SG9665GC High Contrast/Dynamic Range Flaw and other Discouragements

I'd prefer we just keep things related to firmware in this thread, constant bashing or defending does nothing to help development

if you want to help, if you find a problem, provide an unedited sample video file with a description of the problem, a list of the settings used, firmware version etc so we can replicate, screenshots are only useful if provided in context with a video file, eg here's the video file, here's a screenshot of what I found so you know what to look for at this particlar point etc etc

you can pull screenshots from any camera and find fault in some situation, saying camera X doesn't have this issue is pointless unless that camera is side by side at the time and we have video from both, I know that the other camera will falter at some other situation where we don't have problems also, that's the nature of these things, no camera works perfect under every situation
 
jokiin said:
I'd prefer we just keep things related to firmware in this thread, constant bashing or defending does nothing to help development

if you want to help, if you find a problem, provide an unedited sample video file with a description of the problem, a list of the settings used, firmware version etc so we can replicate, screenshots are only useful if provided in context with a video file, eg here's the video file, here's a screenshot of what I found so you know what to look for at this particlar point etc etc

you can pull screenshots from any camera and find fault in some situation, saying camera X doesn't have this issue is pointless unless that camera is side by side at the time and we have video from both, I know that the other camera will falter at some other situation where we don't have problems also, that's the nature of these things, no camera works perfect under every situation
Click to expand...

I agree. The whole point of my other thread is the simultaneous side by side comparisons.

Sorry to see what some newcomers have done to drag down this thread. :(
 
Dashmellow said:
People should really take the time to read and review the repeatedly referenced March 13th posted thread in it's entirety before reaching dumb insulting conclusions and making the sort of comments we are witnessing here. Please.

View attachment 24631
Click to expand...

yes they should go and read that thread to know where you're coming from, the image you posted relates to that thread and what you were pointing out, at that point in time, want to save confusion, in this thread how about we concentrate on talking about current firmware and where we're at now, I started this thread to improve development and interaction, not to keep dragging things back to past issues, to a bystander or new comer I'm sure it adds to the confusion
 
jokiin said:
yes they should go and read that thread to know where you're coming from, the image you posted relates to that thread and what you were pointing out, at that point in time, want to save confusion, in this thread how about we concentrate on talking about current firmware and where we're at now, I started this thread to improve development and interaction, not to keep dragging things back to past issues, to a bystander or new comer I'm sure it adds to the confusion
Click to expand...

I hope that didn't come off the wrong way, just want to keep this thread moving forward, to aid development, not have it go off course
 
jokiin said:
yes they should go and read that thread to know where you're coming from, the image you posted relates to that thread and what you were pointing out, at that point in time, want to save confusion, in this thread how about we concentrate on talking about current firmware and where we're at now, I started this thread to improve development and interaction, not to keep dragging things back to past issues, to a bystander or new comer I'm sure it adds to the confusion
Click to expand...

Let me just say that at the end of the day, after what for me has been a very long wait, the firmware is looking really quite a lot better and the issues I've been complaining about have come a long way to being resolved.

To quote myself from my other thread on the SG9665GC, I said back in March 2016, "The SG9665GC is in most ways a terrific, well built, capable and highly reliable camera with a lot going for it. In most ways, it deserves its reputation and popularity with the exception of what I perceive as this major flaw".

So please consider some of the stupid uninformed comments from these DCT newcomer fanboys before reaching any conclusions about my alleged motives.
 
Dashmellow said:
Let me just say that at the end of the day, after what for me had been a very long wait, the firmware is looking really quite a lot better and the issues I've been complaining about have come a long way to being resolved..
Click to expand...

thank you, we know it has improved, but, we also know we have plenty left to do, in no way is it final, I have never implied that to be the case ever

I know better than anyone here what needs doing, I drive our engineer nuts with changes and adjustments I have him doing, sometimes things go backwards before they go forwards, you guys don't get to see a lot of that as we don't intentionally share anything publicly that goes backwards so maybe sometimes you think nothing is happening, or it has been forgotten about or whatever but that's so far from reality it's not funny, I'd like to start living in the current moment though instead of dwelling on where we've been before we got to where we are right now, it's all about moving forward :)
 
Oh good Lord...:rolleyes:

@Dashmellow does have a very valid point, I have the issues sometimes too and would certainly like to see a fix. Other cameras don't blow out the contrast/brightness, so it's a flaw under certain circumstances. If the camera works good for you, great. But some of us are having issues and we would like to see them fixed. Calling people childish names is of no help to anyone.

Let's all get back on topic...please?
 
azchrisf said:
Oh good Lord...:rolleyes:

@Dashmellow does have a very valid point, I have the issues sometimes too and would certainly like to see a fix. Other cameras don't blow out the contrast/brightness, so it's a flaw under certain circumstances. If the camera works good for you, great. But some of us are having issues and we would like to see them fixed. Calling people childish names is of no help to anyone.

Let's all get back on topic...please?
Click to expand...

Blackdog said:
Well said Marc.
Click to expand...

I will accept my part in this but Mr. @cruze and Mr. @sam rothberg decided to suddenly appear here yesterday to start attacking and insulting me simply because they didn't like the perfectly valid critiques I've brought forth regarding fairly serious exposure flaws quite a few of us have experienced with this camera for more than a year now. I simply won't stand for anyone relentlessly abusing me in this manner regardless of the fallout. In most other forums I've ever participated in there is more vigilant moderation than we tend to have here or DCT and this can one of the unfortunate consequences.

While I do sincerely apologize for the unfortunate disruption but I do not apologize for publicly discussing valid, well documented, long term issues that numerous SG9665GC owners have reported with their cameras and should not be attacked over it.

I am a bit dismayed that this is still even going on here because like everyone else, I've had about enough of it, yet I fully expect the usual suspects to resume their trolling any time now. Nevertheless, I would encourage everyone to call it a day and go back to discussing the firmware.
 
Last edited:
Dashmellow said:
I will accept my part in this but Mr, @cruze and Mr. @sam rothberg decided to suddenly appear here yesterday to start attacking and insulting me simply because they didn't like the perfectly valid critiques I've brought forth regarding fairly serious exposure flaws quite a few of us have experienced with this camera for more than a year now. I simply won't stand for anyone relentlessly abusing me in this manner regardless of the fallout. In most other forums I've ever participated in there is more vigilant moderation than we tend to have here or DCT and this can one of the unfortunate consequences.

While I do sincerely apologize for the unfortunate disruption but I do not apologize for publicly discussing valid, well documented, long term issues than numerous SG9665GC owners have reported with their cameras and should not be attacked over it.

I am a bit dismayed that this is still even going on here because like everyone else, I've had about enough of it, yet I fully expect the usual suspects to resume their trolling any time now. Nevertheless, I would encourage everyone to call it a day and go back to discussing the firmware.
Click to expand...
Ok you win I apologize. Please accept and carry on with your concerns.
 
Dashmellow said:
I've been frustrated for sure, it's been a long slog but I said I'm still hanging in there. The issues I brought up in May 2015 have turned out to be quite real despite yours and jokiins initial disclaimers and that is why they are now finally being addressed. You seem to object to anyone who is vocal who may not be a total disciple.
Click to expand...
geez, glad you didn't buy a blackspew camera, you would have committed suicide by now as no one around to listen to you to fix anything.
 
wozzzzza said:
geez, glad you didn't buy a blackspew camera, you would have committed suicide by now as no one around to listen to you to fix anything.
Click to expand...

Of course that it is a camera that receives nowhere near all the hype and promotion this one does as, "best camera on the market today for video quality........and support."

Anyway, after what happened here previously with the trolling from a fake member with multiple accounts why not give it a rest and not kick the hornets nest all over again?
 
Last edited:
Dashmellow said:
I agree. The whole point of my other thread is the simultaneous side by side comparisons.
Click to expand...
Well, lets get on with that then. Not side by side but only 7 minutes apart. (I cut off 100 px at the top and 440 a the bottom)

Overall brightness is increased with the FULL setting, as expected because the dark bonnet also "counts".
The average count on a 0-255 RGB is 87,90,88 for FULL and 66, 68.5, 70 for the LOW so red and green are decreased by 24% while blue only goes down 20%.

I do like the shorter exposure time as it decreases the motion blur, (speeds are the same) and with some postprocessing I think it will provide better images.
 
pTWIvcw.jpg


Just experimenting with some filters. full frame remains blurry but the shorter exposure on the LOW and a gamma of 1.45 gives a nicer picture. The level is basically a rescale which throws away the top 40% of the intensities.
 
Feitelijk said:
Just experimenting with some filters. full frame remains blurry but the shorter exposure on the LOW and a gamma of 1.45 gives a nicer picture. The level is basically a rescale which throws away the top 40% of the intensities.
Click to expand...
huh? English??
 
Oh sorry, forgot you're australian:

˙sǝᴉʇᴉsuǝʇuᴉ ǝɥʇ ɟo %0ㄣ doʇ ǝɥʇ ʎɐʍɐ sʍoɹɥʇ ɥɔᴉɥʍ ǝlɐɔsǝɹ ɐ ʎllɐɔᴉsɐq sᴉ lǝʌǝl ǝɥ┴ ˙ǝɹnʇɔᴉd ɹǝɔᴉu ɐ sǝʌᴉƃ ϛㄣ˙Ɩ ɟo ɐɯɯɐƃ ɐ puɐ MO˥ ǝɥʇ uo ǝɹnsodxǝ ɹǝʇɹoɥs ǝɥʇ ʇnq ʎɹɹnlq suᴉɐɯǝɹ ǝɯɐɹɟ llnɟ ˙sɹǝʇlᴉɟ ǝɯos ɥʇᴉʍ ƃuᴉʇuǝɯᴉɹǝdxǝ ʇsnſ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top