Latitude of HD FX1 at DVinfo.net

Maheel Perera · December 16th, 2004, 09:57 AM

Has any one tested the LATITUDE of FX1. I read at another forum that FX1 has only 5 stops of latitude comparing with DVX100A's 7 stops?

Bill Ravens · December 16th, 2004, 11:01 AM

yikes!!!

Steven Gotz · December 16th, 2004, 05:19 PM

OK. I know I am a beginner. But I looked up that word in the FX1 manual, and it wasn't even there.

Please...

What is Latitude?

It is too general to Google it successfully.

Bill Ravens · December 16th, 2004, 06:46 PM

Film has a latitude of about 10-11 stops. Most video cams have a latitude of about 8 stops.

Latitude is the ability of the media to record a range of brightness values from full shadow to bright white. At 11 f/stops, film can do a pretty good job. Digital sensors, at 8 stops, require fill lighting to keep from either blowing out the whites or muddying the shadows. At 5 stops of latitude, I would consider the media unuseable at everything but studio conditions. Even at that, images would be flat without contrast.

John Gaspain · December 16th, 2004, 06:58 PM

I know that it does GREAT in low light, my experience.

Aaron Shaw · December 16th, 2004, 07:18 PM

I honestly doubt that great low light performance can come from this camera. See here for evidence:

http://www.dvxuser.com/cgi-bin/DVX2/YaBB.pl?board=sony;action=display;num=1103104690;start=30#30

The FX1 has noticably less latitude than either the XL2 or DVX as would be expected by technical specs.

Bill Ravens · December 16th, 2004, 07:46 PM

It's not a question of low light performance. It's a matter of being able to adequately resolve a wide range of exposures, ranging from shadows to brightly lit; and, all within the same frame..

John Gaspain · December 16th, 2004, 07:51 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Aaron Shaw : I honestly doubt that great low light performance can come from this camera. See here for evidence:

http://www.dvxuser.com/cgi-bin/DVX2/YaBB.pl?board=sony;action=display;num=1103104690;start=30#30

The FX1 has noticably less latitude than either the XL2 or DVX as would be expected by technical specs. -->>>

He obviously had it in an auto mode and had a picture profile. I have this cam and can attest that it is as good if not better than a vx2100 for low light. Granted its still not as good as film- maybe someday we can get that, but in the meantime im happy with what it does.

Aaron Shaw · December 16th, 2004, 07:54 PM

No, the test was specifically set up scientifically. Read the whole thread and you will see.

Barry knows what he is doing. Many can attest to that. He is a very impartial voice - which many people recognize.

Bill, I do understand that. My comment was merely directed at the post which claimed it had amazing low light capabilities not the dynamic range discussion. Sorry I didn't make that clear - my fault.

John Jay · December 16th, 2004, 08:27 PM

the following test from Kerr Cooks site (10/28/04) could have been performed a lot better wrt lighting and correct alignment etc, but has the benefit that anyone can repeat it for latitude testing

http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/ker...B--60thsec.zip

just look at the 11 distinct and well defined grayscale...

I would add, that so that we can have a common base any testing should, in all fairness, be conducted so that anyone can independently verify the findings. That to my mind means standard charts etc with a detailed report of the camera settings

John Gaspain · December 16th, 2004, 08:59 PM

cool pic John Jay, that is pretty cool how you can see the bumps in the cardboard of the color card...never seen that with a DV cam!

Barry Green · December 16th, 2004, 09:25 PM

Quote:

He obviously had it in an auto mode and had a picture profile.

Nope. The camera was set on full manual at all times, with careful attention paid to all settings. All settings were verbally slated on the tape (i.e., f-stop, whether the camera was in Cinematone Gamma or not, what CineFrame setting was used if any, etc.) All image control settings were at the middle, off, or default settings on all cameras.

Quote:

I have this cam and can attest that it is as good if not better than a vx2100 for low light.

The FX1 is not in the same league as the VX2100 in low light sensitivity. It's usually a full stop slower than the XL2, and two to three stops slower than a DVX, and the VX2100 is even a little more sensitive than the DVX. It does have a relatively noiseless signal though, I will say that for it.

Quote:

the following test from Kerr Cooks site

I've got CamAligns, Accu-Charts, EIA's, MacBeth's, all on all three cameras with notations as to what was what. I don't have all the tapes here - this test was conducted in conjunction with someone else, so I may not have all the tapes with me now. I've found the XL2 and FX1 CamAligns though. You can see those here:

XL2 CamAlign: http://www.icexpo.com/XL2-CamAlign-16x9-24P.JPG

FX1 CamAlign: http://www.icexpo.com/FX1-HDV-60i-CamAlign.JPG

Both cameras are easily capable of resolving the entire grayscale section without crushing to black or blowing out whites. The CamAlign is a nice chart but it doesn't really stress their full latitude capability.

Carlos E. Martinez · December 17th, 2004, 05:21 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Bill Ravens : Film has a latitude of about 10-11 stops. Most video cams have a latitude of about 8 stops.

Latitude is the ability of the media to record a range of brightness values from full shadow to bright white. At 11 f/stops, film can do a pretty good job. Digital sensors, at 8 stops, require fill lighting to keep from either blowing out the whites or muddying the shadows. At 5 stops of latitude, I would consider the media unuseable at everything but studio conditions. Even at that, images would be flat without contrast. -->>>

I would put film in the 12-14 stops range.

Carlos

Maheel Perera · December 17th, 2004, 09:36 AM

Thanks for the response.

When the latitude is low the images become contrasty, not flat.
The sample footages I have seen so far (Kaku's and others) did not show that the cam is that low in latitude. The early demo from the Taiwanese site showed lot of latitude. From dark shadows to the details in the sky. (The temple shot)

I am confused.

Boyd Ostroff · December 17th, 2004, 09:56 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by John Jay : the following test from Kerr Cooks site (10/28/04) could have been performed a lot better wrt lighting and correct alignment -->>>

Yeah.... I'm wondering why we see the noticeable barrell distortion? Was it shot up close with full wide zoom?

December 16th, 2004, 09:57 AM	#1
Maheel Perera Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Sri Lanka Posts: 128	Latitude of HD FX1 Has any one tested the LATITUDE of FX1. I read at another forum that FX1 has only 5 stops of latitude comparing with DVX100A's 7 stops?

December 16th, 2004, 06:58 PM	#5
John Gaspain Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: WA-USA Posts: 371	I know that it does GREAT in low light, my experience. __________________ The glory of the World passes by.

December 16th, 2004, 07:51 PM	#8
John Gaspain Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: WA-USA Posts: 371	<<<-- Originally posted by Aaron Shaw : I honestly doubt that great low light performance can come from this camera. See here for evidence: http://www.dvxuser.com/cgi-bin/DVX2/YaBB.pl?board=sony;action=display;num=1103104690;start=30#30 The FX1 has noticably less latitude than either the XL2 or DVX as would be expected by technical specs. -->>> He obviously had it in an auto mode and had a picture profile. I have this cam and can attest that it is as good if not better than a vx2100 for low light. Granted its still not as good as film- maybe someday we can get that, but in the meantime im happy with what it does. __________________ The glory of the World passes by.

December 16th, 2004, 08:27 PM	#10
John Jay Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: US & THEM Posts: 827	the following test from Kerr Cooks site (10/28/04) could have been performed a lot better wrt lighting and correct alignment etc, but has the benefit that anyone can repeat it for latitude testing http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/ker...B--60thsec.zip just look at the 11 distinct and well defined grayscale... I would add, that so that we can have a common base any testing should, in all fairness, be conducted so that anyone can independently verify the findings. That to my mind means standard charts etc with a detailed report of the camera settings __________________ John Jay Beware *PLUGGER-BYTES*

December 16th, 2004, 08:59 PM	#11
John Gaspain Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: WA-USA Posts: 371	cool pic John Jay, that is pretty cool how you can see the bumps in the cardboard of the color card...never seen that with a DV cam! __________________ The glory of the World passes by.

December 16th, 2004, 11:01 AM	#2
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	yikes!!!

December 16th, 2004, 05:19 PM	#3
Steven Gotz Trustee Join Date: May 2002 Location: Clermont, FL Posts: 1,520	OK. I know I am a beginner. But I looked up that word in the FX1 manual, and it wasn't even there. Please... What is Latitude? It is too general to Google it successfully.

December 16th, 2004, 06:46 PM	#4
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	Film has a latitude of about 10-11 stops. Most video cams have a latitude of about 8 stops. Latitude is the ability of the media to record a range of brightness values from full shadow to bright white. At 11 f/stops, film can do a pretty good job. Digital sensors, at 8 stops, require fill lighting to keep from either blowing out the whites or muddying the shadows. At 5 stops of latitude, I would consider the media unuseable at everything but studio conditions. Even at that, images would be flat without contrast.

December 16th, 2004, 07:18 PM	#6
Aaron Shaw Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 587	I honestly doubt that great low light performance can come from this camera. See here for evidence: http://www.dvxuser.com/cgi-bin/DVX2/YaBB.pl?board=sony;action=display;num=1103104690;start=30#30 The FX1 has noticably less latitude than either the XL2 or DVX as would be expected by technical specs.

December 16th, 2004, 07:46 PM	#7
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	It's not a question of low light performance. It's a matter of being able to adequately resolve a wide range of exposures, ranging from shadows to brightly lit; and, all within the same frame..

December 16th, 2004, 07:54 PM	#9
Aaron Shaw Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 587	No, the test was specifically set up scientifically. Read the whole thread and you will see. Barry knows what he is doing. Many can attest to that. He is a very impartial voice - which many people recognize. Bill, I do understand that. My comment was merely directed at the post which claimed it had amazing low light capabilities not the dynamic range discussion. Sorry I didn't make that clear - my fault.

December 17th, 2004, 05:21 AM	#13
Carlos E. Martinez Trustee Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Posts: 1,138	<<<-- Originally posted by Bill Ravens : Film has a latitude of about 10-11 stops. Most video cams have a latitude of about 8 stops. Latitude is the ability of the media to record a range of brightness values from full shadow to bright white. At 11 f/stops, film can do a pretty good job. Digital sensors, at 8 stops, require fill lighting to keep from either blowing out the whites or muddying the shadows. At 5 stops of latitude, I would consider the media unuseable at everything but studio conditions. Even at that, images would be flat without contrast. -->>> I would put film in the 12-14 stops range. Carlos

December 17th, 2004, 09:36 AM	#14
Maheel Perera Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Sri Lanka Posts: 128	Thanks for the response. When the latitude is low the images become contrasty, not flat. The sample footages I have seen so far (Kaku's and others) did not show that the cam is that low in latitude. The early demo from the Taiwanese site showed lot of latitude. From dark shadows to the details in the sky. (The temple shot) I am confused.

December 17th, 2004, 09:56 AM	#15
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	<<<-- Originally posted by John Jay : the following test from Kerr Cooks site (10/28/04) could have been performed a lot better wrt lighting and correct alignment -->>> Yeah.... I'm wondering why we see the noticeable barrell distortion? Was it shot up close with full wide zoom?