may be somewhat the same but how the signal is processed differs greatly.

 

Cameras still do not perform equally well under all conditions, or all look the same. And, generally, there are no financially-expedient shortcuts around certain aspects of physics.

_______________________________________________________
Art 
Adams
Cinema Lens Specialist
ARRI Inc.
3700 Vanowen Street
BurbankCA 91505
www.arri.com 

818-841-7070
x4212
 
aadams@...

Get all the latest information from www.arri.comFacebookTwitterInstagram and YouTube.






This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system; you may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. Please send us by fax any message containing deadlines as incoming e-mails are not screened for response deadlines. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet.



Re: Sony FX9 camera test

alfonso parra
 

To me the two most noticeable improvements in the FX9 are noise and color. It improves the sensitivity with less noise in the shadows and also changes the colorimetry. The changes in the RD do not seem so significant to me and the gamma curves do not show a great difference compared to previous cameras. 

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




Re: Sony FX9 camera test

Cynthia Brett Webster
 

Right-On
Thank you for that Alister!

Cynthia Webster DP
Los Angeles


On Sun, Apr 18, 2021, 2:30 AM <alister@... wrote:
Cynthia.

I think we need to be realistic about differences and improvements between cameras. Most of the current cameras are capable of producing great images. Sensor technology is not significantly changing, so any differences or improvements will only ever be small. You are not suddenly going to see a camera with dramatically greater image quality unless you do something radically different. 

But these small differences do count. Less noise is always nice and make footage easier to work with in post production. Improved color response can make faces and skin tones subtly more pleasing, especially for less experienced colourists.


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 17 Apr 2021, at 19:27, Cynthia Brett Webster <cyndustries.mail@...> wrote:

I too am very interested in this thread. I've been shooting with FS7
Cameras for a few years and just finished shooting a feature using FX9 Cameras for the first time.

The budget didn't allow for Sony Venice Cameras, so I suggested using a pair of FX9s and the producers we're extremely happy with the results.

I used S-Cinetone straight out of the box with no LUTs or adjustments or scopes. I simply relied on the camera built-in monitors for color and exposure and used larger monitors connected wirelessly only for framing and Camera Assistants pulling focus. Very pleased with the results.

(Also, the low light capability of the FX9 cameras is phenomenal).

I'm really surprised here by the results of the tests, as under normal set lighting condituons, I wouldn't have expected the differences between the FS7s and FX9s to be so small, (that is, if I understand the data correctly?)

Cynthia Brett Webster
DP,  Los Angeles

.

On Sat, Apr 17, 2021, 10:47 AM <alister@... wrote:
Alfonso. I look forward to reading your findings.


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 17 Apr 2021, at 18:07, alfonso parra <info@...> wrote:

Thank you very much Alister for the clarification, I will try to compare the curves with that ISO value and see what it turns out. 

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



El 17/04/2021, a las 11:46 a.m., alister@... escribió:

Raising the gain when you are using a power law gamma reduces the dynamic range because gain is a multiplier. If you multiply your 0 to 100% input range from the sensor by 2 it becomes 0 to 200%, but you can’t record 200%, you only have room for 100%. So you have a small change in the shadows but a much larger change in the brighter parts of the image and the dynamic range that can be recorded is reduced by 1 stop for every 6dB you add. Adding gain means you will clip earlier. If you stop down to compensate, bringing the highlights down to where they would be without the added gain you reduce the shadow range as the SNR will become worse, and the extra noise from the amplification will limit the shadow range. You gain no additional highlight range, you are simply returning it to where it would be without the extra gain, but the shadows suffer. With added gain the highlights are less pleasing because the gamma curve is designed to work with the sensors output range, when you add gain because you can now more easily exceed the recording range the highlights clip sooner and don’t look as nice as a result.






Re: Sony FX9 camera test

alister@...
 

Cynthia.

I think we need to be realistic about differences and improvements between cameras. Most of the current cameras are capable of producing great images. Sensor technology is not significantly changing, so any differences or improvements will only ever be small. You are not suddenly going to see a camera with dramatically greater image quality unless you do something radically different. 

But these small differences do count. Less noise is always nice and make footage easier to work with in post production. Improved color response can make faces and skin tones subtly more pleasing, especially for less experienced colourists.


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 17 Apr 2021, at 19:27, Cynthia Brett Webster <cyndustries.mail@...> wrote:

I too am very interested in this thread. I've been shooting with FS7
Cameras for a few years and just finished shooting a feature using FX9 Cameras for the first time.

The budget didn't allow for Sony Venice Cameras, so I suggested using a pair of FX9s and the producers we're extremely happy with the results.

I used S-Cinetone straight out of the box with no LUTs or adjustments or scopes. I simply relied on the camera built-in monitors for color and exposure and used larger monitors connected wirelessly only for framing and Camera Assistants pulling focus. Very pleased with the results.

(Also, the low light capability of the FX9 cameras is phenomenal).

I'm really surprised here by the results of the tests, as under normal set lighting condituons, I wouldn't have expected the differences between the FS7s and FX9s to be so small, (that is, if I understand the data correctly?)

Cynthia Brett Webster
DP,  Los Angeles

.

On Sat, Apr 17, 2021, 10:47 AM <alister@... wrote:
Alfonso. I look forward to reading your findings.


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 17 Apr 2021, at 18:07, alfonso parra <info@...> wrote:

Thank you very much Alister for the clarification, I will try to compare the curves with that ISO value and see what it turns out. 

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



El 17/04/2021, a las 11:46 a.m., alister@... escribió:

Raising the gain when you are using a power law gamma reduces the dynamic range because gain is a multiplier. If you multiply your 0 to 100% input range from the sensor by 2 it becomes 0 to 200%, but you can’t record 200%, you only have room for 100%. So you have a small change in the shadows but a much larger change in the brighter parts of the image and the dynamic range that can be recorded is reduced by 1 stop for every 6dB you add. Adding gain means you will clip earlier. If you stop down to compensate, bringing the highlights down to where they would be without the added gain you reduce the shadow range as the SNR will become worse, and the extra noise from the amplification will limit the shadow range. You gain no additional highlight range, you are simply returning it to where it would be without the extra gain, but the shadows suffer. With added gain the highlights are less pleasing because the gamma curve is designed to work with the sensors output range, when you add gain because you can now more easily exceed the recording range the highlights clip sooner and don’t look as nice as a result.






Re: Sony FX9 camera test

Cynthia Brett Webster
 

I too am very interested in this thread. I've been shooting with FS7
Cameras for a few years and just finished shooting a feature using FX9 Cameras for the first time.

The budget didn't allow for Sony Venice Cameras, so I suggested using a pair of FX9s and the producers we're extremely happy with the results.

I used S-Cinetone straight out of the box with no LUTs or adjustments or scopes. I simply relied on the camera built-in monitors for color and exposure and used larger monitors connected wirelessly only for framing and Camera Assistants pulling focus. Very pleased with the results.

(Also, the low light capability of the FX9 cameras is phenomenal).

I'm really surprised here by the results of the tests, as under normal set lighting condituons, I wouldn't have expected the differences between the FS7s and FX9s to be so small, (that is, if I understand the data correctly?)

Cynthia Brett Webster
DP,  Los Angeles

.

On Sat, Apr 17, 2021, 10:47 AM <alister@... wrote:
Alfonso. I look forward to reading your findings.


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 17 Apr 2021, at 18:07, alfonso parra <info@...> wrote:

Thank you very much Alister for the clarification, I will try to compare the curves with that ISO value and see what it turns out. 

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



El 17/04/2021, a las 11:46 a.m., alister@... escribió:

Raising the gain when you are using a power law gamma reduces the dynamic range because gain is a multiplier. If you multiply your 0 to 100% input range from the sensor by 2 it becomes 0 to 200%, but you can’t record 200%, you only have room for 100%. So you have a small change in the shadows but a much larger change in the brighter parts of the image and the dynamic range that can be recorded is reduced by 1 stop for every 6dB you add. Adding gain means you will clip earlier. If you stop down to compensate, bringing the highlights down to where they would be without the added gain you reduce the shadow range as the SNR will become worse, and the extra noise from the amplification will limit the shadow range. You gain no additional highlight range, you are simply returning it to where it would be without the extra gain, but the shadows suffer. With added gain the highlights are less pleasing because the gamma curve is designed to work with the sensors output range, when you add gain because you can now more easily exceed the recording range the highlights clip sooner and don’t look as nice as a result.



Re: Sony FX9 camera test

alister@...
 

Alfonso. I look forward to reading your findings.


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 17 Apr 2021, at 18:07, alfonso parra <info@...> wrote:

Thank you very much Alister for the clarification, I will try to compare the curves with that ISO value and see what it turns out. 

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



El 17/04/2021, a las 11:46 a.m., alister@... escribió:

Raising the gain when you are using a power law gamma reduces the dynamic range because gain is a multiplier. If you multiply your 0 to 100% input range from the sensor by 2 it becomes 0 to 200%, but you can’t record 200%, you only have room for 100%. So you have a small change in the shadows but a much larger change in the brighter parts of the image and the dynamic range that can be recorded is reduced by 1 stop for every 6dB you add. Adding gain means you will clip earlier. If you stop down to compensate, bringing the highlights down to where they would be without the added gain you reduce the shadow range as the SNR will become worse, and the extra noise from the amplification will limit the shadow range. You gain no additional highlight range, you are simply returning it to where it would be without the extra gain, but the shadows suffer. With added gain the highlights are less pleasing because the gamma curve is designed to work with the sensors output range, when you add gain because you can now more easily exceed the recording range the highlights clip sooner and don’t look as nice as a result.



Re: Sony FX9 camera test

alister@...
 

Hi again Alfonso.

Sony’s logic when designing their cameras and determining base ISO appears to be based on finding the sensors clip point and working down from there. So where you have a 460% curve such as S-Cinetone you design the curve so that 100% sensor output = a recording level of 109IRE and then go down 11 stops from there to black. This will give a good SNR while making use of the sensors full highlight range, the shadow range is limited by the gamma curve, but the shadows remain clean because you are putting a good amount of light onto the sensor.

Then for S-Log3 you put 100% sensor output at 94IRE (the clip point of the S-Log3 curve) and go down 15(ish) stops from there. This results in a reduced SNR, the impression of a greater highlight range (because you putting less light on the sensor) while the gamma curve extends deeper into the shadows and noise, so overall greater DR but at the expense of more noise than S-Cinetone.

Because S-Log3 has 6 stops from clip to middle grey and then S-Cinetone has 4.5(ish) stops from clip to middle grey, you need to expose S-Cinetone 1.5 stops darker than S-Log3 to put middle grey in the right place and achieve the full dynamic range without clipping the highlights. So S-Cinetone ends up with a base ISO rating that is almost 1.5 stops lower than S-Log3.   

The base ISO for all the STD gammas as well as HG1-4 is 320/1600. HG7 & HG8 are 500/2500ISO (they have a greater highlight range than S-Cinetone so as above they are rated higher so you expose the sensor lower to gain the extra highlight range).

Sony don’t give a middle grey value for S-Cinetone because the idea is that you adjust your exposure to make use of the roll-off that starts around 65IRE to alter the contrast in your upper mid range and brighter skin tones to provide more or less contrast depending on the look you want. There is also a very small change in the gain in the toe of S-Cinetone that has a similar effect to shadow contrast - brighter = less, darker = more. My own testing suggests that to match the 320ISO base rating that you would expose middle grey at 44IRE and a 90% reflectivity white card at 78IRE. There is a white paper on S-Cinetone: https://pro.sony/s3/2020/03/24095333/S-Cinetone-whitepaper_v2.pdf


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 17 Apr 2021, at 16:06, alfonso parra <info@...> wrote:

We decided to use the dual ISO base settings ​​for all the curves and thus be able to compare them to the same ISO value, in this case with the cinetone curve we use 800 as for the Slog3 curve so that we can clearly see the differences. If it is interesting to observe how you have made, the curve with different ISO values ​​and compare the results. What surprises me is that by raising the value of the S-cinetone to 800, detail is lost in the highs when normally the opposite happens, by increasing the gain, or the ISO value, the ability to collect detail in the highs increases, losing in the shadows. I don't remember now, but does Sony make any recommendation on the ISO value to use with the S-cinetone or does it indicate how much the middle gray value should be? May I ask you how did you get to 320 ISO in relation to 0db? In the theoretical sensibility test that we did, it gave us that the 800 ISO would be 0db considering the STD5 curve with gamma 2.4, which is actually quite similar to S-cinetone, actually the most similar is the STD3 only that S-Cinetone compresses something else in the highlights. 
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
 

Thank you very much Alister for the clarification, I will try to compare the curves with that ISO value and see what it turns out. 

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



El 17/04/2021, a las 11:46 a.m., alister@... escribió:

Raising the gain when you are using a power law gamma reduces the dynamic range because gain is a multiplier. If you multiply your 0 to 100% input range from the sensor by 2 it becomes 0 to 200%, but you can’t record 200%, you only have room for 100%. So you have a small change in the shadows but a much larger change in the brighter parts of the image and the dynamic range that can be recorded is reduced by 1 stop for every 6dB you add. Adding gain means you will clip earlier. If you stop down to compensate, bringing the highlights down to where they would be without the added gain you reduce the shadow range as the SNR will become worse, and the extra noise from the amplification will limit the shadow range. You gain no additional highlight range, you are simply returning it to where it would be without the extra gain, but the shadows suffer. With added gain the highlights are less pleasing because the gamma curve is designed to work with the sensors output range, when you add gain because you can now more easily exceed the recording range the highlights clip sooner and don’t look as nice as a result.


Re: Sony FX9 camera test

alister@...
 

The base ISO’s for S-Cinetone on the FX9 are 320 and 1600. This is of course also 0dB.  0dB is virtually always the native ISO, so to discover the cameras native ISO if it has a dB mode, switch to dB and compare to the ISO value. This information is also contained in the clip metadata and the recommendation to use the base ISO’s of 320/1600ISO for the cameras 460% dynamic range curves (including S-Cinetone and HG1 to 4) is included in the manual. 

Raising the gain when you are using a power law gamma reduces the dynamic range because gain is a multiplier. If you multiply your 0 to 100% input range from the sensor by 2 it becomes 0 to 200%, but you can’t record 200%, you only have room for 100%. So you have a small change in the shadows but a much larger change in the brighter parts of the image and the dynamic range that can be recorded is reduced by 1 stop for every 6dB you add. Adding gain means you will clip earlier. If you stop down to compensate, bringing the highlights down to where they would be without the added gain you reduce the shadow range as the SNR will become worse, and the extra noise from the amplification will limit the shadow range. You gain no additional highlight range, you are simply returning it to where it would be without the extra gain, but the shadows suffer. With added gain the highlights are less pleasing because the gamma curve is designed to work with the sensors output range, when you add gain because you can now more easily exceed the recording range the highlights clip sooner and don’t look as nice as a result.


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 17 Apr 2021, at 16:06, alfonso parra <info@...> wrote:

We decided to use the dual ISO base settings ​​for all the curves and thus be able to compare them to the same ISO value, in this case with the cinetone curve we use 800 as for the Slog3 curve so that we can clearly see the differences. If it is interesting to observe how you have made, the curve with different ISO values ​​and compare the results. What surprises me is that by raising the value of the S-cinetone to 800, detail is lost in the highs when normally the opposite happens, by increasing the gain, or the ISO value, the ability to collect detail in the highs increases, losing in the shadows. I don't remember now, but does Sony make any recommendation on the ISO value to use with the S-cinetone or does it indicate how much the middle gray value should be? May I ask you how did you get to 320 ISO in relation to 0db? In the theoretical sensibility test that we did, it gave us that the 800 ISO would be 0db considering the STD5 curve with gamma 2.4, which is actually quite similar to S-cinetone, actually the most similar is the STD3 only that S-Cinetone compresses something else in the highlights. 
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
 

We decided to use the dual ISO base settings ​​for all the curves and thus be able to compare them to the same ISO value, in this case with the cinetone curve we use 800 as for the Slog3 curve so that we can clearly see the differences. If it is interesting to observe how you have made, the curve with different ISO values ​​and compare the results. What surprises me is that by raising the value of the S-cinetone to 800, detail is lost in the highs when normally the opposite happens, by increasing the gain, or the ISO value, the ability to collect detail in the highs increases, losing in the shadows. I don't remember now, but does Sony make any recommendation on the ISO value to use with the S-cinetone or does it indicate how much the middle gray value should be? May I ask you how did you get to 320 ISO in relation to 0db? In the theoretical sensibility test that we did, it gave us that the 800 ISO would be 0db considering the STD5 curve with gamma 2.4, which is actually quite similar to S-cinetone, actually the most similar is the STD3 only that S-Cinetone compresses something else in the highlights. 
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@...
 

I’m curios Alfonso as to why the S-Cinetone tests were all done with +7dB of gain added? My own testing indicates that adding gain to the S-Cinetone curve reduces the highlight range, results in more abrupt highlight clipping and increases noise compared to using it at it 0dB/320 ISO.


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 16 Apr 2021, at 15:49, alfonso parra <info@...> wrote:

Dear colleagues, we have published our review of the Sony FX9 camera on the IMAGO website.
We hope it is of interest to you.

https://www.imago.org/index.php/news/item/1127-sony-pxw-fx9-camera-test.html

Regards
Alfonso Parra ADFC
www.alfonsoparra.com


Re: Sony FX9 camera test

Pawel Achtel, ACS
 

Very good, Alfonso. Thank you for taking time to test and share. As usual, very informative.

 

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

Address: RA 913 Coles Bay Rd., Coles Bay, TAS 7215, Australia

Location: S 42° 0'14.40"S, E 148°14'47.13"

Email: Pawel.Achtel@...

Facebook: facebook.com/PawelAchtel

Twitter: twitter.com/PawelAchtel

Skype: Pawel.Achtel

_,_


Re: Sony FX9 camera test

Jessica Gallant
 

Thank you for posting this, I found it informative and helpful.

Jessica Gallant
West Coast Administrator, CML
Director of Photography | Los Angeles | CA
http://jessicajgallant.com
http://wb.imdb.com/name/nm0002680/
cell: 818-645-2787
email: jessicajgallant@...

On Apr 16, 2021, at 7:49 AM, alfonso parra <info@...> wrote:

Dear colleagues, we have published our review of the Sony FX9 camera on the IMAGO website.
We hope it is of interest to you.

https://www.imago.org/index.php/news/item/1127-sony-pxw-fx9-camera-test.html

Regards
Alfonso Parra ADFC
www.alfonsoparra.com


Sony FX9 camera test

alfonso parra
 

Dear colleagues, we have published our review of the Sony FX9 camera on the IMAGO website.
We hope it is of interest to you.

https://www.imago.org/index.php/news/item/1127-sony-pxw-fx9-camera-test.html

Regards
Alfonso Parra ADFC
www.alfonsoparra.com


Re: Wave-Freefly Hi Speed Camera

Mitch Gross
 

This camera has a global shutter. I suspect the camera was still warming up and it needed a fresh black shading. High frame rate systems are a bit more finicky about such things, even the best of them. 

Mitch Gross
New York

On Apr 2, 2021, at 6:43 PM, Jeff Kreines <jeff@...> wrote:

Looks like a rolling shutter. 

Jeff Kreines
Kinetta
jeff@...
kinetta.com

Sent from iPhone. 

On Apr 1, 2021, at 12:42 PM, Barry Bassett <bb@...> wrote:



I bought one of these for our rental division and the engineering guys felt that the quality of this camera had some real issues which made its purchase unwise.

 

Barry Bassett

Rental company, VMI, London


Re: Wave-Freefly Hi Speed Camera

Jeff Kreines
 

Looks like a rolling shutter. 

Jeff Kreines
Kinetta
jeff@...
kinetta.com

Sent from iPhone. 

On Apr 1, 2021, at 12:42 PM, Barry Bassett <bb@...> wrote:



I bought one of these for our rental division and the engineering guys felt that the quality of this camera had some real issues which made its purchase unwise.

 

Barry Bassett

Rental company, VMI, London


Re: Wave-Freefly Hi Speed Camera

Brian Heller
 

To add to Bob Kertesz’s cogent post, the phenomenon whereby the color of objects that appear to the eye to be the same, but are rendered differently to different sensors or under different lighting, is called metamerism, or more precisely: illuminant metameric failure.

There’s plenty of information on the subject on line and also in the CML archives.

Brian Heller
IA 600 DP


On Apr 2, 2021, at 2:08 PM, Bob Kertesz <bob@...> wrote:



Would shooting through IRND Filters help to even out the blacks reaching the sensor?

Cynthia Webster DP


Yes, if there's actual IR present. Even when subtle (and depending on the camera/lens/sensor), the changed blacks are the first thing I notice when IR is present, as they usually tend to go a brownish/reddish color on camera.

But it also depends on the material doing the reflecting. I once shot a promo with a four person Mariachi band all wearing tuxedos. All the tuxes looked black to the naked eye, but depending on the material used, they went different colors on camera from subtle browns to subtle greens. The only one that remained black was the one that seemed to be made with cotton. 100% cotton seems to absorb the IR and not reflect it back into the lens.

It has been my experience that a well used all cotton flag shoved in front of the camera can often be used as a 'standard', since unless the IR is wildly out of control (shooting outside in bright sunlight with a ton of non-IR coated NDs), it will remain black in the presence of moderate IR. I used to use that trick to answer the question of "Why are the blacks different colors? What's wrong with your camera?" If the flag stayed black, the answer was "Nothing at all."

-Bob

Bob Kertesz
BlueScreen LLC
Hollywood, California

Mostly Retired Engineer, Video Controller, and Live Compositor Extraordinaire.

High quality images for almost five decades - whether you've wanted them or not.©

* * * * * * * * * *


Re: Wave-Freefly Hi Speed Camera

Bob Kertesz
 

Would shooting through IRND Filters help to even out the blacks reaching the sensor?

Cynthia Webster DP


Yes, if there's actual IR present. Even when subtle (and depending on the camera/lens/sensor), the changed blacks are the first thing I notice when IR is present, as they usually tend to go a brownish/reddish color on camera.

But it also depends on the material doing the reflecting. I once shot a promo with a four person Mariachi band all wearing tuxedos. All the tuxes looked black to the naked eye, but depending on the material used, they went different colors on camera from subtle browns to subtle greens. The only one that remained black was the one that seemed to be made with cotton. 100% cotton seems to absorb the IR and not reflect it back into the lens.

It has been my experience that a well used all cotton flag shoved in front of the camera can often be used as a 'standard', since unless the IR is wildly out of control (shooting outside in bright sunlight with a ton of non-IR coated NDs), it will remain black in the presence of moderate IR. I used to use that trick to answer the question of "Why are the blacks different colors? What's wrong with your camera?" If the flag stayed black, the answer was "Nothing at all."

-Bob

Bob Kertesz
BlueScreen LLC
Hollywood, California

Mostly Retired Engineer, Video Controller, and Live Compositor Extraordinaire.

High quality images for almost five decades - whether you've wanted them or not.©

* * * * * * * * * *

81 - 100 of 1943