I did a video between the alexa mini lf, red v raptor and sony venice. Failed miserably as I got so much feedback on my color management, iso and such. It was a humbling experience so I made it private before I look like an even bigger fool. Having said that watching this video helped me understand how to properly test a camera. I really appreciate this.
Great info as always Robert! Curious to get your opinion on this: when I view over-under tests, I always apply a LUT of some kind, so that I’m looking at more of a normalized image in terms of black level and contrast. My teachers in film school always likened this to viewing a print of an emulsion test rather than viewing the “negative” (in this case the log footage). If you were testing latitude or dynamic range in the film days you would always be viewing a print and not the negative.
I actually look at both. I'll be posting the full FX9 latitude test tomorrow with the LOG & LUT applied. The first couple shots in this video had a Rec709 LUT post-correction (0:14)
Beetween highlight test and low light test T11 / T4 you completly re light you're scene ? (obviously I think) And to have 6 stop diff you play with you're light source too ? because you don't have enough T stop on your lense I saw.
I want to upgrade, as I am shooting a full movie, soon. I hvae owned a a7s II, for a long time. I also want to keep using the lense 28 -135. Is the FX9 an upgrade I could concider? is the Slog fromat usable in Fx9, in as7II they are uselsess, we use Cine4 in that cam . . . .and .... it really the quality aa great deal better in this FX9, than on a as7 II? I guess I need a 10 bit cam anyway. and also I have the 16-35 lense . Is it only a "newsreporter workhorse" or can it do a full movie, U think ?
If you don't know how to use slog with an a7s ii you won't be able to do so with any other camera. Though it is certainly a bit easier with the FX9. Heck there has even been a proper "hollywood" that was shot with the a7s ii in slog, The Posession of Hannah Grace and it looks pretty good. The FX9 is obviously a better camera for cinema, but its also many times more epxensive. In the end the the camera is just a tool and it all comes down to the one using it ;)
this is excellent, thank you! Curious, random Q: in the Resolve workflow, do you manage a project database for each client project, or on each machine, etc etc. Very curious about your workflow on that side (video recommendation).
So how big a difference, does 1 stop extra DR in highlights matter? I have a R5 and I can shoot clog3 or clog1. Clog1 has significantly less noise but it has 1 stop less dynamic range. Does it matter a lot? Or not really at all. Thanks!
I’m not familiar with the R5, but it’s not a bad idea to halve manufacturers’ recommended base/native ISO on cinema cameras (which redistribute 18% gray) for less noise. Arri lens specialist Art Adams has written a lot about cutting ISO in half, and it is especially useful for HDR, where noise is more visible. However, because you’ll have less headroom in the highlights, I would recommend increasing the ISO for bright scenes with lots of important highlight detail.
Sony mirrorless cameras are more like the FS5 in my opinion, which are very different from the FS7/FX9 and would take a bit of matching in post. I did something similar in one of the light meter videos I did. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-7Ii5KsNzRPM.html
In a teste liek this I would like to know if the in cam Noise reduction is ON or OFF. You probalby willnot answare thi but. I am buying a cam for film making only ! I consider to wait for a Fullfr. Blackmagic .The noise in C. 500II is not exactly impresive either . After seeing all the tests in Utube, I dont think the FX9 does any better than f.ex. Panasonic S1h .
My environment is always changing with a huge window next to me during the day and my office lights at night; I know it's _far_ from a pro color suite, but luckily testing latitude only deals with luminance and a waveform :)
I disagree with one of your statements. When you said that native iso allocates the most information for both highlights AND shadows, this isn't correct (at least on some cameras). For example, in the Blackmagic pocket 6k we know as a fact that capturing at iso 800 preserves highlights better than iso 400. So for an overexposure test, 800 is better
This is true; I should have clarified that changing ISO shifts the camera's middle grey and redistributes the highlight/shadow dynamic range. However, using native ISO does in fact allocate for both highlight _and_ shadow information *simultaneously* while optimizing noise performance. Native ISO is what the camera manufacturer deems as the optimum image quality since there is no amplification being done to the signal. On the BMPCC, ISO 800/1000 (amplifying the signal) preserves highlights, but at the expense of shadows and conversely with lower ISOs. If you were trying to achieve more highlight detail, yes, 800 would be better. What you're referring to is dynamic range, however, we are testing latitude. It's important to note that dynamic range refers to the range a light a camera can capture while latitude is the amount of over/under exposure that an image can handle while fitting in the camera's dynamic range. Thanks for pointing that out!
@@robchado I agree with what you said. You do sacrifice a level of shadows at iso 800. However the noise pattern is still at an acceptable level, so 800 is as far as I go.
After reading latset lab-test, I would like to know what dynamic range U fine in FX9 ? the tests I read say 11.5 !!!! that means SONY is lying ! about the D.R !!!
all company lies about the dynamic range, sony and canon best lineup have 13 stop of dynamic range in real world. don't trust what companies are telling you
Oliver Truswell That wasn’t the point of the video; the idea was to teach the methodology behind testing latitude. If you want conclusions, watch the actual test.
