Interesting vid about dynamic range

Messiah Khan · 28 Jun 2011 at 20:12

I stumbled across and interesting vid about dynamic range I thought you all might like. It has been made with video in mind, but it does include DSLRs in the shootout.

http://www.zacuto.com/the-great-camera-shootout-2011/episode-one

robertgilbert86 · 28 Jun 2011 at 20:46

Pretty interesting, thanks for posting. I'll be sure to check out the next 2 parts.

Bluelion · 28 Jun 2011 at 23:39

Wow really good stuff. The web is such a fantastic place for education like this, thanks for posting Messiah.

I was surprised that the DSLRs performed so (relatively) poorly. I would have expected them to be leagues ahead of the movie cameras, given the amount of detail you need to capture in a single still, compared to the dedicated movie cameras.

If you happen to notice them, would you mind poking this thread when the other episodes are available? Thanks.

Raymond Lin · 28 Jun 2011 at 23:47

Bluelion said:
I was surprised that the DSLRs performed so (relatively) poorly. I would have expected them to be leagues ahead of the movie cameras, given the amount of detail you need to capture in a single still, compared to the dedicated movie cameras.

Really????

Have you never ever wondered how they shoot movies at night, and some scene is is so badly lit YET the exposure were spot on, with the camera only opening 1/24th for each frame (instead of your 15 seconds), and there is hardly any noise!

-|ScottFree|- · 29 Jun 2011 at 00:24

Thanks for the link, very much enjoyed that episode. Looking foward to part two.

D.P. · 29 Jun 2011 at 09:48

When DSLRs start have having 2MP sensors to please the confused DSLR video crowd then the quality of the video in DSLRs may start to become comparable to dedicated cameras. However, for those of us who actually want to take photos with our photography equipment will not be happy with our 2MP photos.

Hopefully the fad is already fading.

FreeStream · 29 Jun 2011 at 10:39

Bluelion said:
I was surprised that the DSLRs performed so (relatively) poorly. I would have expected them to be leagues ahead of the movie cameras, given the amount of detail you need to capture in a single still, compared to the dedicated movie cameras.

Your comparing dedicated video cameras (i.e. sensors designed to capture video) vs what is essentially an add-on to our cameras.

Personally I wish my 7D didn't have video, but that's just me!

explicit4u · 29 Jun 2011 at 10:43

Concorde Rules said:
Personally I wish my 7D didn't have video, but that's just me!

Why? Surely it's an advantage, even if you rarely use it!

Raymond Lin · 29 Jun 2011 at 12:24

Concorde Rules said:
Personally I wish my 7D didn't have video, but that's just me!

Just don't press the button?

Never understand that logic. :confused:

Russinating · 29 Jun 2011 at 12:51

Raymond Lin said:
Just don't press the button?

Never understand that logic.

The only logic is that you're paying a premium for a feature you'll never use (assuming that cameras that support video cost more than those that don't).

Throttle · 29 Jun 2011 at 14:08

tkx for the link, v interesting, i also watched the 2010 dslr test vid too and it gives a good insight. In the 2010 vid they summed up by saying if they can find a way to process the raw data from the sensor into a video format that it would exceed film and give up to imax res.

robertgilbert86 · 29 Jun 2011 at 16:52

Bluelion said:
I was surprised that the DSLRs performed so (relatively) poorly. I would have expected them to be leagues ahead of the movie cameras, given the amount of detail you need to capture in a single still, compared to the dedicated movie cameras.

Didn't someone in the video say the DSLRs cost about 10% of the dedicated video cameras? I know that's not the whole story as someone else makes the point you could end up spending $20k more in post-production but I thought they performed pretty well given that they aren't primarily designed for video. On the other hand the film camera made the highlights scene look the best out of all of them by far so I'll guess the digi manufacturers will be aiming for that.

Regarding video on DSLRs, who cares if it's there. It doesn't appear to add to the price and I think it's a great feature that compacts used to beat DSLRs with.

An Exception · 29 Jun 2011 at 17:43

I'm not an expert in video etc, but in the shadow tests, it didn't look like they tried to push the shadows much in post, is boosting the shadows in video much more problematic than stills I take it?
The reason I query this, is because I thought this would be an area where the D7K's extremely low read noise would be beneficial as you can boost shadows huge amounts without getting cross-hatching/banding, yet in the video that didn't translate at all in the shadow test, and the D7K sucked in the Highlight test (which I expected as it exposes to the right by default).

Below is what I mean...

Image taken with D7K, about 4 stops under exposed, with the shadows (fill light) then boosted in LR3, and only colour noise reduction applied (no luminance noise reduction).

Original

Recovered

100% Crop

robertgilbert86 · 15 Aug 2011 at 16:45

Part Two: http://www.zacuto.com/the-great-camera-shootout-2011/episode-two

FreeStream · 15 Aug 2011 at 19:12

Raymond Lin said:
Just don't press the button?

Never understand that logic.

Compromises have been made for video that have effected photo IQ.

It's simple engineering.

You can't have something that is good at everything.

Even if it's just R&D costs, i'd rather Canon had not bothered because whenever I use the video it's quite frankly, ****. I don't have all the kit required to make it look like everyone else who gets decent results.

-|ScottFree|- · 16 Aug 2011 at 00:31

Concorde Rules said:
Even if it's just R&D costs, i'd rather Canon had not bothered because whenever I use the video it's quite frankly, ****.

Well that must be because you are a photographer no a cinematographer. You obviously don't have your camera set up for video or you are not very good at using this function.

The fact is, my 5D mk ii is an absolutely awesome tool for video. Anyone who says less in quite frankly ill informed. The movies, music video's and documentaries filmed using the canon 5d mkii are testament to this. I am achieving results on my camera that are quite frankly staggering for the price point. Video camera's that offer the same level of image quality are 10's of thousands of pounds more...The down side is that it is made for stills so has drawbacks and its costs a hell of a lot of money to resolve some of the issues, the bonus is you get to use an array of different lenses, the ability to shoot in low light and the form factor that allows you to run and gun... and image quality that is slick....

oh and to the guy who thinks DSLR video is a fad, you have to be kidding me... I guarantee that the 5D mark iii and the Nikkon D800 will incorporate even more features for videographers. This is not a fad, its the DSLR evolution...

FreeStream · 18 Aug 2011 at 20:04

-|ScottFree|- said:
Well that must be because you are a photographer no a cinematographer. You obviously don't have your camera set up for video or you are not very good at using this function.

The fact is, my 5D mk ii is an absolutely awesome tool for video. Anyone who says less in quite frankly ill informed. The movies, music video's and documentaries filmed using the canon 5d mkii are testament to this. I am achieving results on my camera that are quite frankly staggering for the price point. Video camera's that offer the same level of image quality are 10's of thousands of pounds more...The down side is that it is made for stills so has drawbacks and its costs a hell of a lot of money to resolve some of the issues, the bonus is you get to use an array of different lenses, the ability to shoot in low light and the form factor that allows you to run and gun... and image quality that is slick....

oh and to the guy who thinks DSLR video is a fad, you have to be kidding me... I guarantee that the 5D mark iii and the Nikkon D800 will incorporate even more features for videographers. This is not a fad, its the DSLR evolution...

How much ontop of the 5DII have you spent to get it to decent standards?

I know the 7D and 5DII have been used on films/TV (House MD for example) but they have all the lighting kit, and whatever else to make them perform that well.

So for me, and my intended purpose the video is a detriment to it's performance.

You see where I am coming from here?

D.P. · 18 Aug 2011 at 20:17

-|ScottFree|- said:
Well that must be because you are a photographer no a cinematographer. You obviously don't have your camera set up for video or you are not very good at using this function.

The fact is, my 5D mk ii is an absolutely awesome tool for video. Anyone who says less in quite frankly ill informed. The movies, music video's and documentaries filmed using the canon 5d mkii are testament to this. I am achieving results on my camera that are quite frankly staggering for the price point. Video camera's that offer the same level of image quality are 10's of thousands of pounds more...The down side is that it is made for stills so has drawbacks and its costs a hell of a lot of money to resolve some of the issues, the bonus is you get to use an array of different lenses, the ability to shoot in low light and the form factor that allows you to run and gun... and image quality that is slick....

oh and to the guy who thinks DSLR video is a fad, you have to be kidding me... I guarantee that the 5D mark iii and the Nikkon D800 will incorporate even more features for videographers. This is not a fad, its the DSLR evolution...

What will happen is Nikon and Canon will start making videocameras with large sensor and their respective F and EOS lens mounts in bodies designed for videography with features for video. As it stands most people using DSLRs seriously for productions has moved onto other systems such as RED, or a good Sony system with only the ocasional use of a DSLR. From this point of view DSRL was a fad that has already faded.
Even the point of exploiting a large sensor is not very sensible since a 24MP sensor designed for still is not the same as a 2-4MP sensor designed for motion. I doubt Nikon for starters has the money to invest in a dedicated video sensor, let alone redesign a whole new body. Canon might get somewhere with their experience but the project will not be led by their SLR department but their video department.

The other thing is that none of the modern Nikon and Canon lenses are really that great for video. A set of Zeiss primes with excellent manual focus and aperture rings are much more suitable. Only the old lenses are really suitable, luckilly Nikon have kept their F-mount. I doubt Nikon will start making any video specific lenses adding aperture rings and manual focus setups suitable for pro video gear.

-|ScottFree|- · 18 Aug 2011 at 22:38

Concorde Rules said:
How much ontop of the 5DII have you spent to get it to decent standards?

I know the 7D and 5DII have been used on films/TV (House MD for example) but they have all the lighting kit, and whatever else to make them perform that well.

So for me, and my intended purpose the video is a detriment to it's performance.

You see where I am coming from here?

With the greatest respect, not really, no..

Why would the video function be detrimental... I don't get that logic :confused:

There are problems associated with getting DSLR's to perform, but with a little bit of studying and the willingness to overcome issues, you can create outstanding production quality. Although I use my 5D Mkii primarily for video, if I decide to go for a RED Scarlett or a RED One... in the future, I will keep my 5D for its stills ability.. so on the flip side, I like the fact that it can also take lush photographs.

Lighting... this is the 5d's strong point... you can film in very low light and achieve fantastic results, if I put an ND filter on my camera and go shoot with my 50mm 1.4, I can be outside in bright sunshine and achieve wonderful DoF shots, alternatively I could be in the same spot at midnight with a street light as my only source of light, up the ISO and still achieve beautiful shots with little noise...

Photographers who make their living in the media industry have all adopted the video function of their camera, in a world that is web driven; video functionality is imperative and a tool that many have embraced.

Nexus · 18 Aug 2011 at 22:59

Ejizz said:
I'm not an expert in video etc, but in the shadow tests, it didn't look like they tried to push the shadows much in post, is boosting the shadows in video much more problematic than stills I take it?
The reason I query this, is because I thought this would be an area where the D7K's extremely low read noise would be beneficial as you can boost shadows huge amounts without getting cross-hatching/banding, yet in the video that didn't translate at all in the shadow test, and the D7K sucked in the Highlight test (which I expected as it exposes to the right by default).

Yeah it can be problematic if you have got a very dark scene which is underexposed as lifting the shadows will often bring in unwanted noise. I know this was an issue for one scene on Dawn Treader that I worked on last year, to the point where it was even causing it come out as blue noise.

99% of Colourists and the majority of DOPs would rather shoot on film, despite whatever may be said for Digital.