FX30 vs. fx3 (zve1) image discussion

[SRV1981]

4 minutes ago, sanveer said:

Is it true that the FX30 has worse dynamic range than the G9ii and X-H2S? 

 

[sanveer]

4 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

 

 

https://www.cined.com/sony-a6700-lab-test-rolling-shutter-dynamic-range-and-latitude/

 

 

11.2 stops at SNR of 2. Which is probably not really good. 

[SRV1981]

12 hours ago, sanveer said:

 

https://www.cined.com/sony-a6700-lab-test-rolling-shutter-dynamic-range-and-latitude/

 

 

11.2 stops at SNR of 2. Which is probably not really good. 

 

Sarcasm?

[kye]

2 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

Sarcasm?

11.2 stops is pretty close to the bottom of the list of DR specs that I keep.

Of course, DR specs are a minor aspect of film-making, and not even really indicative of the actual usable dynamic range of the camera (which is better represented by the latitude testing).  

For example the iPhone 15 tests as having 13.4 stops of DR, but the latitude test shows that it only has 5 stops of latitude, whereas the a6700 has 8 stops, yet only tests as 11.4 stops of DR.

If you're going to do a dive into the specifications, you really need to understand what they mean when you're actually using the camera for making images.  The reason you want high DR is so that you can use those extreme ends of the exposure range - if you can't use them then there's no point in having them and so a big number on a spec sheet is just a meaningless number on a piece of paper. 

[sanveer]

11 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

Sarcasm?

It actually seems on the mid or lower scale for a video shooting APS-C sensor. It's a little disappointing especially considering it's immense popularity. Though its prick point is pretty low, which is due to It's missing hardware features like EVF. Probably doesn't have any water or dust resistance (?). The Panasonic G9ii has about half a stop better dynamic range and way more features including some amazing anamorphic modes, good weather sealing, HHHR etc. It's more expensive but it has a lot more features. 

 

 

8 hours ago, kye said:

For example the iPhone 15 tests as having 13.4 stops of DR, but the latitude test shows that it only has 5 stops of latitude, whereas the a6700 has 8 stops, yet only tests as 11.4 stops of DR.

There may be a small series of glitches with the dynamic range test chart. It cannot make out the difference between overbaked images and actual dynamic range very clearly. All smartphone images are way too processed. And the excessive noise reduction and over-sharpening seems to make the image very limited for post work. Apple has clearly figured out to fake results on the test chart. Much like some smartphone companies having  higher results on the SoC testing apps.

The difference between total visible stop at SNR 1 and usable ones at SNR 2 seem to suggest good headroom, especially when codec is high bitrate and with good bit depth (atleast 10-bit 4-2-2?). Then SNR 1 and SNR 2 are similar it's difficult tonsee whether the image is way too baked in to recover any more than the visible image shows. 

[kye]

51 minutes ago, sanveer said:

There may be a small series of glitches with the dynamic range test chart. It cannot make out the difference between overbaked images and actual dynamic range very clearly. All smartphone images are way too processed. And the excessive noise reduction and over-sharpening seems to make the image very limited for post work. Apple has clearly figured out to fake results on the test chart. Much like some smartphone companies having  higher results on the SoC testing apps.

The difference between total visible stop at SNR 1 and usable ones at SNR 2 seem to suggest good headroom, especially when codec is high bitrate and with good bit depth (atleast 10-bit 4-2-2?). Then SNR 1 and SNR 2 are similar it's difficult tonsee whether the image is way too baked in to recover any more than the visible image shows. 

The more I read about DR, the less I realise I understand it.

I mean, the idea is pretty simple - how much brighter is the brightest change it can detect compared to the darkest change it can detect, but that has a lot of assumptions in it when you want to apply it to the real-world.

I have essentially given up on DR figures.  Firstly it's because my camera choice has moved away from being based on image quality and into the quality of the final edit I can make with it, but even if I was comparing the stats I'd be looking at latitude.  

Specifically, I'd be looking at how many stops under still look broadly usable, and I'd also be looking at the tail of the histogram and comparing the lowest stops:

• how many are separate to the noise floor (where the noise in that stop doesn't touch the noise floor)
• how many are visible above the noise floor (but the noise in that stop touches the noise floor)
• how many are visible within the noise floor (the noise from the stop is visible above the noise floor)
• how high up is the noise floor

In the real world, you will be adding a shadow rolloff, so any noise will be pretty dramatically compressed, so it really comes down to the overall level of the noise floor (which will tell you how much quantisation the file will have SOOC and how much you can push it around) and how much noise there is in the lowest regions, which will give a feel for what the shadows look like.  You can always apply a subtle NR to bring it under control, and if it's chroma noise then it doesn't matter much because you're likely going to desaturate the shadows and highlights anyway.

The only time you will really see those lowest stops is if you're pulling up some dark objects in the image to be visible, but this is a rare case and with more than 12 or 13 stops you're most likely still pushing down the last couple of stops into a shadow rolloff anyway, so it's just down to the tint of the overall image.  Think about the latitude tests and how most cameras are fine 3-stops down, some are good further than that - how often are you going to be pulling something out of the shadows by three whole stops??  That's pretty radical!  Most likely you're just grading so that a very contrasty scene can be balanced so that the higher DR fits within the 709 output, but you'd be matching highlight and shadow rolloffs in order to match the shots to the grade on the other shots, so your last few stops would still be in the shadows and can be heavily processed if required.

[kye]

53 minutes ago, sanveer said:

There may be a small series of glitches with the dynamic range test chart. It cannot make out the difference between overbaked images and actual dynamic range very clearly. All smartphone images are way too processed. And the excessive noise reduction and over-sharpening seems to make the image very limited for post work. Apple has clearly figured out to fake results on the test chart. Much like some smartphone companies having  higher results on the SoC testing apps.

The difference between total visible stop at SNR 1 and usable ones at SNR 2 seem to suggest good headroom, especially when codec is high bitrate and with good bit depth (atleast 10-bit 4-2-2?). Then SNR 1 and SNR 2 are similar it's difficult tonsee whether the image is way too baked in to recover any more than the visible image shows. 

I guess to reply directly on to your comments, yes, the DR testing algorithms seem to be quite gullible and "hackable" which I'd agree that Apple has likely done specifically for headlines.

None of the measurements in the charts really map directly to how usable I think the image would be in real projects, but I haven't read the technical documents by ImaTest, although if I was going to look into it more I think that would be a good idea so you'd know what is actually being measured. 

[SRV1981]

If you’re struggling to comprehend DR I’m hopeless! 😂 

 

so it seems I’ll rely on some other metrics as I’ll be baking images in with LUT in camera and not pushing in post. That may open up options for me as to what body I can use. Portability and compact is a prime start for me. 

[kye]

9 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

If you’re struggling to comprehend DR I’m hopeless! 😂 

 

so it seems I’ll rely on some other metrics as I’ll be baking images in with LUT in camera and not pushing in post. That may open up options for me as to what body I can use. Portability and compact is a prime start for me. 

I suggest you start with the finished edit and work backwards.  Your end goal is to create a certain type of content with a certain type of look.  This will best be achieved using a certain type of shooting and a certain type of equipment that makes this easier and faster.  Then look at options for lenses across the crop-factors, then choose your format/sensor-size, then the camera body.

[SRV1981]

I find this video to be movie like and curious if you can see the inferior DR and image to the fx3? I’m a layperson so curious for those with more knowledge 

 

https://youtu.be/4qv3bdX6Hv8?si=O0ZDihKX188lUC2h

[SRV1981]

This too, looks pleasing to my eye but curious if you guys with better trained eyes and knowledge see an image degradation compared to fx3: