|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 28th, 2008, 09:29 AM | #1 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 165
|
Low Noise Test Stills
Very simplistic test but shows off Low Noise settings pretty well....
http://www.mediamax.com/danbrazda/Ho...stom%2B6db.jpg http://www.mediamax.com/danbrazda/Ho...B6dbNoise1.jpg http://www.mediamax.com/danbrazda/Ho...B6dbNoise2.jpg http://www.mediamax.com/danbrazda/Ho...stom%2B9db.jpg http://www.mediamax.com/danbrazda/Ho...B9dbNoise1.jpg http://www.mediamax.com/danbrazda/Ho...B9dbNoise2.jpg |
February 28th, 2008, 10:36 AM | #2 |
Telecam Films
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 723
|
Thanks Dan,
Nice job, it really shows the effect on each setting. Thierry. |
February 29th, 2008, 02:41 AM | #3 |
Major Player
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oxfordshire, UK
Posts: 425
|
For these kind of tests - maybe the file format shouldn't be JPG though as this may well have some effect on the visible noise. Better to use a bitmap uncompressed format (BMP etc) :)
|
February 29th, 2008, 02:54 AM | #4 |
Major Player
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oxfordshire, UK
Posts: 425
|
Just out of interest - here's a couple of stills from a shoot I did yesterday with NR=1. Cinegamma 4, 25P HQ:
http://www.siliconpixel.com/xdcam/still1.bmp http://www.siliconpixel.com/xdcam/still3.bmp |
February 29th, 2008, 06:42 AM | #5 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 165
|
True but the test I was doing was a comparison between no Low Noise Filter and the 2 stages of low noise filters under the same lighting conditions. As long as the stills are fairly hi-rez, you'll see it as plain as day regardless of .bmp vs .jpg.
|
February 29th, 2008, 07:31 AM | #6 |
Major Player
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oxfordshire, UK
Posts: 425
|
OK sure thanks.
|
February 29th, 2008, 10:14 AM | #7 |
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Scotland (UK)
Posts: 219
|
Dan - many thanks for taking the time to do that, I was going to leave updating the firmware on our 350 until later, but having seen those tests, that looks very impressive.
Regards: Stu www.studioscotland.com |
March 6th, 2008, 07:42 PM | #8 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 165
|
Quote:
|
|
March 12th, 2008, 08:02 AM | #9 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Malta
Posts: 306
|
Quote:
So, if I understood right, has there been any upgrade for the 330 / 350 that actually improves the sensitivity? Can you confirm this please? Thanks |
|
March 12th, 2008, 09:52 AM | #10 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 165
|
Quote:
|
|
March 12th, 2008, 11:41 AM | #11 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Bracknell, Berkshire, UK
Posts: 4,957
|
Sorry, have to disagree with you Dan. I have both an EX1 and F350 with the low noise firmware and the EX1 is still far better in low light. You need +6db of gain on the F350 to match the EX1. Also the low noise mode very slightly decreases the sensitivity of the F350 so to get similar sensitivity you end up at +9db which defeats the object of using the low noise mode. Sure you could use mode 2 but then you have a much reduced dynamic range.
Can't say I've noticed any softening when using mode 1. If low light performance is important to you then the EX1 may be the better choice.
__________________
Alister Chapman, Film-Maker/Stormchaser http://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/ My XDCAM site and blog. http://www.hurricane-rig.com |
March 12th, 2008, 12:33 PM | #12 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 165
|
Quote:
|
|
March 12th, 2008, 04:30 PM | #13 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Bracknell, Berkshire, UK
Posts: 4,957
|
There is a small loss in sensitivity in mode 1 and a larger drop in mode 2. If you look on a waveform monitor it is clear to see. I believe it takes 9db to get the F350 up to EX performance and even with Low noise mode 1 selected the F350 is a lot more noisy. When I did the northern lights shoot with both my EX and F350 I gave up with the F350 as the images were too noisy to be of any use while the EX1 produced perfectly acceptable results. The F350 was marred by both noise and amp glow while the EX1 produced images that I was more than happy with.
The noise level in the EX1 is low enough to allow the use of up to 9db gain before it becomes objectionable and trust me the difference between an EX1 at 9db and an F350 at 9db is massive, the EX1 walks all over the F350 in terms of usable sensitivity and low light performance.
__________________
Alister Chapman, Film-Maker/Stormchaser http://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/ My XDCAM site and blog. http://www.hurricane-rig.com |
March 12th, 2008, 06:46 PM | #14 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 165
|
Quote:
Based on your feedback I am motivated to duplicate the tests I did prior to the firmware upgrade to the 350 now that I am at 1.93. What I was expecting to see was a match between the 350 and the EX-1 when exposure fell 1 stop below the 350's reach. I was hoping I could kick in +6db gain in that scenario with Low Noise 1 and get the same results as the EX-1 with no gain. Can't wait to check it out... |
|
March 13th, 2008, 07:42 PM | #15 |
New Boot
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Denmark
Posts: 12
|
I am very sure Alister is right in what he says, but I have a little remark.
By reading around the threads I start believing that we are creating the impression that there is a choice between the F3xx and the EX1, or that someone would actually sell his F3xx to buy the EX1. Maybe so for the demanding amateur, but for the professional there is no such choice. The EX1 is just an excellent B-camera, but apart from the greater sensitivity, there is also an army of shortcomings to it compared to a professional camcorder from the F3xx series
__________________
Dimitri Liaos, DoP Sony F350, Fujinon XS17X5,5, FC Studio 2 |
| ||||||
|
|