Thread: DR ..a good discussion!!

Reply to Thread
Page 51 of 64 FirstFirst ... 4147484950515253545561 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 510 of 633
  1. #501  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    115
    Luigi thanks again for doing these tests, extremely helpful. You are doing everyone on Reduser such an amazing service. Hats off.

    I have a question about the Venice. How much heavier/bulkier is it then the Monstro? Do you think you could mount a Venice on a MoVi Pro if you powered it from another source? Or has anyone on Reduser figured this out? It says its 8lbs completely bare. Tried a few searches online and not much came up.

    I've been playing with your clips and I'm finding the Monstro definitely has the most versatile Dynamic Range to play with in post but I'm really loving the color science of the Venice. It just feels so much more cinematic to me and somehow has more perceivable depth right off the bat. I can get the Monstro footage to get there but it seems to take a lot more work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #502  
    Senior Member luigivaltulini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Switzerland- LUGANO
    Posts
    2,523
    Quote Originally Posted by Anton Esteban View Post
    Luigi thanks again for doing these tests, extremely helpful. You are doing everyone on Reduser such an amazing service. Hats off.

    I have a question about the Venice. How much heavier/bulkier is it then the Monstro? Do you think you could mount a Venice on a MoVi Pro if you powered it from another source? Or has anyone on Reduser figured this out? It says its 8lbs completely bare. Tried a few searches online and not much came up.

    I've been playing with your clips and I'm finding the Monstro definitely has the most versatile Dynamic Range to play with in post but I'm really loving the color science of the Venice. It just feels so much more cinematic to me and somehow has more perceivable depth right off the bat. I can get the Monstro footage to get there but it seems to take a lot more work.
    Ciao Anton,
    it weighs a lot, the camera body is beautiful robust. I also had the RAW recorder. What I can tell you is that it weighs + - a few grams to an ALexa XT / Ev machine body.
    Another important thing that I did not write the fans is noisier than the RED ones. But I think it's due to the Raw recorder, I did not try to take it off.
    However there are several ways to set up the fan similar to RED.
    For color science, of course that depends on each of us, who prefers ALexa who RED who Sony if you feel good it is right that you go in your direction ;)
    Grading Suite Davinci Resolve, Rental RED Digital camera.
    MONSTRO 8k CF #831 "BLACK PEARL" , EPIC-W GEMINI # "DAFNE".
    ARRI ALEXA EV , ALEXA MINI LF "ROZI"


    SITE
    www.cine5k.ch
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #503  
    Senior Member luigivaltulini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Switzerland- LUGANO
    Posts
    2,523
    Quote Originally Posted by Fabricio Morato View Post
    It is also curious that Panavision rates the DXL2 a 1600 native ISO. They probably feel confortable with the amount of noise at this ISO while also gaining 1stop in the highlights compared to Red's recommended ISO 800 (though they do not state anywhere I could find what they consider the native ISO).
    Fabricio.
    Panavison knows what he wants. ;)
    At 1600 ISO you have the same dynamic range and the same behavior in the highlights of an Alexa with a little less noise given the resolution.
    Dlx2 is declared 16 stops, as we can see from the xyla charts made here on Monstro and everything coincides.
    What interests me about Panavision is the science of color, I would be happy if I sold the M form to the public.
    Grading Suite Davinci Resolve, Rental RED Digital camera.
    MONSTRO 8k CF #831 "BLACK PEARL" , EPIC-W GEMINI # "DAFNE".
    ARRI ALEXA EV , ALEXA MINI LF "ROZI"


    SITE
    www.cine5k.ch
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #504  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    115
    Luigi, thanks again for you quick reply. Wow, Venice seems like a heavy brick even though it actually doesn't look so huge. I'm sure its sturdy as hell but I think my dreams of fitting it on a MoVi pro are fantasy at best. In the end, nothing beats RED in terms of its small size and light weight. It's amazing how RED has fit in so much tech in such a tiny camera body.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #505  
    Senior Member Alexander Nikishin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    1,778
    Is anyone else noticing how the Gemini natively in STD or LL mode starts out with "milky" blacks similar to the low con look of an Alexa? Leads me to question whether or not there really is more range in the shadows.
    Cinematographer
    www.AlexanderNikishin.com
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/alexandernikishin/
    Weapon Helium #7042 "Boris"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #506  
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander Nikishin View Post
    Is anyone else noticing how the Gemini natively in STD or LL mode starts out with "milky" blacks similar to the low con look of an Alexa? Leads me to question whether or not there really is more range in the shadows.
    The chart gives more information about this. First off, the Gemini tests benefited from an exposure that was about half a stop greater than other contestants. You can see this because the distance between the clipped chip on the leftmost side and the highlight chip next to it is the smallest of any test. If Luigi (or anybody else) shot the Xyla charts again, I would recommend that one should shoot a range of exposures, not simply trusting the stoplights to tell you when the camera is clipping. The stoplights don't come on until a reasonable fraction of photosites are clipping. What is that reasonable fraction? Could well depend on the camera. Shooting when they first come on, and then shooting at +1/4 stop, +1/2 stop, +3/4 stop, and +1 stop means you will capture a chart that really, really has a decisive clip, and really, really has a maximum but not clipped second chip.

    The second thing the Gemini charts show is that Gemini has lots of noise in the blacks (especially blue noise). It is much more prominent than any of the other cameras. If you ramp up the Gain (blowing out highlights--who cares?!) you will see the hair on the blacks in Gemini much sooner than you do on the others. You can read that noise as if it were lifting the blacks, because ON AVERAGE that's what it's doing. But at the pixel level, there are plenty of deep blacks mixed in with many not-so-black pixels. So, technically, not lifting the blacks.
    Michael Tiemann, Chapel Hill NC

    "Dream so big you can share!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #507  
    Senior Member rand thompson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    11,055
    Regrade of Monstro


    [IMG]A001_C026_0115C6.0000043F by rand thompson, on Flickr[/IMG]


    [IMG]Studio 4.3 by rand thompson, on Flickr[/IMG]
    Last edited by rand thompson; 06-14-2018 at 08:37 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #508  
    Senior Member Brian Boyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    937
    Quote Originally Posted by rand thompson View Post
    I think Red chose the right approach, Focusing more on Lowlight and less so on Highlights. You can use a ND Filter or more diffused lighting to hold on to more highlight info., but being able to pull up less noisy Shadows that keep more info. is something more desirable IMHO.
    Everyone has their opinion on this but I think focusing solely on low light performance is a mistake, of sorts (granted, they were commissioned to do so). So many people are enamored with the idea of lighting a scene with three fireflies and having it look like they pumped 3,000 watts in the room.

    I'm not saying a sensor like Gemini isn't an impressive technical achievement or shouldn't exist in their lineup. I just think the history of motion picture imagery supports the case for highlights much more strongly than a case for shadows.

    Motion picture film was not, and still isn't, a stellar low light performer and yet it became the "gold standard" for narrative storytelling over video (its contemporary) for decades. What it had going for it was highlight latitude, color and resolution.

    Also, 24fps motion, but that's not relevant to this conversation since digital video also uses that frame rate.

    We've been psychologically conditioned to subjectively and (mostly) unconsciously associate the superior highlight performance of film, which comes closer to how our eyes see bright things, with a better quality image.

    Blown out skies, windows, etc. are a relatively recent development in human visual experience, at least going back to the emergence of homo sapiens, I'm surmising. Unless we stare directly at the sun, normal vision allows us to look at any sky without losing detail in the highlights.

    How many naturalistic paintings do you know of with blown out skies? I'm not talking overcast skies but vast white areas of canvas with no gradations. People painted them the way they saw them. It wasn't until we developed mediums that couldn't quite capture the range that we started to see those artifacts.

    More highlight detail = better image to our brains.

    In contrast, there's no equivalent association with shadow detail, given that shadow detail was usually missing unless you expressly lit for it because of film's relatively poor light sensitivity.

    From an audience's perspective, other than the appeal of a well composed and artfully lit low light shot, there's nothing that psychologically signals quality in the shadows, which are rarely the focus.

    Humans are very tolerant of noise and are many times drawn to its seemingly chaotic and organic nature.

    From a technical standpoint, we know a certain type of picture quality exists with high sensitivity. However, with a few notable exceptions, the viewer can't tell if a scene was shot in substantial lighting with Gemini in STD mode or in very low light in LL mode.

    Both scenarios would simply produce what appears to be an adequately lit shot.

    Unless you told the viewers or they were on set during recording, they wouldn't know how dark it was and wouldn't be able to tell the difference between shooting situations in most cases. It benefits the production much more so than the viewer.

    In addition, if low light performance is what the film and tv industries most desired, Alexa would've been supplanted years ago, as there are better low light performers. So what accounts for Alexa's and film's continued appeal?

    Several things can be argued but I think the most overlooked is the beauty of and psychological attachment we have to being able to see into the brightness the way we do. The sensors that come closer to that in the way of greater saturation capacity will be on to something.
    Last edited by Brian Boyer; 06-14-2018 at 05:35 AM.
    Cutting out soft shadows in Photoshop tutorial
    YouTube | Vimeo

    www.harbonder.com


    Strand on Soundcloud
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #509  
    Senior Member David J. Buchanan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    372
    It's not always about highlight retention as much as it's about the gradient between dark and light.

    In painting, chiaroscuro. Most video cameras just don't have the latitude or accuracy to replicate it.
    BLACK in Minneapolis - Streaming!
    Corporate G&E Package
    Gemini, Zeiss Otus 28, 55, 85
    davidjbuchanan.com | wecofilms.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #510  
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Tiemann View Post
    Let's again look at what this really means (which, again, means referring to what Ansel Adams teaches in his series, The Camera, The Negative, and The Print).

    [...]

    So the first thing to keep in mind is that whatever the sensor's DR, the top stop and the bottom stop have to be tied to the display's top stop and bottom stop.

    Now, in between those two we can look at how well the sensor's DR maps to the display's DR, and why not all stops are created equal. When looking way to the right of the XYLA chart luma values (preferably in a waveform monitor), we see that there's very little (or no room) for meaningful intermediate values to exist. I previously talked about digital "eye" charts, which show (or don't show) the decisive space between reading something as a 1 or reading something as a zero. If the noise of the 1 signal overlaps the noise of the 0 signal, there is no "eye", which means that there's no real discrimination possible between signal and noise. Of course one can draw a digital line in the sand and say "everthing above this line is a 1 and everything below this line is a zero", but that means that up to half the time we'll be rendering a 1 as a 0, and vice-versa. And all those guesses will lead to a dithering of 1s and 0s, creating a kind of digital gray. That gray will be 50% gray if the 1s and 0s are full scale, and it will be a much darker gray if the 1s and 0s map to the bottom limit of the DR of the display device.

    If we pick a chip where the eye is 6x the height of the 1 noise and the 0 noise, then there are 6 distinct gradations of values that can be teased from the sensor between the 1 value and the 0 value, 8 levels if we include the values of the 1 and the 0. That's 3-bit color! Now, not all part of the image need to be rendered in fully expressed 10-bit color gradients to look good. But if the blockiness of 3-bit color is going to be a problem for a given part of the tonal range, then even if we have the DR to distinguish one stop from another, the image rendered with that stop can fail subjective tests (blockiness in the shadows). So we must ask: how much do we have to crush the shadows before the limitations of gradations disappear? Alternatively, what chip of the XYLA chart gives us an eye that's large enough to hold enough gradations to render acceptably given the noise measured at the top and bottom of those scales?

    The same calculations can be done in the highlights: when does blockiness in the highlights become a problem, and how large is the eye (vs the noise) large enough at the top level to deal with that?

    [...]
    TL;DR:

    Quote Originally Posted by David J. Buchanan View Post
    It's not always about highlight retention as much as it's about the gradient between dark and light.

    In painting, chiaroscuro. Most video cameras just don't have the latitude or accuracy to replicate it.
    Beautiful word and an important concept!
    Michael Tiemann, Chapel Hill NC

    "Dream so big you can share!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts