KnightsFan

So changing the aperture change the dynamic range? That sounds more like a property of the lens than the RGB boost. That's really interesting, because in my test it seemed to help quite a bit. Perhaps it is dependent on what ISO you are at? Which would not surprise me. I may try to do more of my own tests later today. 0. I did extensive tests when I got my NX1 and found no difference between any of the MB settings regarding what info is captured. In other words, if you shoot with the MB at 0 and adjust curves in post, you will end up with the same image as you would by shooting at a higher MB. I concluded that adjusting MB is only useful if you will not be color correcting. I think the MB level simply raises the black level from IRE 0 to IRE x with a hard clipping at x, the inverse of lowering the RGB boost.

I think this was the sticking point mark was querying, which we don't know yet.Though,as an open standard, DNG continues to evolve and improve as well. My mistake, I misunderstood. It seemed like you were saying that the reason producers shoot in ProRes because it has an easy workflow, and that since PRR has the same workflow as ordinary ProRes, it is preferable to DNG.

@Jim Giberti so essentially, you're saying PRR is better than DNG solely because it provides a better workflow for FCPX users? In that case, wouldn't it make more sense just to give FCPX native DNG support?

Nice! In 4, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "the stop following then boosts IRE about 1." Does it not hit a wall then? My (possibly incorrect) interpretation is that you are seeing some slight increases on the waveform, but not enough to really classify them as more stops of DR. If that is the case, do you think perhaps that it's the H265 compression algorithm making tiny adjustments that push a few pixels beyond 90 IRE wall? I do think that it would be helpful to compare tests 3-5 with a test that has PW on, but keeps the RGB boost at 1.0. That way we can isolate what the RGB boost is doing. Also, which Picture Wizard setting are you using?

I think we lost the term RAW to the marketers back when Redcode arrived. I'm inclined to believe that, like Redcode, Prores Raw is "mildly compressed images with a color filter," rather than "uncompressed linear sensor data" which would be truer to the concept of Raw. The fact that there are two flavors--Raw HQ and Raw--tells me that at least one of them has lossy compression. And it also seems that some cameras that do "Raw" over SDI have done some processing already, like the C200's Raw Lite which apparently has a log curve applied to it. None of that is to say it's a bad format, of course! Just slightly dishonest naming.

0-255, Gamma DR. The noise is actually more pronounced in the second image, but I think that is mainly from the image being sharper (less noise reduction, as others have mentioned.) I haven't done a lot with the new settings, but I haven't seen any abnormal color shifting to be honest. When I first got my NX1, I noticed that the color was not even across the luma range. For example, an underexposed whitecard will have a greenish tint, etc. It seems to me that the same rules apply.

This was manual exposure. In the two shots I posted above, I did not do any exposure compensation. Both are at ISO 1600, f8, and 1/50. I also did the test compensating for exposure, and the same clipping occurred at the same point. I actually did a series of tests last weekend, both adjusting the ISO to compensate for the decreased brightness and not compensating, trying it with the RGB sliders at 0.5, 1, and 1.99. Everything was manual exposure. It was apparent to me that by setting the sliders to 1.99, you do get increased dynamic range and detail (at least at ISO 1600 and compensating to 800.) Based on a few other posts, this may not be true at lower ISO values (e.g. 400, compensating down to 200). The following shot is at ISO 1600, RGB sliders at 1.0 (the same one from above). This time, both images are at a 100% crop to show details. This one is ISO 800, RGB sliders at 1.99. Notice how the yellow text on the book is no longer blown out, without a significant difference to the overall exposure. You can even see a teeny bit more of the metal in front of the light bulb. Furthermore, there is much more detail. Try saving both images and flipping between them quickly in your photo viewer. The text is sharper, the noise is sharper--overall simply a better image.

@mnewxcv Yes, the highlights are simply clipping early. Here's a screenshot in Resolve with the waveform for reference. This was with RGB sliders set to 0.5. You can see even without the waveform that the lightbulb does not reach full white. For comparison, here is the same scene with the RGB sliders at 1.0.

I'd say that 16gb of Ram and a 7200 rpm mechanical HDD are adequate for editing 4k that has typical consumer-camera compression (I haven't tried specifically with HDR from new Sony cams). Uncompressed or Raw 4k might be too much for the hard drive. And CPU and/or GPU can be a bottleneck, depending on the codec--H.265 for example takes a lot of computational power to decode. No idea on the rolling shutter, but we all hope it's soon!

Many cameras read out fewer pixels when doing slow motion, and have less rolling shutter in slow motion (fewer pixels to process = faster processing per frame). I don't know if that's WHY youtubers do "cinematic" tests in slow motion. This might also be part of the reason @Papiskokuji prefers the RX10 motion vs the a7s II.

I'll add to the list: pulldowns and artifacts from watching a 24 or 23.976 fps file on a 60hz monitor. If we bundle those factors as "motion cadence," I think we all agree that they are verifiable, measurable differences. However, many of them are produced by the scene and compression, not the camera itself. Comparing motion cadence based on compressed files streaming over the internet might not work so well, I think.

Neat find! I compared these settings: A. RGB sliders at 1.00, ISO 1600 B. RGB sliders at 1.99, ISO 800 My initial observation was that B has more noise, and more detail in the highlights. Upon further observation, it appears that B is actually significantly sharper than A, which contributes to the perception of more noise. I do not believe there is any reduction in noise, nor any benefit for low light performance; however overall detail and highlight clipping is improved. These observations go for both Gamma DR and Normal. And I confirm that setting the RGB sliders lower than 1.00 simply moves the clipping point and does not grant any advantages.