Is DR that important?

[zlfan]

"let’s have a look at the waveform shooting our standard XYLA21 chart with the GH1 – 8 usable stops are visible: 

  Waveform plot of the 2009 original LUMIX GH1 shooting the XYLA 21 chart – 8 stops are usable. Image credit: CineD

8 stops!? How was I ever able to shoot anything on the GH1 with that seemingly poor dynamic range? Well – interestingly enough, when I now look at some of my early GH1 films on Vimeo they look totally fine to me… it is glaringly obvious that camera technology hasn’t been limiting us anymore for a very very long time. "

 

Panasonic LUMIX GH6 Lab Test - Rolling Shutter, Dynamic Range, and Latitude | CineD

https://www.cined.com/panasonic-lumix-gh6-lab-test-rolling-shutter-dynamic-range-and-latitude/

[zlfan]

what is the dr of an iphone 15 screen? dr of an ipad 10? dr of a mac book air m2?

 

from the data acquisition to data presentation, what is the bottle neck now, in terms of dr?

[kye]

Maturity level 1: specs are everything
Maturity level 2: specs don't matter
Maturity level 3: let's talk about specs in a nuanced way

Let's try and elevate the discussion, shall we?

[Benjamin Hilton]

14 hours ago, zlfan said:

"let’s have a look at the waveform shooting our standard XYLA21 chart with the GH1 – 8 usable stops are visible: 

  Waveform plot of the 2009 original LUMIX GH1 shooting the XYLA 21 chart – 8 stops are usable. Image credit: CineD

8 stops!? How was I ever able to shoot anything on the GH1 with that seemingly poor dynamic range? Well – interestingly enough, when I now look at some of my early GH1 films on Vimeo they look totally fine to me… it is glaringly obvious that camera technology hasn’t been limiting us anymore for a very very long time. "

 

Panasonic LUMIX GH6 Lab Test - Rolling Shutter, Dynamic Range, and Latitude | CineD

https://www.cined.com/panasonic-lumix-gh6-lab-test-rolling-shutter-dynamic-range-and-latitude/

I think the problem with some of these discussions is the fact that we argue about gear like we are using it for the same purposes. We are discussing the merits of specific trucks, only some of us are using the trucks for a country drive to church, and some of us are hauling loads cross country. This makes the conversations very frustrating. 

 

You can take a drive with an 8 stop DR GH1 and get some pretty shots of the trees at sunset and feel the wind in your hair. But have you ever tried to shoot a commercial project or a modern documentary with 8 stops of DR and be competitive in today's market? 

[Benjamin Hilton]

14 hours ago, zlfan said:

what is the dr of an iphone 15 screen? dr of an ipad 10? dr of a mac book air m2?

 

from the data acquisition to data presentation, what is the bottle neck now, in terms of dr?

This is why log exists. We capture a dynamic range the screens can't display, then squeeze it into a rec 709 image that works for the screen and retains the detail we need for the shot

 

[eatstoomuchjam]

I feel like any of these discussions should include a link to Vincent Laforet's Reverie.  He shot that with the 5D II with the early firmware which had all sorts of limitations in video mode.  The 5D II's SOOC rec.709 had shit DR compared to a modern camera.  Reverie still looks good.  A lot of people will use a modern camera with greatly superior features and produce something that doesn't look even nearly as good.

But with that said, I suspect that if you offered Mr. Laforet a choice between most modern cameras and the 5D II, he wouldn't hesitate to take the newer camera.

 

Anyway, as far as whether DR matters, that depends entirely on the project and expectations.  Are crushed shadows and/or blown-out highlights acceptable?  For a lot of people, they are.  If so, there's no need to be concerned with it.  Will there be time to light the scene to keep things within a range that the camera can capture?  Is the footage being delivered as-is or is it being turned over to a colorist?

You can go shoot something that looks really nice with a T2i and its kit lens.  Will it match what you wanted?  Probably not.  Will it be what the director/client wanted?  Probably not.  Will it be enough to put on something like instagram?  Probably.  Are the "probably nots" made better by using an Alexa?  Only maybe.  😃

[zlfan]

20 minutes ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

I feel like any of these discussions should include a link to Vincent Laforet's Reverie.  He shot that with the 5D II with the early firmware which had all sorts of limitations in video mode.  The 5D II's SOOC rec.709 had shit DR compared to a modern camera.  Reverie still looks good.  A lot of people will use a modern camera with greatly superior features and produce something that doesn't look even nearly as good.

But with that said, I suspect that if you offered Mr. Laforet a choice between most modern cameras and the 5D II, he wouldn't hesitate to take the newer camera.

 

Anyway, as far as whether DR matters, that depends entirely on the project and expectations.  Are crushed shadows and/or blown-out highlights acceptable?  For a lot of people, they are.  If so, there's no need to be concerned with it.  Will there be time to light the scene to keep things within a range that the camera can capture?  Is the footage being delivered as-is or is it being turned over to a colorist?

You can go shoot something that looks really nice with a T2i and its kit lens.  Will it match what you wanted?  Probably not.  Will it be what the director/client wanted?  Probably not.  Will it be enough to put on something like instagram?  Probably.  Are the "probably nots" made better by using an Alexa?  Only maybe.  😃

yeh. I remember the days and nights when I watched the reverie. I don't remember how many times I watched that short film. he later moved to red cameras and aerial photography. 

[MrSMW]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Hilton said:

think the problem with some of these discussions is the fact that we argue about gear like we are using it for the same purposes.

Which is similar in stills photography when folks ‘state’ that film is better than digital.

Hmmm, I come back from a typical wedding weekend with around 3500-5000 shots to cull and I am far from the spray & pray approach.

Let’s call it 3600 on the low end which is 100 rolls of film.

100 rolls is at least €25 each for purchase and processing, so €2.5k compared with €0 for digital.

Ah, but the tools are cheaper!

Ah, but you can charge more for film photography!

Grow up and enter the real world of business 🤪

So stills or video, I am someone who does not need the latest and greatest just because it is the latest and greatest and that is the purchase decision and I might choose a vintage lens for a certain aesthetic, but a simple reality is that the more modern the tool, the more likely it is to make our (business) lives easier.

Whether that be autofocus, stabilisation, DR, or even just things like start up speed.

Not every new tool is the best tool, but for business users especially, better tools do make for better work. All other factors being equal.

So yes, I’ll take 12 stops of DR over 10 which I’d have taken over 8, every day of the week thanks, just as I appreciate the latest firmware on the S5ii that finally allowed me to ditch the gimbal forever.

Some progress actually is good!

[zlfan]

11 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

Which is similar in stills photography when folks ‘state’ that film is better than digital.

Hmmm, I come back from a typical wedding weekend with around 3500-5000 shots to cull and I am far from the spray & pray approach.

Let’s call it 3600 on the low end which is 100 rolls of film.

100 rolls is at least €25 each for purchase and processing, so €2.5k compared with €0 for digital.

Ah, but the tools are cheaper!

Ah, but you can charge more for film photography!

Grow up and enter the real world of business 🤪

So stills or video, I am someone who does not need the latest and greatest just because it is the latest and greatest and that is the purchase decision and I might choose a vintage lens for a certain aesthetic, but a simple reality is that the more modern the tool, the more likely it is to make our (business) lives easier.

Whether that be autofocus, stabilisation, DR, or even just things like start up speed.

Not every new tool is the best tool, but for business users especially, better tools do make for better work. All other factors being equal.

So yes, I’ll take 12 stops of DR over 10 which I’d have taken over 8, every day of the week thanks, just as I appreciate the latest firmware on the S5ii that finally allowed me to ditch the gimbal forever.

Some progress actually is good!

very true points. the latest technologies are for convenience although the image quality already reaches plateau long time ago. 

[MrSMW]

12 minutes ago, zlfan said:

very true points. the latest technologies are for convenience although the image quality already reaches plateau long time ago. 

Yes and no I think.

Can it get better?

Probably yes, but at what level and how does it relate to how it’s displayed?

So yes, good enough in 99% of cases 99% of the time as they say.

I moved to a Sony A7RV for stills and does it produce better images than the Nikon Zf or Z6ii or the S5ii, my most recent stills cameras?

Yes, but only very slightly.

Where is it noticeable?

In editing.

On my website or social media? God no, no one would.

So why bother?

Professional pride and craft. I KNOW and for me, that is reason enough.

Plus, as they say, it’s in the details which alone, are rarely if ever noticed, but if you can improve everything by 1% every year, it all adds up and keeps forward momentum as a whole.

A tiny bit more DR, a tiny bit more detail, a tiny bit more more pleasant bokeh, a tiny bit more stabilization etc etc etc, - it all adds up and makes a subtle but actual difference.

[Benjamin Hilton]

34 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

Yes and no I think.

Can it get better?

Probably yes, but at what level and how does it relate to how it’s displayed?

So yes, good enough in 99% of cases 99% of the time as they say.

I moved to a Sony A7RV for stills and does it produce better images than the Nikon Zf or Z6ii or the S5ii, my most recent stills cameras?

Yes, but only very slightly.

Where is it noticeable?

In editing.

On my website or social media? God no, no one would.

So why bother?

Professional pride and craft. I KNOW and for me, that is reason enough.

Plus, as they say, it’s in the details which alone, are rarely if ever noticed, but if you can improve everything by 1% every year, it all adds up and keeps forward momentum as a whole.

A tiny bit more DR, a tiny bit more detail, a tiny bit more more pleasant bokeh, a tiny bit more stabilization etc etc etc, - it all adds up and makes a subtle but actual difference.

This is true

[zlfan]

1 hour ago, MrSMW said:

Yes and no I think.

Can it get better?

Probably yes, but at what level and how does it relate to how it’s displayed?

So yes, good enough in 99% of cases 99% of the time as they say.

I moved to a Sony A7RV for stills and does it produce better images than the Nikon Zf or Z6ii or the S5ii, my most recent stills cameras?

Yes, but only very slightly.

Where is it noticeable?

In editing.

On my website or social media? God no, no one would.

So why bother?

Professional pride and craft. I KNOW and for me, that is reason enough.

Plus, as they say, it’s in the details which alone, are rarely if ever noticed, but if you can improve everything by 1% every year, it all adds up and keeps forward momentum as a whole.

A tiny bit more DR, a tiny bit more detail, a tiny bit more more pleasant bokeh, a tiny bit more stabilization etc etc etc, - it all adds up and makes a subtle but actual difference.

It is like in the photo world, people with high res cameras are doing printing, because only printing can show the visible difference of the latest high res cams and lenses. also some areas like bus stop standing ads, behind the table photo wall, etc. i think there are some niche areas that still need the latest high res video cams. for web based sharing, the needs are saturated. but the latest video cams, especially the hybrids, have ibis and af, very useful to everyone. in camera raw is also very useful, just for a small sub group of users. 

[MrSMW]

All these things comes back to the same thing…which is a different thing for each individual.

I’m not necessarily looking for ‘the best’ but rather what works best for me within certain parameters, the principle one being cost. 

Not just cost vs return, but actual cost.

If the financial side was not part of the equation, like most, not only would I be using different stuff, I’d probably have a different career! 

It all comes down to need vs compromises we’re willing to make in the end with the wrapper being money.

[zlfan]

I am watching the longest day on the YouTube movie channel. it is bw. it is 480p. I watch on my laptop in full screen mode. the close up has no issue on resolution. the wide shots are a little bit softer, but still do not hurt my eyes to stop watching the movie. maybe bw movies have high res than the color ones. I just enjoy the movie, never think about the resolution, the dr, the camera, and the lens. 

[newfoundmass]

Is dynamic range important? I don't know, is it for you? Cause that's the only person that can answer this question. 

[zlfan]

4 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

Is dynamic range important? I don't know, is it for you? Cause that's the only person that can answer this question. 

of course wide dr is good. but using wide dr as the most important criteria, I am not sure. 

20 years ago, resolution was the king, it was reasonable, as many web videos were very low res. sometimes I had to stop watching as the res was so low. nowadays, res surpasses the requirement by a mile already. now I watch on my iPod touch, YouTube automatically sets to 360p, iPad to 720p, mac book air/pro to 1080p. I have to manually change every time I watch a video. what is the point of a 6k 8k video presenting on a iPhone?

the same as dr, Alexa 35 is great, amazing, 15 usable stops. but the screens do not have such dr stops. 

often I watch a movie in theatre. it is so great, the dr can be presented by commercial projector. but when I watch at home on tv, on computer screens, I often see the same movie as too dark. I actually like watch news or sports image quality on tv, more than movies. some classic movies are good to present on tv, but many latest ones they are just too dark to my taste, like John wick 4 and earlier episodes. 

personally, I think stabilization is the most important factor after the resolution. as resolution goes up, very minor shake will cause headache and dizziness. I think Olympus's m43 ibis, Panasonic ff and m43 ibis, are really the most important factor for me to choose a new cam. dr once over 10-12 stops usable is already very good, considering the final presentation computer screen may have a dr of 7 stops. 

 

[ND64]

 

[MrSMW]

3 hours ago, zlfan said:

often I watch a movie in theatre. it is so great,

Obviously you don't live in France where it's so shite, I've stopped going.

It is no longer 1976.

52" 4K screen with surround sound and the kitchen next door is the way to go. Plus a pause button so you don't have to go in an empty popcorn carton.

But seriously, last few movies I went to see, they looked MUCH better at home.

Though as above, this may be a 'living in rural France' thing...

[Davide DB]

3 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:

 

 

They were so focused on the video that they forgot that there is audio and sound engineers 😄
 

[newfoundmass]

8 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Obviously you don't live in France where it's so shite, I've stopped going.

It is no longer 1976.

52" 4K screen with surround sound and the kitchen next door is the way to go. Plus a pause button so you don't have to go in an empty popcorn carton.

But seriously, last few movies I went to see, they looked MUCH better at home.

Though as above, this may be a 'living in rural France' thing...

It's all digital projection now, unfortunately. The drop off in quality is significant. I've only gone to the theaters because my nephew wanted to; it still is a semi magical experience for him. But I'm very much over it.