More precise sensor readout measurement

[Horshack]

All Zf electronic shutter / video measurements were the same as the Z6. Decided to measure the fully-mechanical shutter as well:



For comparison, here's the Z9's electronic shutter. Basically identical image, just happens to be at a different random phase.

 

[Horshack]

Full Results

• 14-bit NEF 65.91ms 1/15.17
• 12-bit NEF 50.96ms 1/19.62
• 4k30p/24p 29.79ms 1/33.56
• 1080 120p 7.012ms 1/142.59
• 1080 60p/30p 10.64ms 1/1/93.98

Thanks Horshack. Have you thought that the numbers were designed to be and if they may be different? It's not an important question just something that crossed my mind after reading the outputs of your hard work.

Hmm, I'm not sure what you mean. Can you restate your question?

 

[Ephemeris]

All Zf electronic shutter / video measurements were the same as the Z6. Decided to measure the fully-mechanical shutter as well:



For comparison, here's the Z9's electronic shutter. Basically identical image, just happens to be at a different random phase.

Busy guy Horseshack.



You may be able to see better than I from the posting but where the Maxima is to the minima do they form the same shapes? So if this was Intensity Vs position what would they look like? They appear a little different but maybe just the website/ phone rendering.

 

[Ephemeris]

Full Results

• 14-bit NEF 65.91ms 1/15.17
• 12-bit NEF 50.96ms 1/19.62
• 4k30p/24p 29.79ms 1/33.56
• 1080 120p 7.012ms 1/142.59
• 1080 60p/30p 10.64ms 1/1/93.98

Thanks Horshack. Have you thought that the numbers were designed to be and if they may be different? It's not an important question just something that crossed my mind after reading the outputs of your hard work.

Hmm, I'm not sure what you mean. Can you restate your question?

The values you achieved Vs the intended values from the design team of the system you tested.

I wondered if the values you measured are what was intended or slightly different.

Sorry for I didn't frame it very well.

 

[JimKasson]

Full Results

• 14-bit NEF 65.91ms 1/15.17
• 12-bit NEF 50.96ms 1/19.62
• 4k30p/24p 29.79ms 1/33.56
• 1080 120p 7.012ms 1/142.59
• 1080 60p/30p 10.64ms 1/1/93.98

Thanks Horshack. Have you thought that the numbers were designed to be and if they may be different? It's not an important question just something that crossed my mind after reading the outputs of your hard work.

Hmm, I'm not sure what you mean. Can you restate your question?

The values you achieved Vs the intended values from the design team of the system you tested.

How are the intended values knowable?

I wondered if the values you measured are what was intended or slightly different.

Sorry for I didn't frame it very well.

--

the last word the last word - Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

blog.kasson.com

 

[Ephemeris]

Full Results

• 14-bit NEF 65.91ms 1/15.17
• 12-bit NEF 50.96ms 1/19.62
• 4k30p/24p 29.79ms 1/33.56
• 1080 120p 7.012ms 1/142.59
• 1080 60p/30p 10.64ms 1/1/93.98

Thanks Horshack. Have you thought that the numbers were designed to be and if they may be different? It's not an important question just something that crossed my mind after reading the outputs of your hard work.

Hmm, I'm not sure what you mean. Can you restate your question?

The values you achieved Vs the intended values from the design team of the system you tested.

How are the intended values knowable?

Likely only by the sensor tier1 and Canon but for me it was just a thought process Vs the numbers we see here.

I wondered if the values you measured are what was intended or slightly different.

Sorry for I didn't frame it very well.

--
https://blog.kasson.com

 

[Horshack]

Just because

 

[Ephemeris]

Just because

 

[Horshack]

 

[Horshack]

Full Results

• Any FF image (raw or jpeg) 6.60ms 1/150.5
• Any APS-C image (raw or jpeg) 4.33ms 1/231
• 4k30p 18.07ms 1/55.32
• 4K24p 22.85ms 1/43.75
• 1080 120p/60p/30p/24p 6.46ms 1/154.62

 

[Horshack]

The E-M5 III has ISO-dependent readout speeds - 1/62 for ISOs <= 6400 and 1/28 for ISOs >= 12,800. It's unclear if the sensor is read slower @ high ISO for noise behavior or it's done to match a potential processing bottleneck in the imaging ASIC for NR. For video the max ISO is 6400, likely for the same underlying reason.





Full Results

• Any image (raw or jpeg) ISO <= 6400 16.23ms 1/62
• Any image (raw or jpeg) ISO >= 12800 35.34ms 1/28.29
• 4k30p/24p 12.10ms 1/82.63
• C4K24p (4096x2160) 11.42ms 1/87.49
• 1080 60p/30p/24p 11.02ms 1/90.74
• 1080 120p 7.71ms 1/129.62

 

[Horshack]

Full Results

• Any image (raw or jpeg) 39.63ms 1/25.23
• 4k30p/24p 26.83ms 1/37.26
• 1080 60p/30p 14.4ms 1/69.44
• VGA 30p 11.56ms 1/86

 

[SrMi]

The E-M5 III has ISO-dependent readout speeds - 1/62 for ISOs <= 6400 and 1/28 for ISOs >= 12,800. It's unclear if the sensor is read slower @ high ISO for noise behavior or it's done to match a potential processing bottleneck in the imaging ASIC for NR. For video the max ISO is 6400, likely for the same underlying reason.

From the flash sync speed spec, the exact switch point for E-M5 II is likely ISO 8000. Above ISO 8000, the flash sync speed is halved.

Full Results

• Any image (raw or jpeg) ISO <= 6400 16.23ms 1/62
• Any image (raw or jpeg) ISO >= 12800 35.34ms 1/28.29
• 4k30p/24p 12.10ms 1/82.63
• C4K24p (4096x2160) 11.42ms 1/87.49
• 1080 60p/30p/24p 11.02ms 1/90.74
• 1080 120p 7.71ms 1/129.62

 

[Horshack]

The E-M5 III has ISO-dependent readout speeds - 1/62 for ISOs <= 6400 and 1/28 for ISOs >= 12,800. It's unclear if the sensor is read slower @ high ISO for noise behavior or it's done to match a potential processing bottleneck in the imaging ASIC for NR. For video the max ISO is 6400, likely for the same underlying reason.

From the flash sync speed spec, the exact switch point for E-M5 II is likely ISO 8000. Above ISO 8000, the flash sync speed is halved

Thanks. I had the camera set to 1EV increments and forgot to change it for this test. I went back and confirmed the readout speed change starts at ISO 8000 rather than ISO 12,800.

 

[Ephemeris]

The E-M5 III has ISO-dependent readout speeds - 1/62 for ISOs <= 6400 and 1/28 for ISOs >= 12,800. It's unclear if the sensor is read slower @ high ISO for noise behavior or it's done to match a potential processing bottleneck in the imaging ASIC for NR. For video the max ISO is 6400, likely for the same underlying reason.





Full Results

• Any image (raw or jpeg) ISO <= 6400 16.23ms 1/62
• Any image (raw or jpeg) ISO >= 12800 35.34ms 1/28.29
• 4k30p/24p 12.10ms 1/82.63
• C4K24p (4096x2160) 11.42ms 1/87.49
• 1080 60p/30p/24p 11.02ms 1/90.74
• 1080 120p 7.71ms 1/129.62

Very interesting observation.

 

[Horshack]

Like E-M5 III, the OM-1 has an ISO-dependent readout speed but its cutoff is @ ISO 16,000 vs ISO 10,000 for the E-M5 III.

Also, this is the first stacked sensor I've measured that appears to use the full readout speed of the sensor for video, whereas other sensors like the Z8/Z9 and A9 use a slower-than-stills readout for video, something I discussed here. I believe this gives the OM-1 the very best rolling shutter video performance of any mainstream hybrid on the market, beating the A7s III's 8.7ms and the Sony is not even an oversampled 4K.





Full Results

• Raw ISO < 16,000 7.99ms 1/125.12
• Raw ISO >= 16,000 15.83ms 1/63.14
• 4k60p/30p/24p 8-bit 5.69ms 1/175.46
• 4k60p/30p/24p 10-bit 6.96ms 1/143.51
• C4k60p/30p/24p (4096x2160) 8-bit 5.28ms 1/189.12
• C4k60p/30p/24p (4096x2160) 10-bit 6.51ms 1/153.47
• 1080 60p/30p/24p 8-bit 5.34ms 1/187.03
• 1080 60p/30p/24p 10-bit 7.01ms 1/142.59
• 1080 120p/240p 8-bit 3.54ms 1/282.40
• 1080 120p/240p 10-bit 4.64ms 1/215.27

 

[ThrillaMozilla]

I think I would just put the camera on a phonograph turntable and photograph vertical lines. No electronics or construction needed.

I look forward to someone posting a nice table of current cameras by any method.

 

[Ephemeris]

I think I would just put the camera on a phonograph turntable and photograph vertical lines. No electronics or construction needed.

I look forward to someone posting a nice table of current cameras by any method.

He has covered approx 10 cameras.

 

[Victor Engel]

"I'm not able to fill the entire image with the small LED"

Rather than shoot the LED directly, why not shoot a diffuser, e.g., a piece of velum placed in front of the lens, illuminated by the LED?

 

[ThrillaMozilla]

I think I would just put the camera on a phonograph turntable and photograph vertical lines. No electronics or construction needed.

I look forward to someone posting a nice table of current cameras by any method.

He has covered approx 10 cameras.

Well I sure don't know where that is.

There's a figure going around the internet that isn't up to date. Also, the source of the data is unknown and the readout modes are unspecified.