Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Motion & Video => Topic started by: fredjeang on June 18, 2011, 03:47:34 pm
-
here: http://zacuto.com/
-
"...only cameras from the pro lines were used..." ::)
Nikon D7000 ? ???
I am surprised how well the 7D performed.
-
I'd wondered what had happened to the D3s, perhaps only cameras that could do 1080 were considered.
-
Ive had some pretty negative feedback in another place on this one !
Im interested in the FS100 and AF100
I thought their highlight tests seemed misconceived
Trying to pull back clipped highlights rather than exposing for the highs and pulling the mids up
Im also disbeleiving of the dynamic range tests, As they dont account for colour abberations in the high end or noise in the low
Hopefully these cameras (F3 AF100) dont look that terrible when used properly
S
-
Ive had some pretty negative feedback in another place on this one !
Im interested in the FS100 and AF100
I thought their highlight tests seemed misconceived
Trying to pull back clipped highlights rather than exposing for the highs and pulling the mids up
Im also disbeleiving of the dynamic range tests, As they dont account for colour abberations in the high end or noise in the low
Hopefully these cameras (F3 AF100) dont look that terrible when used properly
S
Yes,
I'm sort of cautious about those tests. Any kind of tests made in this spirit.
To be honest I was expecting something else.
Those testings can give a based info but a camera model always has strenghs and wicknesses and in the end a good operator knows to deal with the characteristics of his-her tools so...IMO to take with a safe distance.
-
Assuming you are serious in your critique, the guys who frequent these Zacuto shorts are heavy lifters in movie world, some with literally decades of cutting-edge movie production with Hollywood budgets.
I haven't seen this new video, yet, but the Emmy-winning (http://www.zacuto.com/zacuto-emmy) 2010 version included incredible talent, including Shane Hurlbut (cinematographer for Terminator: Salvation) and Stephen Goldblatt (cinematographer for many movies from Lethal Weapon to Julie & Julia). These guys know what they're doing, and they have the box office clout and awards to show for it. It was the series which convinced me that video DSLRs are a viable motion platform, and was part of the reason why I was so excited about the AG-AF100.
What I'm saying is that I would be shocked if there was a fundamental flaw in their methodology, and especially on critique from internet heroes with two-three years experience in motion, all of that with DSLRs - not necessarily directed at anyone in this thread as I don't know your backgrounds. Not saying it's possible that they did something wrong; perhaps they don't fully appreciate the nuances and differences of digital capture and post since most of the guys in the 2010 shorts had worked with film before.
Thanks for the heads up, Fred, I'll check the video out!
-
Assuming you are serious in your critique, the guys who frequent these Zacuto shorts are heavy lifters in movie world, some with literally decades of cutting-edge movie production with Hollywood budgets.
I think this Zacuto series is the best testing I've seen, but in all honesty all of this goes out the window once real production starts.
If your a film guy, you shoot film, if your shooting episodic TV or a film with a lot of effects of 3d it's probably digital video, but be clear, there is not probably 4 dp's or camera operators living that don't have a 5d/7d in their backpack and every production it comes out, film or video.
It's the same with stills. You read all the time on these forums somebody will say I'd never shoot with anything less than my 200 mpx, Mamdog 98, with a zeicomed lens, then they get the gig and shoot it all with a 5d2 because the client, AD or someone says it's not real enough or looks flat footed.
We've just started a large production and did the first day of style testing shot with the RED and the 5d. The RED images, though superior in a technical view of static and well, just not real looking because the camera weighs more than a corolla and you just can't move it around that fast without a back brace. The 5d stuff looks real, fresh and cool (or is that kewl?).
This is the way it's always been. It's not horses for courses, it's what looks more modern and sells. All the testing in the world doesn't change that.
IMO
BC
-
Edit (I cross posted with BC, this is a response to Feppe)
While not all of their methodologies are entirely clear I think the 'heavy lifter of the cine world' is a poor defence of their skills
I wager that many members of this board will have far more years experience of digital image capture than them and especially more experience at taking an image from choosing initial exposure through to final optimised output
S
-
I agree with Morgan.
The problem with film guys is 1. They rarely own their own expensive cameras and 2. They're stuck in a slow flat footed film world.
I hire film crews all the time and the older guys that use cranes, dollies, etc. just roll their eyes if you grab a camera and start shooting, though the stuff with cranes and dollies might have a place, most of the time it just looks slow and overthought.
Motion imagery is difficult to make it look good and make it look believeable and doing what was done with a 45lb film camera is not the way the world is going.
Don't get me wrong, I find the Canon 5d/7d a nightmare when it comes to post production and color and tone. It shifts, it moves, it's never that stable, but it's also an affordable alternative and if you drop it in the water or off the hood of a car, who gives a shit cause it cost 1/100th of a Cooke Lens.
Anyway, film guys are film guys, still guys use to be still guys, but they are closer than ever to doing the same job.
I can promise you that.
IMO
BC
P.S. I do not know Mr. Shane H. but I can tell you from what I've seen if I was an actor on set I'd go balistic also. You have to let the talent work, you have to be ready you have to be adaptable and this is not about technique, it's about catching the moment . . . that believable moment.
-
My experiece is the old guy by the crane is the one who knows how to get something usable from the trendy ideas of the younger DP - but thats a different topic
Those craft people are awesome !
I am very much looking to move on from my DSLRs and get a Fs100, AF100 or if I have to an F3
In these tests they looked to have less mojo than the DSLRs
ie Technically they blow the highlights in a horrible manner (so it would seem)
My theory that being 800 base they are 'hot' like my D3 (and D1 certainly was)
And that if exposed less and manipulated in the low mid tones they would have performed better
Now, Im in the dark, I cant test these cams my self and dont trust the methodologies of those who have the access to test
Which is frustrating for all, especially as I have the cash burning a hole in my pocket !
Mr Cooter you know your exposure and post processing well, have a watch on my behalf and what do you think ?
A) the AF, F3 have no mojo
B) they were just horribly blown in the tests ?
S
-
That was a good watch.
As to BC's comments, I think you're coming from a different perspective. I don't know many of the guys in the episode, but given Zacuto's background they are probably from feature film and episodic TV background - ie. high production values, big crews, very strict minimum IQ requirements (although don't get me started on reality TV).
And as a film geek I'm all for it - there's a place for multi-minute Steadicam shots like in Children of Men or Atonement, but I'll take thought-out and planned tripod or dolly or crane shots 99% of the time over winging it with Steadicam or handheld in movies. It's the difference between shotgunning it in a fashion shoot over planning every detail in a landscape shot; there's a place for everything.
Ive had some pretty negative feedback in another place on this one !
Im interested in the FS100 and AF100
I thought their highlight tests seemed misconceived
Trying to pull back clipped highlights rather than exposing for the highs and pulling the mids up
People on that "another place" didn't really watch the video, or understand what they were testing. As said in the first minutes of the episode, they were not out to show how each camera looks when they are at their best. They specifically went to extremes to show how they perform at their worst.
The DR scene was exposed identically between the two scenes: each camera had their own setting, but they didn't change the exposure when switching scenes. This shows the workable DR of a camera. It was essentially the same test as the light bulb test from last year, but now they did it in two separate scenes. I was surprised just how bad the DSLRs and AF-100 performed.
In a real world shooting scenario they would change exposure, and not light the scene to overexpose the window of course.
Im also disbeleiving of the dynamic range tests, As they dont account for colour abberations in the high end or noise in the low
This was addressed in the video, where many commentators lamented the yellow shift of AF-100 and F3 in the highlights, and discussed the noise and lack of detail in shadows.
While not all of their methodologies are entirely clear I think the 'heavy lifter of the cine world' is a poor defence of their skills
I'm aware that reproducible and falsifiable research is frowned upon here, but would you rather listen to someone with decades of experience in lighting, shooting and post-processing films or TV, aided by an army of professionals, or some random guy on the internet who's experience with cinematography is limited to drooling over Cooke MTF charts?
-
The people I listen to on manipulation of digital images are people like Mr Cooter who I know have years working with digital at a high level and creating beautiful results
I understand that these (testers) people are experienced with film, and also digital TV stuff (which tends AFAIK to have a way higher bandwidth the F35 for instance and I guess more headroom)
No one has more than two years of shooting 'narrow band' large sensor digital motion because its only two years old.
IMO the closest experience is shooting early non raw digi stills cams like the D1
Now you can test a camera in a challenging situation, one with wide DR or low light levels
But how you set it will affect the results
Say for example the film cameras had been on F22 for the dark tests they would not have performed too well
I think we have similar (or rather the opposite) here where the 800 ISO base cameras were not stopped down enough
While their methodology is not clear, I guess that testing different cameras with different base ISOs is subjject to interpreation of the exposure to choose and the post route taken
Would you agree with my opinion that when shooting baked jpg on a stills camera that it is best to expose for the highs and pull up the mids or expose for the mids and try to rescue the highs when presented with a wide DR situation?
S
-
If their methodology was to just leave the cameras on the best lowlight setting and then take them to a brighter place that is a strange methodology indeed
I understand that tuning the fill to optimise a camera was not in the test and reasonably so because in the real world you cant always tune the fill
I dont really care about the test, Im just looking to evaluate the mid range cameras before buying .. or not
but there are not many other sources of informaton out there right now
S
-
Zacuto's test is a huge work. In fact, I can't think about any testings in stills or motion that has been pushed so far, the test itself is serious.
But we shouldn't take out of the context because then, there are a lot of parameters.
The imagery always evolves culturally. Sometimes, technology allows it like I think it is the case. The paths are not statics. We are getting used to another dynamic and imagery and the cranes and rails and 50 trucks to get a decent lightning are numbered.
DSLRs video have created a revolution because they are drawing a language, a new language and kids have already adopted it. Everything is going lighter, more freedom, more dynamic, less "perfect", fresh
our culture wants that.
I don't think it will go backwards.
Almodovar films with film, but they actually used a 5D2 for a scene because it was the only camera that could fit in the space to get the angle he wanted. A girl who worked with him told me the story the other day.
Back to Zacuto, the blowing highlights of the Pana and 5D2 does not seem normal to me, at least not at that point. Actually, they mention it in the movie that in the end, every camera is a world in itself and in real work, you get use of what and how to do. It's exactly like a Horse, it has personality and you learn to deal with it and in the end, conducting it where you want.
So those testing are informatives but give a GH2 or a 7D to a super director and nobody would think if it was a 200000 € camera.
Cooter pointed an important thing, the cine directors are not camera operators. They don't give a damn about things that are resolved by a team and don't own their cameras. This test would have been (maybe) much perfect if an experienced operator on each model presented setted the camera, they tried to do it but I don't think they reached that point. At least it is the sensation I have.
-
If their methodology was to just leave the cameras on the best lowlight setting and then take them to a brighter place that is a strange methodology indeed
Not so strange for the purposes they were using it. They wanted to show what the real-world dynamic range is for each camera, to complement the rather dull hole test they had at the beginning of the video. For that it is entirely valid approach as far as I can tell, although subjective. The hole test and the accompanying DR charts were the (mostly) objective test.
Would you agree with my opinion that when shooting baked jpg on a stills camera that it is best to expose for the highs and pull up the mids or expose for the mids and try to rescue the highs when presented with a wide DR situation?
Yes, but for the third time, that was not the purpose of the Zacuto test.
Valid criticism on the ISO 800 you mentioned, but that's briefly discussed in the video as well. Would like to hear some more on that.
Back to Zacuto, the blowing highlights of the Pana and 5D2 does not seem normal to me, at least not at that point. Actually, they mention it in the movie that in the end, every camera is a world in itself and in real work, you get use of what and how to do. It's exactly like a Horse, it has personality and you learn to deal with it and in the end, conducting it where you want.
So those testing are informatives but give a GH2 or a 7D to a super director and nobody would think if it was a 200000 € camera.
Yes, this was a surprising conclusion to a technical clip. I'm sure they purposefully left that at the end of the episode to highlight the importance of a solid script and great talent and crew.
Careful lighting would show the branches in the bright background just fine on every single camera in the test, and noise-free shadows in the dark scene, but that was not the purpose of the test.
-
Well its strange to me
If I wanted to do a DR test I would have just photographed a single wide DR scene
As for the other DR test - the technical spotty thing It was useful but as one of the comentators to the film said there was not a close examination of the spots so while the darks may have read we did not get to see the S/N ratio (ie how noisy the darks were)
Because the top end was in whole stop steps we did not get to see roll off of the highs either
To me the 5d looked better (than the AF/F3) in the wide DR situation because while it clipped earlyier than the F3 and AF it did so in a visually appealing manner
To me a smooth clipping is the key to 'mojo' - it is what film is famous for and something I see on my 5d2 (motion and my hassy and D3 for stills)
It is also technically important because when one can let the highs bleed out one can keep noise from out of the shadows
S
-
Here is another "test" of the FS100 http://www.vimeo.com/groups/fs100/videos/25438776
Which is guess is similar to the F3 or AF100 or somewhere in the middle
One again the operator seems to simply be over exposing, or maybe the 5d is just 'better'
I think many film people are just tuned to a different way of exposging/choosing Fstop
S
-
I think film directors are secretly closet still photographers.
I know the hardest thing as a still photographer moving to motion is to say "f&^%k" the technique, get the shot, get the emotion.
I mean I love the Cohen Bros and they are great dialog directors, (though they also spend $200,000,000) for a project, but in a way their atmosphere imagery reminds me of a still guy.
It's like did you see the majestic mountains, hold it, I'll do a slow pan, then dissolve and now did you see it? Good cause I'll show it from another angle and maybe do a helicopter shot so you see it even wider.
OK, now you got it, we're in the mountains.
_____________________________________________
Now that's the movie world, let's go to our world.
Let's face it 99% of everything everyone shoots in commerce is going on the web and that's a different medium. I'm not saying to hand hold everything, but slow dolly, pan the room shots get damn boring on a small screen.
The new world is fast, the new world grabs attention now, the new world is 2 minutes long.
I'm not advocating jerky, non professional production, but I'm also saying that the world of the web is Run Lola Run, not Gone With The Wind.
I love the RED, it shoots great, it weighs a ton, it takes a week to start and I use it every project, but I know for a fact that the imagery the client's like best comes from small cameras because it's less staged more believable.
The best RED imagery I've seen is from Southland
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdVX9IsbTD8
because it's real, it's fast, I believe I'm there and it tells a great story. Everytime I see a background shot of this production there is a RED, but there is also a 5d.
IMO
BC
-
I think film directors are secretly closet still photographers.
Lol, could very well be.
I mean I love the Cohen Bros and they are great dialog directors, (though they also spend $200,000,000) for a project, but in a way their atmosphere imagery reminds me of a still guy.
It's like did you see the majestic mountains, hold it, I'll do a slow pan, then dissolve and now did you see it? Good cause I'll show it from another angle and maybe do a helicopter shot so you see it even wider.
OK, now you got it, we're in the mountains.
Well, that's exactly what I was talking about in my previous post. Coen brothers shoot two-hour films at 24 fps for screens the size of a barn. You shoot two-minute stories at 30 (?) fps for 24 inch screens. If you shoot fast pans or non-Steadicam handheld shots on 24 fps and project on a big screen, they look jerky, and are jarring and tiring for the audience who has to look at that footage for 90+ minutes. There were reports of people getting nauseated when watching Blair Witch Project in theaters. Entirely different mediums.
I'm sure there will be more Run Lola Runs and Cloverfields, but by and large those will remain anomalies, and such techniques will remain special effects rather than a filming style. If 48 fps as advocated by some, and discussed here before, takes off it would greatly improve the look of fast(er) pans and cuts. I'm not so sure I want my movies to be fully MTV-ied, though.
-
Lol, could very well be.
Well, that's exactly what I was talking about in my previous post. Coen brothers shoot two-hour films at 24 fps for screens the size of a barn. You shoot two-minute stories at 30 (?) fps for 24 inch screens. If you shoot fast pans or non-Steadicam handheld shots on 24 fps and project on a big screen, they look jerky, and are jarring and tiring for the audience who has to look at that footage for 90+ minutes. There were reports of people getting nauseated when watching Blair Witch Project in theaters. Entirely different mediums.
I'm sure there will be more Run Lola Runs and Cloverfields, but by and large those will remain anomalies, and such techniques will remain special effects rather than a filming style. If 48 fps as advocated by some, and discussed here before, takes off it would greatly improve the look of fast(er) pans and cuts. I'm not so sure I want my movies to be fully MTV-ied, though.
Not everything needs to be jerky or "mtv" (wow that's a 1986 term) but the ONLY reasons clients show product or service in any form of photography is for the believability.
I know, I know, every still photographer wants to "paint" an image to make it sureal, but how many clients are buying that? What they want is for someone to drink a beer and walk out of the room with the hot chick and make YOU the beer buyer believe it's possible.
Maybe it's just the mood I'm in, but I'm tired of twenty two lights and camera angles that take 21 minutes to find. I'm bored with let's do a few run throughs to make sure we don't drop a line.
I dig fast, I dig pretty, I dig cool but most of all I dig believable.
If the imagery doesn't motivate me to believe I want it then they might as well just draw the ad or the spot.
Digitally we're drawing it anyway . . . most of the time.
IMO
BC
-
Not everything needs to be jerky or "mtv" (wow that's a 1986 term) but the ONLY reasons clients show product or service in any form of photography is for the believability.
It's an old term, but MTV pioneered (over) use of fast cuts and jerkiness, and little has changed since '86. It used to be called "gritty" in the 90s, not sure what the current term is.
As for the rest of your rant :P I'm sure we all agree that there's a place for both the realistic (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0964517/)and for the surreal (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0238380/)in both cinematography and commercial motion photography. I'm sure cost of big crews, cameras and lighting will push all motion mediums towards DSLR/AF-100/RED -type cameras in the medium/long term. And I'm also sure it will bring a new renaissance of feature film making, which we can already see with tiny tiny budgets but big stories.
And yes, I'm done with Christian Bale references for today :P
-
"Closet Photographer" ? Deakins who shoots for the Cohens is a still photographer trained by James Ravilous who is famous in my Locale for his B+W of local characters and life (http://www.beaford-arts.org.uk/index.php?id=153)
Interestingly Mr Ravilous work (now quite old) is not grabbing (or webbie?) but has space for the eye to wander the frame
-----
On the technical thing its that pleasant look from the 5d that makes shooting so spontanious because it doesnt need too much lighting - IMO - Im worried that this is not the case for the mid level vid cams AF100 and F3
S
-
It's an old term, but MTV pioneered (over) use of fast cuts and jerkiness, and little has changed since '86. It used to be called "gritty" in the 90s, not sure what the current term is.
As for the rest of your rant :P I'm sure we all agree that there's a place for both the realistic (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0964517/)and for the surreal (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0238380/)in both cinematography and commercial motion photography. I'm sure cost of big crews, cameras and lighting will push all motion mediums towards DSLR/AF-100/RED -type cameras in the medium/long term. And I'm also sure it will bring a new renaissance of feature film making, which we can already see with tiny tiny budgets but big stories.
And yes, I'm done with Christian Bale references for today :P
I wasn't making fun of your quote about mtv, I just hear it all the time, along with gritty, real, bohemian, etc. and when we get to work it's steady, smooth, manicured and slick.
Whew!
And I wasn't ranting, it's just like stills, what goes on in the creative meetings rarely comes out of the camera.
Anyway . . .
I was told that a large still camera company was called into the hollywood studios to ask about how to make their dslrs the standard for production. I'm not kidding and even the camera company reps kind of left shaking their heads thinking "that'll never work", that is thought process running through the exec. offices.
Still, costs in everything are being held back . . . well not really, I guess what I should have said was costs of doing business better have a high profit return or nobody will bite.
I just bid out an effect for a video we're producing for a client.
One group, with an older though much much much more expensive computer and software suite wanted $225,000 for the effect, one group using off the shelf software wanted $52,000. Guess who got the gig?
Hollywood, regardless of what everyone thinks is hit hard. When I work on the Sony lot, every sound stage, in 2001 (yes I'm dating myself) had 30 people standing around scratching their bums and eating at the craft service table. Today if you look into a stage you'd think it's empty because everyone is around the set working.
It's a different world and when people, even TV or movie people talk, they always say "make sure it plays on the web. Will this work in 2"?
IMO
BC
-
"Closet Photographer" ? Deakins who shoots for the Cohens is a still photographer
S
There is a place and a style for everything. Thank God or it would be a boring world.
Anyway . . .
Roger Deakins is a great cinematographer and I'm NOT knocking him, but trained in stills? That explains it.
IMO
BC
-
I think that maybe the main difficulty when moving to motion is keeping the freshness. Let's face it, for most of us it is a new workflow, more complex, that involves many technical aspects that still doesn't have and there is an adaptation. Experienced photographers end to know how to keep the story, the emotion but with a new language, although similar we are not suddenly dancing ballet, it's a more difficult chalenge.
I'm convinced that still photographers will do very well in motion. I said that from the beginning of the convergence and I'm more convinced than ever.
When I first saw the Cooter movie of the race track I thought: Whao! Because it looked deeply authentic, spontanious. Maybe it wasn't, maybe it was planified and heavy artillery set but it looks it wasn't and that's the point IMO.
This movie has guts, soul, tenderness, almost everything. Very cool grading and IMO pretty impressive result.
edit: Actually, I just realised writting this that the still picture of James I like most comes from the same session.
Then, it's all about keeping this spirit, and it's not easy because we often tend to elaborate after awhile, it can be more a burden sometimes until another step is done and back to the essence.
-
I'm convinced that still photographers will do very well in motion. I said that from the beginning of the convergence and I'm more convinced than ever.
I'm convinced that they do well in cinematography, but not at all convinced they will do well in story-telling. For that you need a script and a dedicated and competent crew. Too many still photographers think they can be a one-man production crew, from scriptwriting to DOP to producing. There are way too many short films which are shot beautifully but don't have a plot, let alone a story, and don't resonate on any emotional level outside of the aesthetic.
There are only a handful of great cinema directors who also write, shoot and produce. There are some who try, but fail. So it's not a failure of the still shooters. But it's something to keep in mind when moving to motion.
-
I'm convinced that they do well in cinematography, but not at all convinced they will do well in story-telling. For that you need a script and a dedicated and competent crew. Too many still photographers think they can be a one-man production crew, from scriptwriting to DOP to producing. There are way too many short films which are shot beautifully but don't have a plot, let alone a story, and don't resonate on any emotional level outside of the aesthetic.
There are only a handful of great cinema directors who also write, shoot and produce. There are some who try, but fail. So it's not a failure of the still shooters. But it's something to keep in mind when moving to motion.
It's a good observation. I share those thoughts.
-
I'll tell you the camera I don't get, though I would love to buy if it worked, is the Sony NEX f700 or 7000 or whatever it's called.
It looks like a medium format camera, shoots high or low and seems to have everything, other than some very strange processing and way too much plastic.
Still, if it had the range of a 5d2 with the technicolor settings I'd be on it like flies on S*&t. Also I don't understand why video can't rate sensitivity, but that's probably marketing land and I'm kind of full of marketing land.
When it really comes down to it, as crazy a setup as a 5d/7d is, with Zeiss lenses, a better screen and some patience those cameras do a remarkable job for a lot of work.
IMO
BC
-
Cooter
You talking about the FS 100 ? (http://www.sony.co.uk/biz/product/nxcamcorders/nex-fs100e/overview )
By "plastic" do you mean the horrid highlights ?
Thats the camera that I want but the highs are holding me back
great form factor, good resolution, less jellos, onboard sound, better HDMI lead position and plug than a DSLR, takes many lenses including PL and has loads of bolt holes for a solid mount
Now I own a sony EX1 - its kind of a 2/3 chip version of the same
You might be interested in this test I just did with my EX1 , the mission of the test: to push the highs so hard that the plastic melts !
I would hope that I could do better with the FS100
http://www.vimeo.com/25499627
S
-
Morgan,
I find the Knee usefull.
What I find strange in your explaination is that you seems to object that it flattens the image and loose contrast. It does, but if your goal is to get the shot as much as possible from the shooting, I understand this view. But color grading artists (that could be also you) want the flattest possible footage with the wider possible DR. From there they can work.
Trying to get the results with the maximum visual accuracy from the shooting is, at least for me, a path that I've abandonned. Actually my camera controls are all setted to minimum (contrast, saturation, etc...) and isos define the DR because I think that the PP stage is fully a part of the process, I even consider the primary color grading like if it was a part of the shooting itself. I took this position after talking with different color artists in several countries and they all stressed me the importance of a neutral flat image first. My point is that I would not worry about this lost of contrast and flattened image if the result is that you gained iformations in the Highs, on the contrary!
Then, all the stuff comes to life with whatever AE, Scratch or Da-Vinci softwares. IMHO.
-
I am not sure that I agree
Yes a flatter profile collects more DR but if the data collected is so 'plastic' as to be of no use its better not to have it
In the zacuto test the 7d and 5d blow, the 5d blows best, showing the least 'plastic' artifacts
The AF and F3 dont blow as bad but they go very plastic
I think this is the magic of the 5d - it does not collect crap
I see knee as a trade off, by flattening the image you are collecting less 'micro contrast' small changes in colour level in exchange for more 'DR'
Once that lack of contrast becomes flat enough for the 8 bit colour space cannot to resolve it properly you get blocks of colour all the same - plastic
Once two areas do not resolve from each other one cannot seperate them in a grade because there is no difference to amplify
I think these vid cams are tuned to have big DR but actually this just means plastic
Once you dial that DR out you have a nicer image
but maybe you need to modify your lighting make it work
Im not saying Im right, im just testing a theory, however when you swing the curves too much in photoshop on a still image you will be well aware that when the gradient of the curve becomes too flat in a range the image looks strange !
here is the knee stuff on the sony site http://www.sony-asia.com/microsite/professional/hdv/pdf/HVR-Z7_S270Tutorial_e7.pdf
Id never do that curve on a still image ! (unless it was RAW and you were actually pulling data into the visible range)
S
-
I am not sure that I agree
Yes a flatter profile collects more DR but if the data collected is so 'plastic' as to be of no use its better not to have it
In the zacuto test the 7d and 5d blow, the 5d blows best, showing the least 'plastic' artifacts
The AF and F3 dont blow as bad but they go very plastic
I think this is the magic of the 5d - it does not collect crap
I see knee as a trade off, by flattening the image you are collecting less 'micro contrast' small changes in colour level in exchange for more 'DR'
Once that lack of contrast becomes flat enough for the 8 bit colour space cannot to resolve it properly you get blocks of colour all the same - plastic
Once two areas do not resolve from each other one cannot seperate them in a grade because there is no difference to amplify
I think these vid cams are tuned to have big DR but actually this just means plastic
Once you dial that DR out you have a nicer image
but maybe you need to modify your lighting make it work
Im not saying Im right, im just testing a theory, however when you swing the curves too much in photoshop on a still image you will be well aware that when the gradient of the curve becomes too flat in a range the image looks strange !
here is the knee stuff on the sony site http://www.sony-asia.com/microsite/professional/hdv/pdf/HVR-Z7_S270Tutorial_e7.pdf
Id never do that curve on a still image !
S
I think it's not going to extremes. You are saying also good points. I think it is finding a balanced situation. It's funny, reducing control levels on dslr are not producing extreme results but manageable images. AS you point, there is a frontier better not crossing. But what I find yes key are the isos.
About blowing highlights, check that thread here. Very very informative: http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?12536-Understanding-ISO-with-the-RED-ONE
-
Indeed - finding a balanced situation
but my suspicion is that these cameras are so ramped (down) at the top the balanced position may be no where near where 'the knowledgable' people would put it
I think if I could kill the saturation top end in my 109 knee (no knee at all) in post it would be a more 5d like image, I would have to forget the myth that the camera has wide DR and use a grad on the sky or a light or something
but the results would be better
Interesting detail on the chair weave !
view large.. http://dslr4real.tv/smmspace/webimages/dslr4real/Knee1.jpg
some grabs..
(http://dslr4real.tv/smmspace/webimages/dslr4real/Knee1.jpg)
S
-
Got the FS100 - trying 'superknee' to avoid plastic .. I think it looks hopeful
http://www.vimeo.com/25911268 (http://www.vimeo.com/25911268)
Same would work on the F3 Im sure
S
-
Just a some notes.
The tests were NOT done by Zacuto, but were financed by them, & Kessler Cranes. There were many other vendors that provided equipment too, but the tests were run by Bob Primes, ASC.
http://thescce.org/Single_Chip_Camera_Evaluation/SCCE_brought_to_you_by_Image_Quality_Geeks.html
Zacuto made a documentary about the tests, & calls it "The Great Camera Shootout 2011".
Anyone who's tested cameras, &/or films, knows how difficult it is to be comprehensive, & Bob Primes did a great job. Many DPs have issues with the tests, as each camera could have been tweaked to look better in a specific scenario, but the tests would have ballooned in scale. The camera companies were invited to provide technicians, but some of them declined.
All tests were at ISO 800 with tungsten lighting. As someone who rarely gets to use tungstens I'd love to see other lights tested, but understand why they used incandescent.
http://www.oscars.org/science-technology/council/projects/ssl/index.html
Overall the SCCE is a snapshot of the state of digital cinema in early 2011. The FS100 wasn't on the market yet, nor was the F3's firmware upgrade, while the GH2, & EPIC were hard to come by. As such the SCCE is an amazing resource, & I wish everyone could see it on the big screen, but it's only a stepping off point, & like any medium, requires each of us to do our own testing to determine which best suits our individual needs.
Best,
Bern
-
Just a some notes.
The tests were NOT done by Zacuto, but were financed by them, & Kessler Cranes. There were many other vendors that provided equipment too, but the tests were run by Bob Primes, ASC.
http://thescce.org/Single_Chip_Camera_Evaluation/SCCE_brought_to_you_by_Image_Quality_Geeks.html
Zacuto made a documentary about the tests, & calls it "The Great Camera Shootout 2011".
Anyone who's tested cameras, &/or films, knows how difficult it is to be comprehensive, & Bob Primes did a great job. Many DPs have issues with the tests, as each camera could have been tweaked to look better in a specific scenario, but the tests would have ballooned in scale. The camera companies were invited to provide technicians, but some of them declined.
All tests were at ISO 800 with tungsten lighting. As someone who rarely gets to use tungstens I'd love to see other lights tested, but understand why they used incandescent.
http://www.oscars.org/science-technology/council/projects/ssl/index.html
Overall the SCCE is a snapshot of the state of digital cinema in early 2011. The FS100 wasn't on the market yet, nor was the F3's firmware upgrade, while the GH2, & EPIC were hard to come by. As such the SCCE is an amazing resource, & I wish everyone could see it on the big screen, but it's only a stepping off point, & like any medium, requires each of us to do our own testing to determine which best suits our individual needs.
Best,
Bern
As Bern knows, test in a testing situation don't always correlate to real world, though the Zacuto test was very good and informative.
In fact the Arri seems to be the best of the bunch in terms of traditional film look, at least to my eyes.
The real thing is how they work in real life, on a set, when time and budget are considered and all of these cameras fall into different markets, different projects and different styles.
We routinely use the FS100 next to our two RED Ones and the 5d2.
All have their place though as far as ease of camera use I love the FS100 (though I hate all the small fiddled buttons on the camera, because at speed they are very difficult to adjust
The FS100 would be the perfect camera, if the controls were more solid and it didn't clip highlights so easy.
Yesterday, on an overcast day in Bangkok, we were shooting in a park and wanted to have large buildings in the background as two joggers ran past.
The FS100 just wouldn't hold the sky and buildings, without making the key image of the joggers quite dark.
The RED held both, though we shot both cameras and with the Sony used led's and fill cards to open the foreground scene and not make it look over-lit.
With the RED all it took was some light natural light fill.
But past the technique, the camera use, the size, to me of all the cameras I own, including still cameras, the RED is the most filmic and I know the term film covers a wide swath of territory.
The interesting thing about the Sony is with its kit zoom lens it looks video, real video and with the Ziess A mount lenses less video, but that's probably because we shoot them wide open.
The RED always looks like cinema film though i'd love to get my hands on an Arri.
Regardless, we have to get the shot and sometimes the FS100 just is easier, faster, and does it and since we've owned the Sony, we use the Canons less and less and less.
The RED's we always use.
IMO
BC
P.S. Sony always seems like the wildcard of the bunch. It's obvious they could do about anything they want, from high end to low end, or even the middle priced range like the FS100.
But, like the Zacuto test mentioned Sony is know for video, not film cameras and maybe that's when seems to hold them back just a little, or maybe they think video just looks better.
Early on Sony had their ENG market to protect, now their high end FX 35 (or whatever it's called) though you have the feeling that the fs100 could have 4:4:4 and with a touch screen focus, more lenses and a better overall look could just dominate the sales the way the 5d2 did.
-
It's funny,
I think there is some sort of snobery about the Alexa. Cine guys here are crazy about it and look at Red with a sort of condesendence. But the fact is when I check the new generation of serious filmakers in Paris, the sound is a little different: they are crazy about the Red.
In Pampuri's blog, they used both and here are their conclusions badly traduced by me:
"Arri has evolutionated with the past in mind and feed our collective mind about that film look.
In practise, the 2 cameras are very similar and we where many times unable to recognize wich footage belong to the 2 cameras.
The Alexa is soft and cinematographic.
I personaly prefer the Red for 2 reasons: definition and more shapely, deaper, more relief.
The Alexa image is flatter."
http://vimeo.com/20066150
http://www.misiraca.com/
A part from the Alexa snobery that is really starting to piss me-of here and just for that, if I had the money I'd buy a Red. No, in fact for resolution.
And also, film look, film look...yeah, fine, organic and cool, but IMO why in 2011 should we be on bondage with vintage look? why not then missing the Chaplin sort of render because it would be more organic than the 70's, and we could add scratches and dust...oh well, it will come,no doubt, in a short time videocameras will feature in-board filters to emulate the Fritz Lang look.
-
Bcooter,
Thank you for all the great info on the motion frontier.
I was wondering in regards to the FS 100 highlight problem,
If you had tried grads ?
I know it's an additional burden, but maybe?
Thanks!
Tim
www.tjphoto.net
-
Don't get me wrong.
I think RED borders on the 8th wonder of the world. I mean a real cine camera that shoots a 4k file in raw for 25 skins is amazing in the cine world.
The workflow, with a RED Rocket and CineX is fast and I am sure as easy if not easier than the Alexa since everything has to be colored anyway and even though the Alexa shoots prorezz your still going to have to mess with it.
No I'm not going to throw the RED's away and the more I use them the more I love them. Stripped down the RED One is 8lbs and that's easy to hand hold and work loose for wild shots, so I'm not knocking the RED.
Today we did 6 major set ups all three camera shots using the RED as the AB camera and the Sony as the C camera.
For lighting we mixed window lights and 800 watt HMI's with a few small led's thrown in for hair light and kickers and I6 sessions with three cameras and dialog is a lot in 7 hours.
On one shot I used the Sony as the A camera because I wanted to blow the windows and the file holds up without flare using the A mount Ziess lenses.
This is a large project and the client is over the moon with the RED footage so maybe I'm set for a long time . . . who knows?
I do know my RED's are reliable. My first one has been around the world going on two times and not dropped a frame, though I have to admit digital always scares me a little.
I keep an open mind and from what I've seen online with the Alexa is worth looking at.
Then again if the Sony shot RAW, held highlights like the RED at it's $5,000 price . . . well it would be time for a rethink.
IMO
BC
-
Then again if the Sony shot RAW, held highlights like the RED at it's $5,000 price . . . well it would be time for a rethink.
IMO
BC
The following thread on the F3 S-log looks promising:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?256550-S-log-and-444-outputs
Bob
-
Grads are useful, & I carry full sets of soft, & hard, cuts, but they're often not practical, especially when handheld, or panning, & tilting.
One thing the Canon dSLRs do right is clip highlights. The AF100, FS100, & F3, all do it in an ugly way. What they need is feature that causes all the color channels to clip equally. Instead they clip independently of each other, which sometimes leads to ugly highlights, most often yellow. These color casts can be corrected in post, but shouldn't need this extra step.
The RED One is a remarkable camera, but can be slow to fire up, & is best treated as a full on cinema camera. Just like Cooter I love using the new generation of small cams, in my case the AF100. All of my work is fast paced, much of it on the road, & without camera assistants, so being able to work, & travel, stripped down without a matte box, NDs, & rails, is a luxury. More often than not the dynamic range is fine, but occasionally not, & on those days I long for RAW.
The Alexa is another great camera with a great look, & many DPs love it's simplicity, & familiarity. These same DPs hate menu driven systems, but there's no arguing with the higher resolution of the RED, & ARRI will eventually respond.
Having seen the SCCE on the big screen I'd happily use all but one of camera's tested. I'm no longer a huge fan of filming on dSLRs, due to form factor, & looking positively soft on the big screen, but I've got some great 5D footage, & will continue to use them when they fit the bill.
-
I have a list of favorite where I put the photographers I like most, regardless of the time.
Probably the most usefull internet link I have. When I'm on a blank, when inspiration or tech don't want to work, I stop and look inside those favorites and it always work.
Among the current photographers, and again talking about artists I admire, very oftnen there are those film takes, and to proove or make sure that the person used real film, they put the slide contour. It seems that the more dirty the best because it looks authentic and sort of transmit a craft that has been lost and the values of the tech cameras versus the naughty cold tech. That also happens with cineasts.
Before I used to like that but now I find that behind the image that can truly be beautifull, there is also a pose.
And if they make sure the slide contour is there is that any good retoucher can emulate those film look from a digital "flat imagery". I don't get the point because if it's not the final image, it's then the process that attract them.
What I like with Cooter is that he is pragmatic being a great artist. "I love my Red and if tomorrow Sony or X comes with the same at 5000bucks I'll change".
There is no snobery there, nor nostalgia or wired processes. The goal is the image and we know that almost any look can be acheived from a single based image. That's the magic of digital.
I'm not sure that if Lang or Avedon where alive today if they would be interested in trying to keep the tradition alive with mediums that are completly different. They would look forward and probably create new looks never seen before instead of swimming in vintage ponds.
I know some photographers and cineasts who if they don't get the exact look they wanted on set, they consider it a failure. That's the old (and expensive) way of working. Now the work on set is the draft base from wich the real esthetic work is created in post. That is shocking for most photographers, but if you come from painting like me, it is a very natural workflow.
What I'm seeing in motion even much more than is stills, is how dramatic the post prod plays. Take any color artist show-reel or compositing softwares and you see the original footage as a non-sense flat and boring image. All the look is done in post prod. It's really impressive how those people dare and create magic where all that was was flatness.
In that sense I'm more than happy because this sort of workflow has much more to do with the painting process that the photographic process if you think about it. The original footage is the based drawing, then the pp is the painting itself.
I think that we have now real painting tools and cameras are pens. People like Caravagio would have liked to live now. It's the end of the frontiers and orthodoxy, heavy crafts societies. Space and freedom.
I remember Mario Testino, I think it was in an Hasselblad stuff, stressed that the post-prod is by far the most important and critical and the least was the cameras. I beleive this to be true.
In that sense, cameras today are probaly the weakest part of the chain and when differences are close it could be admitted that those differences don't play any role at all bcause every original is heavily transformed.
Someone with Red can get exactly the Arri footage without any expert could recognise the trick. Just softnen the image shooting open or in pp, keeping the levels at zero to get the flatter possible image and correct in Avid without even needing a high-end grading to get the Alexa curves and you're done.
Anyway, nice to see Cooter in action in Bangkok. All the best over here.
-
In fact the Arri seems to be the best of the bunch in terms of traditional film look, at least to my eyes.
Note that you are seeing a different version of the clips than the reviewers, ie. a highly compressed 720p flash video compared to whatever they were seeing in the screening rooms. The compression itself plays a big part, even if/when Zacuto guys took steps to minimize its impact. In my view the look translates well, though, see below - I've seen many of those movies in the theaters and at my home on my 86" projection screen, and they look as bad or good in both.
But past the technique, the camera use, the size, to me of all the cameras I own, including still cameras, the RED is the most filmic and I know the term film covers a wide swath of territory.
That's my movie buff experience as well. Michael Mann's Public Enemies, Miami Vice (the movie) and Collateral look like video with (mostly) Sony digital cameras, while Gamer, Social Network, Jumper and the latest Pirates of the Caribbean had a very solid filmic look, and all were shot on RED. The video look entirely ruined my viewing experience of Public Enemies, as the look doesn't fit a period piece at all.
What's your view on why such a big difference? Is it the camera or the entire filming process from shooting to post? The sensor sizes of all those cameras are very close to Super 35mm AFAIK, so that can't be it. Is it the lenses, or post-processing, (over-) use of jerky handheld, (over-) use of deep DOF, or something else? Just curious as I can't point my finger at it. Compare the trailer of Public Enemies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv0DMzFwEW4) to that of Gamer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2g94xQmtHw), for example.
-
Maybe some answers here,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivREd2xX3qo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMgDcTO9XiE
http://vimeo.com/7710830
-
Maybe some answers here,
Answers to what?
-
to this quote: Is it the camera or the entire filming process from shooting to post?
I think it is all to post and post is dramatically key whatever the previous steps might be like.
At least this is what I'm seeing and experiencing within the learning with the pros.
IMO the choice of lenses matters a lot. But in motion post is much more powerfull than in stills.
Most of the new generation guys I know who are filming, are trying to get the wider dr and the flatter possible look. They put their attention on the action, the composition, the story, the elements disposition but
not on the atmosphere. In fact, the filming are done having in mind the post-process stages from the begining and the PP is really really heavy, as those videos show.
No need to say that the traditional cine guys are pulling their hair off when they see that.
The color artists and fx like to start from the most neutral and flatter possible footage because they want room to work. This is the opposite technique as traditional cinema. The photo director is now in part the operator on a specific software.
This sort of workflow is tending to generalize, not only because of costs but because the softwares have done such progress that the camera is more and more a based sketch.
In fact you see more and "cheap cameras" like the 5D2 or GH2 but with heavy lightning and heavy post, you just don't know it (that the camera was cheap).
Thatc was my 2 euros apportation. Cooter will have more interesting experience to share for sure and hope he'll post.
Cheers.
-
I don't believe there's any more post processing in film then there is in stills, & good photographers in either medium strive for their best.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/jul/28/airbrushing-loreal-adverts-jo-swinson
There's nothing wrong with shooting a flat file when you know it's going into post, & while it's possible to burn in a look (I occasionally do) that can jam the editorial process, & likely shorten your career.
-
Well, I'd like to react at this article because I think it's old like the world and the content is really driving me nuts.
We should learn to the people to get adult, and think by themselves.
What is that that the girl is depressed and wants to do plastic surgery because she saw a model? What kind of people we want to have? inmature people unable to think by themselves so we have to get rid-off campaigns because they suicide if they don't look like the magazine people?
When I see the males used in advertising and I look at myself in a mirror, I obviously understand that I'm not like that. Will I get dpress, try to do surgery? Jump from the window because mother nature didn't make me Bond like? And of course, as I don't want to take any responsability to be an healphy and independant person and thinker, I will demand that they get rid-of those campaigns so I can sleep in peace.
This is completly inmature. Tomorrow, the fashion will be the curved women, so we will have the skiny ones suicide instead of the chubbies...this world is completly absurd.
-
to this quote: Is it the camera or the entire filming process from shooting to post?
I think it is all to post and post is dramatically key whatever the previous steps might be like.
Post might be the answer, but the links you provide don't support your argument: Iron Man 2 and Watchmen have both a decidedly cinematic look.
-
Post production in still and cinema/video has gone on forever and effects, retouching, etc. will continue regardless of what any country or person wants, because in commerce, (and virtually all imagery is produced for some form of commerce) the object is to make interesting visuals and post production is a usually a large part of that.
Any person over the age of 6 that looks at a cosmetic ad (either still or motion) and believes the subject looks just like that without serious post production must be living under a rock and if people are unhappy with their looks or body shape, it's very hard to lay that on modern advertising, because models and handsome/beautiful actors have existed forever.
The thing about shooting motion, especially for still photographers is I have found that clients and the general public are very demanding in what they expect.
The general public is quite savvy to moving imagery because every evening when the consumer turns on their television they are shown many millions of dollars of production for virtually free. . . very good production at that.
The issue is estimating and pricing. What seems absurd for a $225,000 effect for a web video, can be a drop in the bucket for a Michel Bay film and like all areas of image production, the prices are all over the board.
Estimate a simple effect and you will see prices from $18,000 to hundreds of thousands depending on the artist, production company and market.
The web is such an interesting medium because the media buy is virtually free, though the consumer expects to see the same quality on their computer that they do on their television.
Right now the pricing is in flux, but everyday there is more understanding that a web video can have great reach and the result is takes the same production values as a media buy commercial.
Right now I see web video as more a multi media experience than I do a timed 30 second spot or an entertainment vehicle that is 45 minutes long, though the lines get crossed more everyday.
TV spots look more like flash web pages, web spots are either reconstituted commercials or a mixture of new production and legacy production.
It's slowly becoming all the same so when you plan to estimate, produce, shoot and deliver a web video the prices can high very quickly, just like in any professional production.
The thing I love about motion imagery vs. stills is you have many more frames to tell a story. The thing I don't like about motion imagery vs. stills is you have a much more complex vehicle to get approved and produced.
You have sound, movement, dialog and effects and every time you add an element, you essentially double the effort.
If still photographers think that shooting tethered has slowed them down, wait until they commission an original music score or throw a teleprompter in front of the lens.
The project we currently have in production has music, dialog, multiple country locations and most of it is in a foreign language (foreign to me), which means I must have a translator by my side with a set of headphones.
Add to that a multiple 3 camera shoot and the day is very, very, very busy.
The upside is I'm learning and moving forward all the time.
The downside is after shooting I know I'm looking at 30+ long days of work before we finally deliver.
But when I look at the Zacuto tests, I find the process somewhat antiquated. It seems to based around traditional dp's and film crews who work large and compared to stills usually much slower.
Since my background is stills, I see production in a different light. I don't believe I always need dedicated crew that only can function in one task. I hire people that can multi task and aren't afraid of working damn hard, because lighting and running 3 cameras on location is hard work if it's done right.
That doesn't mean the crew is less talented, or even less talented or job specific, but it does mean that everyone must be on their A game at all times.
One slip in motion gets very expensive to fix.
IMO
BC
-
Cooter
Spot on - every word - golden
I could not agree more
S
-
Note that you are seeing a different version of the clips than the reviewers, ie. a highly compressed 720p flash video compared to whatever they were seeing in the screening rooms. The compression itself plays a big part, even if/when Zacuto guys took steps to minimize its impact. In my view the look translates well, though, see below - I've seen many of those movies in the theaters and at my home on my 86" projection screen, and they look as bad or good in both.
That's my movie buff experience as well. Michael Mann's Public Enemies, Miami Vice (the movie) and Collateral look like video with (mostly) Sony digital cameras, while Gamer, Social Network, Jumper and the latest Pirates of the Caribbean had a very solid filmic look, and all were shot on RED. The video look entirely ruined my viewing experience of Public Enemies, as the look doesn't fit a period piece at all.
What's your view on why such a big difference? Is it the camera or the entire filming process from shooting to post? The sensor sizes of all those cameras are very close to Super 35mm AFAIK, so that can't be it. Is it the lenses, or post-processing, (over-) use of jerky handheld, (over-) use of deep DOF, or something else? Just curious as I can't point my finger at it. Compare the trailer of Public Enemies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv0DMzFwEW4) to that of Gamer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2g94xQmtHw), for example.
When you test cameras, you've got to be careful.....
Arri does indeed look soft/glowy which can be interpreted as filmy, but there's two factors - one is that the log-c curve used is very low contrast, even lower contrast than standard cineon log which automatically makes things look flatter. Once you get the image up to a decent contrast it nulls out this difference, but for accurate match grading you've got to be aware of this different starting point. Second is that the sensor OLPF incorporates a lowcon style diffusion effect that can be easily seen when you shoot into a hard light and compare to other cameras. On the Arri the light glow flares over a good proportion of the image. Of course, you can add such an effect should you want it with a 1/4 soft or the like, but you've got to be aware such an effect is "built in" if you're doing comparisons.
As for what makes an image "filmic" there's a number of factors:
1) lighting. You've got to light well. That's the key skill of the DP.
2) motion. That implies using 24fps, 180 shutter (not 360 like Public enemies) for the most part. Fully open shutter is a very "video" look giveaway.
3) resolution - film is high resolution, but it's not artificially sharp. If you sharpen excessively (to make up for low native rez) as most "video" cameras do, you'll get "video edges"
4) clipping - video tends not to clip gracefully, but film and good digital cinema can clip nicely. It's a factor of dynamic range combined with good lighting.
5) grading - good grading will sell the final "look"
Graeme
-
4) clipping - video tends not to clip gracefully, but film and good digital cinema can clip nicely. It's a factor of dynamic range combined with good lighting.
I think this is one place the canons (and nikons) are real winners - maybe not compared to a Red or Arri, but I see more horrors with the Sonies and Pannies
S
-
Two aspects to clipping are the dynamic range of the sensor itself, and the image processing itself. Got to have both aspects right.
Graeme
-
I dont see what clipping has to do with DR
Its what happens when you hit the top of the DR and transition to white
We see with the Sonies and Pannies that the colour channels clip at different light intensities
Creating colour artifacts.. plastic
From the zacurto tests I much prefer the look of the DSLRs compard to the F3 and AF in that dept
The arri and the red actually hold the highlights.. to my eye
S
-
Clipping only occurs if you don't have enough DR to capture the scene. The more DR you have the more gracefully you can roll-off the highlights and still see good shadow detail.
Graeme
-
indeed.. but to me many many many scenes clip, ones with the sun in frame for example
the likely hood of holding the full tone (without something like HDRx in motion or multiple exposures in stills) is minimal unless you are followed by a bus full of HMI
therefore the clipping character is important and IMO both seperate from DR and more impressive in the DSLRs than other 'narrowband'* cameras
IMO something like the F3 has wide DR then clips in a horrid manner, a 5d clips wonderfully at the top of its narrower DR.. to my eyes
Edit
To me one of the weaknesses of this (Z) test and a lot of the guff (IMO) thrown out by Abel is that they investigate when cameras clip but not how they clip
S
* I would probably define narrowband as less than 50MBS
-
How should I expose this, let the highlights blow.. or light 200m of wooded track to the brightness of the sky?
S
(http://dslr4real.tv/smmspace/webimages/dslr4real/randoms/bike.jpg)
-
As for what makes an image "filmic" there's a number of factors:
1) lighting. You've got to light well. That's the key skill of the DP.
2) motion. That implies using 24fps, 180 shutter (not 360 like Public enemies) for the most part. Fully open shutter is a very "video" look giveaway.
3) resolution - film is high resolution, but it's not artificially sharp. If you sharpen excessively (to make up for low native rez) as most "video" cameras do, you'll get "video edges"
4) clipping - video tends not to clip gracefully, but film and good digital cinema can clip nicely. It's a factor of dynamic range combined with good lighting.
5) grading - good grading will sell the final "look"
Thanks for this.
I didn't know Public Enemies was shot with a 360 shutter. I believe that's probably the biggest factor.
I wonder if it's possible to have a similar look as 24 fps film with the upcoming much-hyped 48fps, or whether we will have to adjust to a cheap-looking video effect.
-
How should I expose this, let the highlights blow.. or light 200m of wooded track to the brightness of the sky?
S
(http://dslr4real.tv/smmspace/webimages/dslr4real/randoms/bike.jpg)
That's an esthetic decision. I would certainly blow that.
-
48fps is going to be interesting for sure. For one thing you should be able to extract a "normal looking" 24fps straight out of it, and it could very well make the stereo look a lot better - at least that's the goal and that's what I've seen from some 48fps tests.
Graeme
-
That's an esthetic decision. I would certainly blow that.
Of course I would blow it too for both aesthetic and practical reasons
It was an example of how mesuring the performance of cameras using the approach of 'never clip' is a flawed one compared to asking 'how do they clip'
Edit
Not pointing at Graeme but we see a lot of testers sticking a camera in front of a bunch of flowers a a teddy bear in a studio by a gold coin and a gregtag card
They get results that are just not relevant to the real world
S
-
Yeah, that's the all dilema. This industry needs engineering, and it's normal that engineers think with a, well, measurements and mathematics minds. But in the end the ones destined to use the other side of the brain are making the final goal and there are in fact very little agreement between what a world projects, measure and develop and what the other actually does.
If I understand you well, you are saying that some cameras blows better than others in the sense that the blowned highlights are plastic-look free. I sort of concur with this, but at the same time isn't it our part (image makers) to really get into a specific equipment and try to contour the downsides, finding ways to make them work according to our aims?
I'm thinking about the lightning here and also shooting on set with post-prod in mind. But that's not an easy dilema.
My point is: the more time we stay with a specific gear, the more output we can extract from it, but it's just the opposite camera makers want us to do. They want us to buy each time faster and putting into our minds preocupations that the next model solved. They want us to think tech and never been stable so we are all the time tempted with new features, improvements and gadgeteries.
-
To be boring and serious
I think the roll off is mathematically testable easily, just these old guys are using the same old tests they used to use for film
Which did not really need testing in that manner because all film performed so well
In fact it casually tried here.. http://dslr4real.tv/index.php?option=com_zoo&task=item&item_id=77&Itemid=1 - simple braketing through the iris
As for the tools - sure - talent can do better than me with a holga or Iphone probably
And I have learned a sweet spot for using my digicams.. in the shade :)
Im still not getting my Sony to look as cool as the 5d
S
-
But remember film age. Photographers had one or 2 predilected films that they ended to know strengh and wickneses. It takes time to establish a reliable workflow linked to aesthetic for a type of medium as you are experiencing with the Sony.
I think basically that if you stick with one or 2 gear for some time you'll get pretty much the look you want, even with a basic gear. After awhile you'll get as comfortable with the the Sony as with the 5D and choose this or that camera, this or that lightning intuitively.
But then, they don't let us do that easily because what we bought is already obsolete and the time we get used to the workflow we'll be tempted to upgrade again, and it can be, if lucky, within the continuity, or if not lucky, a complete re-learning.
And they managed that magic (to put us in bondage and make us buy all the time) with testings and trying to focus the attention on tech specs, sensors, sharpness, dr needs real or created, spreading ideas of "image quality" or more exactly, the lack of image quality and lots of people bite. It's never enough. It bloody works...
-
Maybe - but I tend to get a conclusion with 5 mins of it coming out of the box and it tends to be right !
On the upgrade path - I dont really feel those pressures, I have a 2005(?) H1/22mp in the studio/interiors on a tripod, and a 2008(?) D3 for the street - they both do the job for me
There was an expensive road getting to them.. kodak pro back, nikon D1, etc that I did not like out the box but when the good enough thing came along I stuck with it, Im also happy with my 5d for filming stuff that doesnt need sound
Of course Id like to put it all together some time into one tidy little Epic shaped box, but IMO S35 is a little small for stills unless we see some new faster lenses
S
-
What about 16mm film? Is it still a viable option? I'm thinking about picking up a Bolex,
When i see work this beautiful :http://vimeo.com/23881980
Thanks,
Tim
www.tjphoto.net
-
What about 16mm film? Is it still a viable option? I'm thinking about picking up a Bolex,
When i see work this beautiful :http://vimeo.com/23881980
Thanks,
Tim
www.tjphoto.net
Motion imagery, like stills that preceded it is now going through it's change from digital to film.
There is still viability in film, but the older 16mm cameras likes the Beaulieu and the Bolex have small viewfinders, somewhat hard to focus and if your running from a generator require crystal sync.
16mm film is cheap, processing not bad either, scanning is lower than before, but it is a longer slower workflow and of course you don't have instant view, instant zoom focus and the capability to work in a commercial environment that is required today.
16, even super 16 is a small frame and pulls a lot of focus, unless your running 1.2 lenses and then focus is an issue on movement.
Kodak 16mm stock is grainy though can have a pretty look, fuji 16 (if you can find it) is much prettier and has less grain. Fuji film is thicker and is harder to spool and burns batteries faster, though most of the looks you will get out of any film will come from telecine and coloring.
I own a beautiful Beaulieu and though it is lovely to hold I doubt seriously if I will ever use it again commercially.
If you really have a hankering to shoot 16, look at an Aaeton A minima as it uses quick kodak loads and saves time in changing film, (see the movie Hurt Locker), though you are limited to Kodak stock.
Every now and then some Hollywood director will get a bug about shooting a movie in super 8 or 16mm, usually do a dozen tests, then wind up shooting 35mm film and do post tricks to emulate 16mm.
Though honestly a 7d will do the same and more and with plug ins, coloring suites you can emulate almost any look from film in digital capture.
Film guys dread the introduction of digital video, just like film photographers we're mostly slow to adopt digital capture, but like stills the toothpaste is out of the tube and no matter which medium is better digital will win out.
IMO
BC
-
third episode is out now with some surprising results. Take a look !
http://www.zacuto.com/the-great-camera-shootout-2011/episode-three
of course the digital evolution is going on and on and nobody will know what will happen to Kodak in the future.
But sometimes it´s time to take a break and take a look.
Greetings from Munich
Stefan
-
I haven't read all the posts in this topic yet...
But, as a general rule, when we shoot digital capture for movies, we record a "flat" (or sometimes RAW) image, but we view it on set with correction to make it look kind of like it will look after post production.
So, we are not waiting for post color correction to get the contrast and lighting that we want. It's all done live on set.
I'm not talking about DSLR, but real Pro cameras here :)
-
I haven't read all the posts in this topic yet...
But, as a general rule, when we shoot digital capture for movies, we record a "flat" (or sometimes RAW) image, but we view it on set with correction to make it look kind of like it will look after post production.
So, we are not waiting for post color correction to get the contrast and lighting that we want. It's all done live on set.
I'm not talking about DSLR, but real Pro cameras here :)
It's not even bearable to show a flat recording to a client/AD on set, it has to look "similar" to the final look or at least visually understandable.
I personaly found the Zacuto testing apparently informative and at the same time completly useless. There where good comments on it, very little to learn in the end. Zacuto is a commercial house and they do those testings to keep the buzz and sell stuff. But this is not really aimed to the working pros of this industry, it's aimed to their business audience, greedy of testings and datas that they will never have to deal with.
You know, I thought in the past that a guy like Ken Rockwell was crazy, but now I thing is probably telling a lot of truth behind his provocative mask about how the audience is nowdays desperatly looking for "proofs", comparatives and stuff like that, specially with very expensive equipment (you know like those car review magazines that test Ferraris and Lamborghinis for an audience that only can afford Skoda) and beleive that those "informations" are usefull to make them better when the real usefull infos to make people really improve is not disposable on the internet actually (at least not in those content). But it's not about improving but about catching the audience with some entertaining stuff asociated to a brand (Zacuto did it). Not surprised it can work when we see that human being is the only alive being on earth that can beleive that a guy opened a sea with a wooden stick in a remote past...
What I don't like is that any filmaker would work within its level-budget, and with all the material involved that corresponds. I saw that Jean Luc Godard works (worked recently) with very cheap cameras mixed with heavy cine gear and when the team is pro they almost do what they want to and get the look they want because they know how to. Only the people who do not know how to or don't have the prod behind (in short you and me) might be interested in those testings, even if they are brillantly done, it smells drastically the DxO garbage. And the irony is that those videos will not teach their audience the way to get the look they want with whatever device. I call that emptyness. Those testings are very much in the same line than what we are desperatly eating for decades in still photography and it leads nowhere. One has got a gear X and has to deal with it, that's exactly what we do with people.
Show me a live filmaking from set to the post-prod with softwares highlights tasks in real time etc...and not those useless comparatives.
So we have a testing in wich some of the cameras and optics aren't touchable for most of the audience and the people who actually use them daily aren't interested in those kind of things because they work and they know how to work. But from a commercial point of view, Zacuto is really clever and did it spot-on to entertain the gallery and the big way, wich is remarkable in itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGEVS_KT5Sk
For the one who don't speak french, the lady is asking Godard: "do you think that the new digital small cameras will save the cine ?"
-
"Not surprised it can work when we see that human being is the only alive being on earth that can believe that a guy opened a sea with a wooden stick in a remote past... "
LOVE that quote, Fred.
And I agree with a lot of what you say about how gullible we are. I suppose we/I watch this stuff because we want to see how much better it is than the gear we can afford. But as you say, it's how you use it, more than what it can do. Sure, most camcorders blow highlights as soon as look at them, but we learn how to live with that. Same as we lived with Velvia, then grew to love it. All gear through the ages has had massive limitations - street photog with 10x8 anyone? - but people always find a way round whatever.
Your main message, I think, is stop pixel peeping and start thinking about the best content you can create, whether still or moving. I'm 100% in agreement with that.
-
"Not surprised it can work when we see that human being is the only alive being on earth that can believe that a guy opened a sea with a wooden stick in a remote past... "
LOVE that quote, Fred.
And I agree with a lot of what you say about how gullible we are. I suppose we/I watch this stuff because we want to see how much better it is than the gear we can afford. But as you say, it's how you use it, more than what it can do. Sure, most camcorders blow highlights as soon as look at them, but we learn how to live with that. Same as we lived with Velvia, then grew to love it. All gear through the ages has had massive limitations - street photog with 10x8 anyone? - but people always find a way round whatever.
Your main message, I think, is stop pixel peeping and start thinking about the best content you can create, whether still or moving. I'm 100% in agreement with that.
More or less Stewart, but with some nuance.
I try to explain myself a little better, english not being my native lenguage. Re-reading my post, I think it can be misjudged.
I'm not someone who can pretend that all tech content is useless, trash out other's interests and mystify the artistic content over any other consideration, and the reason is very simple: where is my work? I don't have a personal website to show, there is very little produced except assistance stuff I show from TTT. If I where making claims about content, I had to show really serious and high level book under my name to be credible, if not, it would just stays in empty words.
I do not have a personal website simply because I'm not proud enough of my own productions, I think and feel I still have a path to recover before getting a public imagery and I prefer staying in the shade if I'm not 100% satisfy and keep improving until I know "I got it". I know you didn't said that but I find important to underline it because if someone's read my previous post he-she might interpretate that I'm giving advices about artistic content when the only thing I'm doing is working mainly for others who yes have their carreer done, learning from them, being the most pro I can, and working hard and seriously in learning how to film and post-produce motion, tell stories etc... at a level I put my goal, surrownd myself as much as I can by real pros and I'm just in the middle of that process in motion and very aware that I won't be ready tomorrow or even next year. I'm learning while doing small unrisky assignements most of wich are in areas that do not light my fire but clients are happy so far but I keep feet on earth and don't fool myself about where I really am at the moment.
So, being reasonably honest with myself and others, I won't have any lessons to give to anybody in terms of creative content. My point was slightly different:
I mean that internet is potencialy a great source of info, but miserably in a lot of the cases it is a great source of desinformation and tons of useless infos. When I saw all the Zacuto's testings, all I saw is exactly what you described, I copy-paste your words: I suppose we/I watch this stuff because we want to see how much better it is than the gear we can afford,
in other words, there is nothing in those testings that I learned I didn't know and nothing really expendable to improve in any area I'm working.
It's a pitty. If instead of that, they would have produced a mini movie from A to Z and with actors, with descriptions of difficult situations that came across, some parts with the PP pipeline in real time etc...that would have been completly different and really usefull. I learned much more just watching the making-off of Vincent Laforet with the 7D. ( Is there Chris Sanderson there to produce an educative mini movie? Do you dare? If you need an actor send me a mail, after all I'm about as tall as Tom Cruise. just kidding). Real high-end workflow video has been asked also for decades in still photography but nobody is taking the risk to show this real workflow from A to Z so we always end with those sort of comparatives that are irrelevant for the active pros of this industry but yes are catching a lot of attention from boys and girls like you and me, being at the same time completly uselesss practicaly IMO.
It just depends on wich plate of the balance one wants to put himself. There is a productive one, and there is an unproductive one.
Cheers.
-
"Not surprised it can work when we see that human being is the only alive being on earth that can believe that a guy opened a sea with a wooden stick in a remote past... "
LOVE that quote, Fred.
.......snip...........
Your main message, I think, is stop pixel peeping and start thinking about the best content you can create, whether still or moving. I'm 100% in agreement with that.
I agree.
What is interesting about this last Zacuto test session is the response of the different DP's.
All of them have this mindset of ______ was not perfect, _______didn't look like film, etc. etc., but what these tests never account for is real world work.
Not real world in the way a camera produces detail, or a color or film look, or rolling shutter issues, but real world in the way the paying client, creative brief, budget or time effects what we do.
We constantly shoot our REDs as a and b cameras and I know they have a superior look to the 5d2 or the fs100 we use, but so many times, we'll suction cup a 5d2 on a car, or hand hold the fs100 for some quick lifestyle to insert and because of the cameras size, weight and form factor, clients will rave about images from the smaller cameras because they are real, quick, more natural and intuitive.
They love the movement and reality where with our RED's just being larger and heavier seem to get a little more flat footed.
So as a screenwriter will say it's all about the story, a client will say it's all about believability, and/or excitement.
Just like in still photography, when an image capture is exciting, or moves the viewer, nobody ever talks about technique, though when an image is locked down, predictable (maybe even boring) then you hear comments about technique.
IMO
BC
-
A very interesting test which I was about to post here then discovered it was old news ;) I was really impressed with the Alexa. About to watch the next two episodes. Latitude is certainly important but it's one of those things that you can often control, and even when you can't it's often a benign issue (except for those awful yellow highlights). I'm more curious to see how the cameras cope with compression artefacts and motion.
-
A very interesting test which I was about to post here then discovered it was old news ;) I was really impressed with the Alexa. About to watch the next two episodes. Latitude is certainly important but it's one of those things that you can often control, and even when you can't it's often a benign issue (except for those awful yellow highlights). I'm more curious to see how the cameras cope with compression artefacts and motion.
The Alexa is a very impressive camera. I had a chance to "play" with one for an unfortunatly too short time, and it's incredibly simple. Any gran-ma who has never touched a camera would learn it in 20minutes. We are far from the complexity of a GH2 for ex.
And as I talk about that, on sunday I had a session with the GH2, wich is a little camera I really like a lot, but I barked more than once (and actually lost some takes) because there is nothing worse than an unintuitive menu on set, when we have to react quick and not thinking "where the hell was located this or that function". That would not happen with the Alexa.
Camera designers should pay a little more attention with their messy menus. I know that the GH2 despite capable of delivering stunning footage, is not aimed to the pro market and therefore full of useless gadgetery (not the case in the gh2) and unlogical menu implementation that impress the gallery, but...The Alexa, no. Everything smells pro, simple efficient and reliable. Unfortunatly, those are not the qualities that like the mass-market so I'm prety sure we'll never have a cheap well implemented camera.
Then, the film look...the famous film look. I know it sounds old like the birth of the solar system, but it's probably the camera that has the closest "film look" with very little post. The DR is simply amazing, build quality bla bla...and the brand factor. Arri is cine and cine is Arri.
But, I think that the Alexa (as it is) will loose the battle with Red. Despite all its goodies, if I had the possibility today to choose, I'd go Red without hesitation. Film look? Is there something we can't really acheive in post today? But at the price-performances, Red is unbeatable.
The Arri is conservative, it is an old, expensive, (perfectly mastered) design, and I trust more Red One to be inovative and ground-breaking in future camera design and power. The Alexa is the tradition coming to digital, Red is born with digital and a little different animal. They don't have the weight of being Arri, they are free to break patterns.
Then, the post. Who shoots ArriRaw? Almost nobody. I will never stop pointing the post complexity, but Red One is one of the friendliest and straighforward post processing I've experienced. And that's important.
Even in the cheapest configuration, I've edited Red with an Edius 6 and there is zero hassle. Beleive it or not, but it's even less problematic editing 4k than editing 2k AVCHD native like I know many are doing.
(precision: with Edius, the Redworkflow is image sequence up to 4K wich is hassle-free).
To be fair with Arri, the Alexa workflow has some great advantages that are important for some: you almost have the delivery product without transcoding...(hem hem...have I said something stupid? I'm afraid I did) in 444 So indeed it depends on each necesity. In my case I've edited Red in both Avid (so native via AMA) ane Edius (DPX generated from RCX). In both it is hassle-free, but not time free, because the image sequences have to be created and it takes time. but once it's done, it's 100% easy and more importantly, it does not consumes CPU and is ready to be sent to a Nuke or After Effect unit wich gives access to work in linear colorspace even if the viewers are in rgb for proper display. Then it's easy to downconvert to Quicktime.
My Arri workflow is still a little in its first steps so I'd be cautious because what I think works fine today might change tomorrow with more experience.
I'll keep watching this silly testing series anyway despite I found it useless, like I've followed sometimes silly tv series. It's entertaining.