Well, I found this looking for a dynamic range test chart.
These test charts are reality when done right,band what the best can use. Because, it tells you what it does compared to another camera tested at its maximum. If Dube right, you can see how noise degrades the tile patterns, or how it burns out, and make some sort of decision on how far you can push it's dynamic range. You might think, yes I can deal with two extra stops, or clean it up, or think thats so horrible, I'm not even going depend on the last claimed stop or so. You might think the scan z2 claimed stops are great, fur one, but the tile shots make it look like you are not going get anything out of that. The BM 4.6k you can see you might get a but extra. I'm the pocket 4k, you can see you could dare to get a few extra stops, as the noise is more friendly. But, what I've found, is that back a few years ago, most comparisons revealed a similar number of salvageable stops, because, the silicon's capacity is around 17 stops. So, you could salvage maybe 16 stops on all these cameras for a night new report, 17 maybe with the pocket. Back in the day, grainy night footage was normal. Same goes for best phone sensors (though maybe minus a couple of stops). You might have some special silicon process, or single frame HDR, and get more stops. But, BM tends to be conservative on how clean they consider a good stop, and some other companies less conservative, and Arri, maybe even more conservative. Once you know how each claimed dynamic range is calculated, you can just automatically lop off one or two stops of the claimed range compared to another camera, like Arri. You then start getting near the real figure without even seeing the chart. But, you need to see those tiles done right, to see if the last stops are not to your liking, or there are a few more stops you could work if needed. It's really not that elitest. Look at the tests and reviews for hiccups, and decide which 2 or more cameras to check out in real life and work your way down the list. Crests looking at every camera, then still buying one if the top 5.
Whatvever the dynamic range test figure says, you still have to work it on set to line up the image with the sensors performance range to get the maximum dynamic range as you can out of the camera in a usable way. When we get 30 stop cameras, it might not matter much, but the closer down to 16 stops, the more work, and the more under 16, the more work again.
I wasn't so impressed with this camera's look. Pushed it wasn't great (but that was YouTube times). We have a few super funky news reports in the ABC here lately, which I suspect might be a new prototype camera running a super compressed intra format. I know, because I run my screen super dynamic custom setup, and when these things come on, the faces turn a mushy red blotch, from the image being too baked with too little real detail etc. Back a few years back, when another set of cameras were being tested, we got horrible nasty yellow studio feeds crawling with aliasing. It could be some horror upcoming h265/h266 consumer conversion, camera from a major supplier, even a phone, but... Even a webcam interview so oversaturated I could turn the colour to 1/3-1/5 to get it normal with a super cheap noisy video look, looked better colour definition than the funky one I'm noticing, which is obviously much better and clearly defined then the webcam.
Well see, but with part baked footage, the same rules apply as with dynamic range usage above, you have to work it on set to get it just right, to get maximum results.
Don't sweat it, I get it, they are a bit technically illiterate to understand that most issues are overcomable, and cinema cameras are nearly the future's go pros. I've been looking at and designing technologies that can put a cinema level camera in a credit card. There is a long way to go (like 'incompetency') but these sorts of things are possible and getting a phone to record descent format, with a back illuminated sensor that has fast shutter (like an old Sony CMOS fhd camcorder) to reduce rolling shutter and merge frames for desired blur), and run such footage through a shake noise and lens correction software, and 'learn' how to hold a phone, is simple in comparison. Some other people are onto the sane ideas, go over to redshark and read their articles, and realise they are applicable to mobile phone footage too.
There are many uses for such a phone, so don't sweat it Stephanie, likely a few of these people would like one.
Anyway, where did you see the Note 3 UHD 60fps stuff?
Stephanie, I'm curious, how did they get the Note 3 to do 4k at 60 and 120fps? I was waiting for somebody to try 60fps.
OK, on topic again. Would be great to have a list of filming features of the phones? Like, I'm hanging out for ultrahd at 50fps and higher data rates, but don't need to wait for a Nvidia K1 phone. Once we get to 100-144 mb/s we will be doing OK. 144-300 with 10 bit 4:2:2, or bayer, should be possible, and we would be in cream. Just time for the chip nodes to shrink and their energy consumption to come down enough to make this possible without overheating before silicon reaches its minimum power consumption.
Good news is that the GaAs alternative to silicon has just finally taken a leap forward, so 8k phones should be possible.
Wow, this website is difficult, it crashed my browser, and lost my open pages, and this floating menue bar keeps floating accross the middle of what I'm reading and breaking up and leaving behind bits of itself on piece of the text. Zooming in on my normal surfing phone makes it worse. It hasn't improved since I left months back. And now I have to login to post. Joe, simpler is better. :)