|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 16th, 2004, 09:57 AM | #1 |
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, 05:19 PM | #3 |
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 |
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, 06:58 PM | #5 |
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, 07:18 PM | #6 |
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, 07:51 PM | #8 |
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, 07:54 PM | #9 |
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 16th, 2004, 08:27 PM | #10 |
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 |
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, 09:25 PM | #12 | |||
Barry Wan Kenobi
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 3,863
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
|||
December 17th, 2004, 05:21 AM | #13 |
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 |
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 |
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? |
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|