Topics

Next round of tests, what do you want?

Geoff Boyle
 

OK, so I’m doing a new batch of camera evaluations in July, I’m trying to make this an annual event at the same time every year.

 

I’ll be doing the usual latitude tests with the range extended to +/- 5 stops as there are cameras going beyond +4 now.

 

I had one message asking for more detail i.e. a newspaper in shot to show compression artifacts but as I tend to shoot these tests RAW the only compression artifacts that will show up are those of Vimeo and YouTube!

 

I will be adding a simple and repeatable motion area in the tests.

 

As all the “tests” that ever get linked and promoted elsewhere have some prat in a video wibbling on about something he doesn’t understand do you want a video of me at work explaining what we’re doing?

 

I’m open to any requests but please bear in mind we have cost and time issues. I don’t think taking the cameras out to a park and shooting random footage is a good “test”. I try and do repeatable things so you can make comparisons.

Yes I know you’d like me to do all kinds of split screen demos and comment on them but hey! I put the material there at full res to let you do your own.

 

I’m going to try and upload RAW files as well as the EXR’s and QT files (which will be UHD only this time) but there is a question of storage and bandwidth. We were right on the edge of our bandwidth limits last year, if the month had been a day longer we’d have had all kinds of penalty payments to make.

There’s also the issue of are the original rushes worth the effort as the EXR files are created with the manufacturers own software…

 

So, answers on a postcard please…

 

 

Cheers

 

Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS

Cinematographer

Netherlands

www.gboyle.co.uk

 

 

Daniel Henríquez-Ilic
 

Geoff, I would like to see any of the Eastman Kodak color negative  stock (5203, 5207, 5213, 5219), scanned to DPX RGB Log, vía Scanity HDR or the new version of Arri Scan for example.
Kodak Film Lab Pinewood is able to process and scan vía Scanity HDR.
If you are interested to include  real film then let  me know as I can try to reach Kodak in L.A to solicit some support for your CML test. One 400 feet can should be enough.Thank you.

Daniel Henríquez Ilic
Post-Producer
Film Photographer
Santiago de Chile
+56 975543323
fotoquimicafilms@...

Geoff Boyle
 

OK, I’ll try and do this.

 

I’ll need to remember how to load a mag as I know my AC can’t!!

 

 

Cheers

 

Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS

Cinematographer

Netherlands

www.gboyle.co.uk

 

 

 

From: cml-raw-log-hdr@... <cml-raw-log-hdr@...> On Behalf Of Daniel Henríquez-Ilic
Sent: 22 May 2018 07:42
To: cml-raw-log-hdr@...
Subject: [cml-raw-log-hdr] Next round of tests, what do you want?

 

Geoff, I would like to see any of the Eastman Kodak color negative  stock (5203, 5207, 5213, 5219), scanned to DPX RGB Log, vía Scanity HDR or the new version of Arri Scan for example.
Kodak Film Lab Pinewood is able to process and scan vía Scanity HDR.
If you are interested to include  real film then let  me know as I can try to reach Kodak in L.A to solicit some support for your CML test. One 400 feet can should be enough.Thank you.

Daniel Henríquez Ilic
Post-Producer
Film Photographer
Santiago de Chile
+56 975543323
fotoquimicafilms@...

Jonathon Sendall
 

Where you doing the tests Geoff? Would love to help out if I can.

Cheers

Jonathon Sendall
DP, London

Geoff Boyle
 

The tests will be at UWE in Bristol the week of the 9th June.

 

The Monday will be a get in and make sure everything is setup and we’re happy with it. We may start the tests in the afternoon, it depends on how many cameras we have!

 

Our base reference camera will be an Alexa Mini with all options.

 

The Friday should be just a get out day but we’re allowing for an overrun until noon.

 

We have the new studio at UWE which is equipped with a thousand sky panels, maybe a slight exaggeration 😊

 

At the moment the entire crew is me with Dave who runs the Studio and facilities and Sergejs  who has assisted on most of our tests.

 

We may have a couple of other people but who knows, we usually have a few visitors from the manufacturers as well.

 

 

Cheers

 

Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS

Cinematographer

Netherlands

www.gboyle.co.uk

 

 

 

 

From: cml-raw-log-hdr@... <cml-raw-log-hdr@...> On Behalf Of Jonathon Sendall
Sent: 22 May 2018 09:00
To: cml-raw-log-hdr@...
Subject: Re: [cml-raw-log-hdr] Next round of tests, what do you want?

 

Where you doing the tests Geoff? Would love to help out if I can.

Cheers

Jonathon Sendall
DP, London

Colin Elves
 

My only request would be to push it to +6 stops, so you can be 100% sure you’re testing the limits of these cameras.

Oh and I’d love for the EVA1 to be included. 5.7K ProRes Raw or All-I internal (or both) if possible.

Thanks!

Colin Elves
Director of Photography
Berlin/London

John Brawley
 




On May 22, 2018, at 5:38 PM, Geoff Boyle <geoff.cml@...> wrote:
We have the new studio at UWE which is equipped with a thousand sky panels, maybe a slight exaggeration 😊
 
At the moment the entire crew is me with Dave who runs the Studio and facilities and Sergejs  who has assisted on most of our tests.

Terms Of Service
Unsubscribe From This Group
_._,_._,_

Hi Geoff,

My only suggestion would be to consider the light source as well and MAYBE even do a pass of both Daylight and Tungsten ?  It does add a lot of extra work though.

I really love Sky Panels but I recently did some sensor / colorimetry tests and was surprised at the difference in skin tone rendition between different cameras under SkyPanel Tungsten and actual Tungsten (gelled to 3200k) and same for SkyPanel Daylight and Tungsten gelled to 5600K.  Even though my Sekonic C700 was saying the Skypanel was up around 97, you could still see a difference on all the cameras.

You can easily “pre-test” this for yourself to check.  

JB

John Brawley
Cinematographer
Sydney Australia


Jonathon Sendall
 

I recently shot with the Phantom Flex 4K with almost entirely Skypanels and I didn't like the skintone at all. Took a bit of correction in post.

Thanks

Jonathon Sendall
DP, London

Geoff Boyle
 

I’m an idiot, I posted June but meant July, thanks to Dave Neal for pointing this out.

 

I usually test in daylight now but I did do a few series of tests in both and the differences with some cameras between the 2 lighting colours was marked.

 

I’ll try and do this this time as well.

 

I’m using Sky Panels because they’re a zero cost option 😊 I’ve used Cineo and BB&S in the past, actually Photon beard as well.

 

Yes to EVA and ProRes, just need to get a Shogun sorted, yes to film, (with and without grain management).

 

I’ll post a full list of cameras as we get closer to the tests but I’ve contacted all the usual suspects and most have responded already. I’m trying to sort out RED, I’d like a Gemini & a Monstro. Their latest announcement has made it all easier I’m no longer confused by the endless possible combinations. Kinefinity is on.

 

I’m going to include weights of the cameras as we used them, photographs of how they are rigged and ball park prices for “as tested”.

 

Anything else?

 

 

Cheers

 

Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS

Cinematographer

Netherlands

www.gboyle.co.uk

 

 

Art Adams
 

I'd advocate for shooting straight tungsten or HMI. Using LED lights is problematic because then you're no longer testing the cameras, you're testing the cameras plus a specific light that others may not be using. It becomes impossible to know whether what one is seeing is due to the camera or to the light source.

There could be an argument that LEDs are common now so it's valid to test that way, but they're also all different. Best to use a common, known, high quality light source so we see what each camera does under common conditions that are easily repeatable. (And under conditions for which the cameras are optimally designed.)

Or test every LED light available, if that's easier.

--
Art Adams
DP
San Francisco Bay Area




Feli di Giorgio
 


On May 22, 2018, at 4:59 AM, Jonathon Sendall <jpsendall@...> wrote:

I recently shot with the Phantom Flex 4K with almost entirely Skypanels and I didn't like the skintone at all. Took a bit of correction in post.



Same here. Had a lot of green contamination or minus red with the Skypanels.

I had much better luck with Cineo.


Maybe it would make sense to shoot the tests with good ‘old fashioned’ full spectrum tungsten lights?

As far as I know none of the LED / phosphor / florescent etc light sources are capable of full spectrum output, so there is always going to be some distortion of the results.



Feli di Giorgio

VFX Bay Area

_______________________________________________
Feli di Giorgio - feli2@... - www.felidigiorgio.com



Feli di Giorgio
 

I second this, although I’m not sure how this will fit within Geoff’s testing budget…

Feli di Giorgio 
VFX Bay Area

_______________________________________________
Feli di Giorgio - feli2@... - www.felidigiorgio.com


On May 22, 2018, at 7:08 AM, Art Adams <art.cml.only@...> wrote:

I'd advocate for shooting straight tungsten or HMI. Using LED lights is problematic because then you're no longer testing the cameras, you're testing the cameras plus a specific light that others may not be using. It becomes impossible to know whether what one is seeing is due to the camera or to the light source.

There could be an argument that LEDs are common now so it's valid to test that way, but they're also all different. Best to use a common, known, high quality light source so we see what each camera does under common conditions that are easily repeatable. (And under conditions for which the cameras are optimally designed.)

Or test every LED light available, if that's easier.

Noel Sterrett
 

Agree, especially tungsten. It's cheap, and strains daylight balanced digital sensors.

On 05/22/2018 10:08 AM, Art Adams wrote:
I'd advocate for shooting straight tungsten or HMI.

--

Noel Sterrett Admit One Pictures info@...

Geoff Boyle
 

And there’s the thing 😊

 

I think that SP’s are so common now that it’s fair to use them, instead of using preset, as we have in all the past tests, we’ll auto balance per camera.

 

It’s a real world test!!

 

 

 

From: cml-raw-log-hdr@... <cml-raw-log-hdr@...> On Behalf Of Feli di Giorgio
Sent: 22 May 2018 16:30
To: cml-raw-log-hdr@...
Cc: Feli di Giorgio <feli2@...>
Subject: Re: [cml-raw-log-hdr] Next round of tests, what do you want?

 

I second this, although I’m not sure how this will fit within Geoff’s testing budget…

 

Feli di Giorgio 

VFX Bay Area

 

 

Peter Nicoll
 

Thats why companies like Cineo are creating a dual color engine system in the Standard 410 that matches the RGB flexibility of the Sky panel/Gemini in terms of output and color repro, but keeps a separate white light system that focuses on clean light for skin tones out side of RGB color reproduction.

The Cineo Standard 410 Panel is 28 lbs and has the controls on the lower left back of the unit which makes it a much easier unit use in a variety of settings.  I just had one for a week and its on my list of things to get next.

Peter Nicoll

DP/Lighting nerd
Washington, DC



On May 22, 2018, at 7:59 AM, Jonathon Sendall <jpsendall@...> wrote:

I recently shot with the Phantom Flex 4K with almost entirely Skypanels and I didn't like the skintone at all. Took a bit of correction in post.

Jimmy Reynolds
 

Geoff, firstly thank you very much!!!  

If at all possible i'd love to see a rolling shutter / jello test.  Not sure how exactly, is there a standard method of testing it?

Good luck and have fun

Jimmy

On 22 May 2018 at 16:36, Noel Sterrett <noel@...> wrote:

Agree, especially tungsten. It's cheap, and strains daylight balanced digital sensors.

On 05/22/2018 10:08 AM, Art Adams wrote:
I'd advocate for shooting straight tungsten or HMI.

--

Noel Sterrett Admit One Pictures info@...




--
-Jimmy Reynolds
D.P. Filmmaker
+27 72 340 9668
jimmy@...
www.jimmyreynolds.co.za

Matthew Clark
 

Art wrote:
I'd advocate for shooting straight tungsten or HMI. Using LED lights is problematic because then you're no longer testing the cameras, you're testing the cameras plus a specific light that others may not be using.

While I understand your thinking, Art, and agree on a couple levels.  But, wouldn’t the use of a particular HMI be the same problem you are presenting with LEDs?  We know that HMIs tend to vary in color temperature and consistency among manufacturers.  Plus the age of the fixture plays a big part in the performance factor.  Or, do we chalk this up to a “real world” experience test as Geoff suggests when using SkyPanels?  IMO, I feel that sticking with one kind of source gives us a baseline to compare the different sensors and cameras.  It keeps it pretty much apples to apples in this test.  Having a Tungsten comparison is fascinating.  Great to see the differences.

Looking forward to the results.  


Matthew J. Clark
Director/DP 
Seattle, WA
www.StraightEIGHTFilms.com

Daniel Drasin
 

Feli di Giorgio writes: Maybe it would make sense to shoot the tests with good ‘old fashioned’ full spectrum tungsten lights?

I think each camera should be tested with a different LED source. How else can we tell what's really going on with those pesky cameras? Level playing fields are soooooo over-rated.

Translation: OF COURSE we should test with, you know, actual tungsten. Is there any reason not to do so? ... especially since we're including film in this test (Bravo to Geoff!).

Dan "call me old-fashioned" Drasin
Producer/DP
Marin County, CA

Art Adams
 

I'd argue that HMI is a known common source, and when you correct for color variations the spectrum is still pretty good--certainly a lot better than most LEDs.

It's hard to know what the camera is doing if you have to consider what the light is doing as well--unless they are common sources that have been used for decades, like tungsten and HMI. Once you do one camera test with one kind of LED light and another with another kind it's hard to know what you're really looking at, at least for me.

But I tend to be more critical than most, and most generally do just fine. 

--
Art Adams
DP
San Francisco Bay Area



On May 22, 2018 at 10:04 AM, <Matthew Clark> wrote:

Art wrote:
I'd advocate for shooting straight tungsten or HMI. Using LED lights is problematic because then you're no longer testing the cameras, you're testing the cameras plus a specific light that others may not be using.

While I understand your thinking, Art, and agree on a couple levels.  But, wouldn’t the use of a particular HMI be the same problem you are presenting with LEDs?  We know that HMIs tend to vary in color temperature and consistency among manufacturers.  Plus the age of the fixture plays a big part in the performance factor.  Or, do we chalk this up to a “real world” experience test as Geoff suggests when using SkyPanels?  IMO, I feel that sticking with one kind of source gives us a baseline to compare the different sensors and cameras.  It keeps it pretty much apples to apples in this test.  Having a Tungsten comparison is fascinating.  Great to see the differences.

Looking forward to the results.  


Matthew J. Clark
Director/DP 
Seattle, WA
www.StraightEIGHTFilms.com

John Brawley
 



On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 9:54 AM, Art Adams <art.cml.only@...> wrote:
I'd argue that HMI is a known common source, and when you correct for color variations the spectrum is still pretty good--certainly a lot better than most LEDs.

HMI’s can vary a lot too and this is why when I’ve done this kind of test I use the SAME tungsten source, corrected back to daylight.  So the same flatter (shall I say fatter ?) spectral response but at the daylight convention of 5600K.  

As I say, the one time I substituted an LED source for correction convenience, it was really obviously different.  I’m a lot less likely to use them for beauty work now that’s for sure.

JB
Cinematographer 
Sydney Australia