Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: bcooter on December 05, 2010, 02:52:41 pm
-
We are in the process of testing still and cinema lenses on the RED, so I thought people might like to see a RED file as a still compared to a Nikon D700 still file at 1600 iso.
Some sharpening in photoshop, but no sharpening at the processing level.
Not meant to make any kind of statement, (especailly since we are still learning the RED software) but since we had it.
(7mb jpeg)
file here (http://ishotit.com/red_nikon.jpg)
BC
-
We are in the process of testing still and cinema lenses on the RED, so I thought people might like to see a RED file as a still compared to a Nikon D700 still file at 1600 iso.
Some sharpening in photoshop, but no sharpening at the processing level.
Not meant to make any kind of statement, (especailly since we are still learning the RED software) but since we had it.
(7mb jpeg)
file here (http://ishotit.com/red_nikon.jpg)
BC
the red looks very good.
what megapixel is the epic going to be?
cheers paul
-
the red looks very good.
what megapixel is the epic going to be?
cheers paul
Red doesn't give out a lot of information and what they do is very confusing.
The Red One, with the mysterium X sensor is a 4k file or around 14 megapixels.
The Epic with the same sensor will go to 4.5k, or so I'm told.
The Epic is not really out yet. There are sightings, people say around April depending on when you signed up, if you owned a RED before, when you purchased your RED, when you signed up, what stage you are, if you put a cloverleaf in one shoe, a pigeon feather from Tibet in the other.
IMO
BC
-
Not sure I understand what's going on here. The Red shot was at f2 and 1/125. Nikon was at 1/160 and f3.5. Both at 1/1600. That's about 2 stops more light to the Red, or was there a mistake in the EXIF? Nikon shot looks out of focus too.
-
Not sure I understand what's going on here. The Red shot was at f2 and 1/125. Nikon was at 1/160 and f3.5. Both at 1/1600. That's about 2 stops more light to the Red, or was there a mistake in the EXIF? Nikon shot looks out of focus too.
I wouldn't go by any exif, because this document was pasted together and it could be from some other image my first assistant started with. The RED doesn't read exif date for a still capture like a still camera does, though I don't find a lot of exif date reliable anyway. I know my Conax with Phase backs, the data changes depending on the processor.
We were doing cine vs. still lens test, and checking noise, processing, etc. all for internal use.
My first used the Nikon camera to give us a reference point we were familiar with.
The RED is a different learning curve in so many ways. It's like staring over and it kind of excites me.
Anyway, Graham it's not to prove anything.
I really wanted to see under high iso if I could use some of the motion files for a still as more often than not somebody is going to ask if that frame can be used for web or print, or in effects work if we can freeze it with some detail.
Just thought I'd share.
BC
-
I really wanted to see under high iso if I could use some of the motion files for a still as more often than not somebody is going to ask if that frame can be used for web or print, or in effects work if we can freeze it with some detail.
Just thought I'd share.
BC
James,
Very interesting - thanx for posting. As you say, it's going to be interesting to see whether frames can compete with still cameras, especially for fashion (grab that fleeting expression).
Edmund
-
James,
Very interesting - thanx for posting. As you say, it's going to be interesting to see whether frames can compete with still cameras, especially for fashion (grab that fleeting expression).
Edmund
We have been wrestling with this for some time. How to shoot motion and stills for the same project and it's difficult, because if you set for a defining still image your goal is to tell the story in one frame.
To turn that into motion usually results in a somewhat disappointing clip. I mean what do you tell the talent. Walk away, smile, jump, uh turn over on your stomach?
What we've found so far is when we shoot both, we set for the motion with some kind of story, even a simple story and then scrub through the motion to see what really would work as a still.
Quickly reset the scene and shoot the still on a dedicated still camera.
It's much easier for me to start with motion and then do the still image, rather than the other way around.
Now knowing this and knowing clients, someone is going to say, "we just love the motion frame where she is . . . and somehow we're going to have to make then into a usable still.
It's too early for me to be sure if that's possible or not with the RED. With enough post work, it will work, but from what I can tell it's not exactly up to a still cameras quality . . . yet.
I can say that focus on the RED is very critical. You don't notice it when it's moving, but as a still, just 2% off makes a huge difference and it's not a camera that is made for snap easy focus, but once again you never notice it when it's moving. It all looks sharp in motion.
Though maybe focus is over rated. Last night at the theatre, I was looking at all the movie posters for the large December releases. If you stick your nose on each one, none are in focus, or you see things like drawn in eyelashes. It's hard to tell as there is so much post work and added grain, added effects.
IMO
BC
-
Thanks for sharing the image.
I'm completly confused with Red. (in fact I've been confused since their Epic anouncement) If I understand well, the expected Epic will have about the equivalent of 16MP then ?
Anyway, when I look at the 1600 RED, I'm very impressed in one side but also the color noise is more intrusive than Nikon but it's not to blame considering the product. It does not have AAAAAAA filter, doesn't it?
At lower isos, would you consider the stills commercially acceptable? In other words, can you say that Red is possibly a Video and a trully usable still camera (apart of the focussing critical issue).
The thing is amazing, if we could extract stills directly from the video frames...I know it does not sounds very purist but to me it is exciting indeed. It could completly change the nature of photography that will be diluted in a more muddy water. Stills? Motion? all that could merge at one point or another into a unique lenguage. Exciting!!!!
-
The Epic is not really out yet.
Apparently, Peter Jackson bought the first batch of 30 (http://www.collider.com/2010/11/28/peter-jackson-the-hobbit-3d-red-epic-cameras/). "Handmade", no less. heh.
-
The Handmade units (Epic-M) are going for a paltry 58k, available to current Red owners. Even at that money, people are all over them.
It was actually a lot of fun watching that develop on the forum. Somebody was like "Hey, if the production line's not gonna be up for a while I bet people would eat up a run of machined Epics. Jannard was like, "Heh, yeah we could do that..." and within a day he announced that they were indeed going to produce a small run of handmade units.
One thing I really love about owning my own company is being able to do whatever the hell I want (within my means). You gotta admire Red's spirit.
cb
-
Cooter,
I'd love to hear your thoughts on the glass. I'm totally waffling on lenses. On one hand I'm rather enticed by the Schneider Cine-Xenars with their 18 blade iris and on the other hand I wanna get an epic and go with Canon lenses. I've been in situations with the Red where I really missed a shift lens and the idea of putting my 17 TS-E on the epic....hmm... yeah.
As for snaggin stills from footage, it's definitely softer, but it's a different approach. I typically don't want anywhere near the depth of field I get in my stills with the video, so I'm shooting around f/4. Also, I've usually got the camera in motion (since architecture doesn't move) and that softens things a bit. I did recently return to a project I shot stills on earlier in the year and the DR and Color fidelity of the Red was good as my P65+ stuff. Really promising.
Over the last month the one thing I've learned is that I have SO much more to learn... and as you said, that's damn exciting.
CB
-
J,
I have noticed this when I go to the movies (the big screen ones), it does all look sharp in motion. Some sort of weird psychophysics, I know people have tried to extract supersharp stills from movies by image processing.
Edmund
We have been wrestling with this for some time. How to shoot motion and stills for the same project and it's difficult, because if you set for a defining still image your goal is to tell the story in one frame.
To turn that into motion usually results in a somewhat disappointing clip. I mean what do you tell the talent. Walk away, smile, jump, uh turn over on your stomach?
What we've found so far is when we shoot both, we set for the motion with some kind of story, even a simple story and then scrub through the motion to see what really would work as a still.
Quickly reset the scene and shoot the still on a dedicated still camera.
It's much easier for me to start with motion and then do the still image, rather than the other way around.
Now knowing this and knowing clients, someone is going to say, "we just love the motion frame where she is . . . and somehow we're going to have to make then into a usable still.
It's too early for me to be sure if that's possible or not with the RED. With enough post work, it will work, but from what I can tell it's not exactly up to a still cameras quality . . . yet.
I can say that focus on the RED is very critical. You don't notice it when it's moving, but as a still, just 2% off makes a huge difference and it's not a camera that is made for snap easy focus, but once again you never notice it when it's moving. It all looks sharp in motion.
Though maybe focus is over rated. Last night at the theatre, I was looking at all the movie posters for the large December releases. If you stick your nose on each one, none are in focus, or you see things like drawn in eyelashes. It's hard to tell as there is so much post work and added grain, added effects.
IMO
BC
-
Well, I certainly know next to nothing about movie cameras: the only time I used one it was a hired 16mm Bolex. A friend worked in an industrial unit where they also had one, and when I'd picked up the rental unit he asked if they'd supplied a filter. I said no, I hadn't asked for one. He suggested I check the gap that's to be found in the thing where it is essential to use a filter holder, at least, to keep it all light-tight. Thank God for friends - I borrowed one from his company! The thing was to supplement a travel brochure - it meant sitting in the jump seat to get the landing at Ibiza and shooting the brochure model coming down the steps from the 'plane and also walking around the passenger compartment. I never saw the pics from it: the company just wanted the film.
But the point here regarding stills from motion must be relevant whether one knows much about movies or not; two points, in fact: first, if the shutter's working at around a 25th of a sec or thereabouts, how can it be sharp, ever; if the model looks great during a moving sequence, how on Earth can you be sure she wasn't blinking or otherwise with an unfortunate momentary expression, at the moment when, watching the film, you might think she looks fantastic? It's presumably only when the frame is inspected, frame by frame, that you might find no moments during that peak are actually useable. This hardly happens with a proper stills shoot. Or at least, I'd hope not -you normally spot when you've caught a half-closed eye...
Of course, maybe there is no 1/25 sec. restriction today - I wouldn't know, as I said.
Regardless, I see a one-camera-does-all solution as always going to be very expensive and with a totally closed pro market. At last, just like the movie industry!
Rob C
-
I'm totally waffling on lenses. .......snip........
Over the last month the one thing I've learned is that I have SO much more to learn... and as you said, that's damn exciting.
CB
In my brief testing, I believe lenses are dependent on what you shoot, or the style each project requires.
For hand holding, (uh I should say two hand holding) I'd probably rather use still lenses as cine lenses take about a full turn to cover any amount of focus change, still lenses 1/4 of that.
For on the sticks with a focus puller, obviously I'd go with cine lenses as they have a longer rotation and track smoother.
I've tested the Zeiss compact primes, my set of Nikon manual lenses and next week we look at RED lenses and the Zeiss nikon still lenses.
But take all of this with a grain of salt because I haven't shot anything of importance with the camera yet and until then my opinion is not really valid.
I'll know more by mid Jan. as we have two shoots planned, one in LA, one in Paris.
I bought this camera to up my game in motion, or better put force me to up my game. I'm excited, but I know that once you start writing those checks, you can write a lot of them.
_______________________________________________________________
Can it be used as a stills camera? Yea sure anything can, but I don't think it will replace a dedicated still camera, though some frames might be usable. Once again I'll know more soon.
Will motion imagery marginalize still imagery? That's really the heart of the matter.
_______________________________________________________________
The Peter Jackson RED relationship is kind of strange. I always read they're close, but other than that short wwI piece Peter Jackson shot, as far as I know he's never shot anything of importance with the RED.
The Hobbit may use 30 cameras, but it's schedule as a special effects 3d release so since all of that is done in post, I'd think the capture device is a small part of the picture (no pun intended).
Expert post can make do with a lot of formats, including stills.
(go to this link and under making of, hit the second thumbnail for porsche family tree.-
http://www.asylumfx.com/index/strip/commercials/making# (http://www.asylumfx.com/index/strip/commercials/making#)
Also he may use 30 Epics, but nobody said he bought 30 epics at list price. Buying and using are way different.
(I may be wrong on this as I don't really follow the RED forum. )
IMO
BC
-
I went to a marketing presentation of video with 5DII from Canon in Paris, at the Adobe office, at the same venue they were also talking about software post with Adobe products. It was interesting because, although the presentation had next to no content, the IQ in the room was substantially higher than that which you find in still photo presentations, questions were much more savvy but never unpleasant.
My impression is that the video guys have much higher budgets than the still photographers, and this means that corporate video guys are smarter, because organisations who pay them are placing them at a higher pay grade. They also seem to be less individualistic than their still photography counterparts, they listen better and play together better.
This may be an issue for some of you pros here - clients may expect their video providers to be able to sit up and beg properly :)
Edmund
-
Cooter
I just posted for more info please in the other place (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=49332.0)
ive done the same thing to create a shoot
map out little scenes - sequences, film them and then set some stills up of the same thing..
http://www.sammorganmoore.com/smmcom/scroll.asp?more=1&iid=47
On motion from stills it seems there are options, none good
1) shoot high shutter - then you just get a stills camera with a big motor drive
and stuttery footage you may be able to blur in post
2) shoot filmic shutter - 1/48 and hope to get some stills
3) shoot high FPS 48fps, shoot at 125th for a chance at a sharp still and merge the frames to create 24p video
----
What I have been playing with is Nikon D3 and 7d on one tripod, then you get filmic motion and frozen stills with less than $5g of kit
http://www.sammorganmoore.com/smmcom/scroll.asp?more=1&iid=46
Can you embed vid on LuLa yet ?
S
-
I went to a marketing presentation of video with 5DII from Canon in Paris, at the Adobe office, at the same venue they were also talking about software post with Adobe products. It was interesting because, although the presentation had next to no content, the IQ in the room was substantially higher than that which you find in still photo presentations, questions were much more savvy but never unpleasant.
My impression is that the video guys have much higher budgets than the still photographers, and this means that corporate video guys are smarter, because organisations who pay them are placing them at a higher pay grade. They also seem to be less individualistic than their still photography counterparts, they listen better and play together better.
This may be an issue for some of you pros here - clients may expect their video providers to be able to sit up and beg properly :)
Edmund
ummm, maybe. There is not much difference, though I take exception to the phrase beg. If you beg in this biz, you don't get very far. You gotta please, you gotta deliver, but begging, no.
I work in LA with camera operators that will work as swings, directors, gaffers and kind of do whatever the job entails. Obviously if they're the director, they have more pull, if not they just do the job.
I've shot ads in Barcelona and split time with the film crew, where the DP was an academy award winning director and trust me, the dp knew a lot more than his boss, and he did the job, though he didn't do it quietly and he ran his own show.
We even helped each other out on ideas and technique, but still there was that feeling in the room that he stayed out of my s*%t, I stayed out of his. We both had a job to do and we both were going to do it.
The film industry has always been a "little" more open in their secrets as the crews are large and lend to more collaberation, but on the day, if the director is good, the director is god.
Don't think the motion image industry doesn't think the still guys have it better, the still guys are positive film directors graze in a better field. It just depends on the gig, the client, the budget and how much leverage you have on the moment.
Also a director or dp is not going to give up his whole bag of tricks, regardless of the client. Just like in stills you don't work for years and just turn over your electronic rolodex because a client asks.
When you work in commerce somedays the goat eats you, ohter days you eat the goat.
It really doesn't matter if the camera shoots 1fps or 24.
IMO
BC
-
@Coot,
If you like the Zeiss glass but prefer the form and function of still lenses, go with the ZF's. The CP.2's are the same optics, you're paying 4 times the money for the Cine housing and the Still glass is a little faster.
I've spoken to people who've tested the CP.2s and they prefer the Red Primes. I got the All-Star mount with PL adapter and can use my ZF lenses and my Red 17-50 with no mount change. All-Star (http://allstar-cine.myweb.hinet.net/html/red_accessories/A_M.htm) also makes lens adapters for Contax/Yashica (sorry 35 not 645) and Leica R glass. There are a couple adapters for using Canoin glass on the R1 but they both void your warranty and close any upgrade paths due to how much of the lens mount you have to disassemble.
Writing checks, no shit man... I want the lightest tripod I'd trust the R1 on and that's 8k for O'Connor head and sticks. Damn.
One thing I've learned recently... unfortunately... I really prefer strobe to HMI.
Cheers,
CB
-
Worth a thought
now Im not fully up to speed on Red developments but
is not the Epic AF
and therefore some new lenses
this could mean some price fluctuations on MF red lenses next year
which way I dont know !
Worth bearing in mind befroe dropping $50k
-
The Epic will have AF capability, including Canon/Nikon integration and touchscreen focusing. I'm more of a manual focus kind of guy, so the PL Primes are still a decent investment and the Canon lenses I'll use are T/S so no AF there.
There are plenty of Red shooters who love working with Nikon and Leica-R glass too! So many lens possibilities ;)
-
My point was that if new AF comes out and 1000 people trade in their RRPs (MF) that is the time to buy
late 2011
S
-
Heh... not a bad idea at all, M.
-
@Coot,
If you like the Zeiss glass but prefer the form and function of still lenses, go with the ZF's. The CP.2's are the same optics, you're paying 4 times the money for the Cine housing and the Still glass is a little faster.
I've spoken to people who've tested the CP.2s and they prefer the Red Primes. I got the All-Star mount with PL adapter and can use my ZF lenses and my Red 17-50 with no mount change. All-Star (http://allstar-cine.myweb.hinet.net/html/red_accessories/A_M.htm) also makes lens adapters for Contax/Yashica (sorry 35 not 645) and Leica R glass. There are a couple adapters for using Canoin glass on the R1 but they both void your warranty and close any upgrade paths due to how much of the lens mount you have to disassemble.
Writing checks, no shit man... I want the lightest tripod I'd trust the R1 on and that's 8k for O'Connor head and sticks. Damn.
One thing I've learned recently... unfortunately... I really prefer strobe to HMI.
Cheers,
CB
CB.
Thx.
I will probably buy a few of the Zeiss nikon mount lenses, just because I am fortunate to work in markets where PL mount lenses are falling out of the trees in rental.
I also will attempt to go to an EPIC if only for the autofocus, but as we all know nobody really does know when the EPIC will be ready to buy.
The cameras for movie biz, makes the world of medium format look utterly transparent.
As far as HMI's we're either buying the k5600's or the Bron Kobals. I've got a few of the older Bron HMI's and love them, though I've used the Kobals and they don't really turn me on. I think the K5600 are nice and have more options for modifiers.
I just saw a fairly large foldable fresnel for the k5600's that's pretty cool.
But if I'm not working in daylight I'll always go with tungsten. I love the look of tungsten with digital as it kind of screws up the blue channel and looks good to my eye.
I also love the simplicity of tungsten and oh yea, the price.
IMO
BC
-
I just rented a few of those Kobalds. 400w give you a lot of power, but if you dial them all the way down you get noticeable flicker. Also the light quality is ass and only suitable for silks, boxes & bounces.
Gonna have to check out the Profoto units coming out.
Unfortunately my garage full of hotlights are the wrong color balance for the majority of my projects!
-
I have a simple and direct question for both Chris and James
Having shooted videos with Red and Dslrs, a part from the design-usability and I know it matters a lot, can you affirm that RED is bringing truly more quality to your video works in the final product?
If so, such an investment is worth 100%. (let's not integrate here if you wish the chalenge motivations etc...)
Some pretented that in fact once you got your final edited movie, the differences are not so noticiable compare to the Canon. Again, who says what in internet. As I trust you both as talented professionals, I rather listen to voices That I know are reliable.
Thanks.
-
You know, a lot of people will be perfectly happy with a 5d2. The fact that none of my work is going to Cinema release, that it's largely going to be on the web or in powerpoints makes the Red massive overkill.
There are two aspects to it though... the malleability of the files... I'm talking substantial dynamic range and the lack of moiré that has plagued my 5d2 footage... that, for me, warranted the expenditure. I would be hard pressed to advise anyone else to go out and spend 30-50k on a system when they're brand new to motion work, and I wouldn't suggest it to you unless you're were absolutely sure of the potential.
I've already halfway paid for the Red with new work and somehow I just knew in my bones that for me this was going to take off.
It's really all a pain in the ass, the gear is heavy, you need a bigger crew, you have NO idea what the hell you're doing and you've just laid out all this cash... but it's really kind of fun too.
As usual, take me with a grain of salt.
CB
-
Thanks Chris. Knowing it's a little out of topic, but in arquitecture don't you perceive a stronger motion demand? In fact, I had some sample movies from an arquitect I know filmed indoor for selling flats. One part was autocad renders, very good actually but when they did serious mov that was another story. I can see the motion really strong in arquitecture. Maybe one day, an Arca on rails with a movie back! he he...
I think we really are into exciting times now despite all we know about what is happening.
-
I do photograph some hotels etc - not to the the CB standard
One of my first reasons to get into motion was to create a market for hotels
I have been learning to operate the steadicam pilot with my 5dMK2 and nikkor 28pc
Of course inanimate objects you can do 5k timelapse cheaply
This shot is a cropzoom timlelapes nikonD3 and a couple of stediacm walks (still getting the hang of SC which is very very hard on static objects)
Of course those looking to avoid moiree can go for say an EX1 or get RAW (2/3chip) from the S2k (i think it is called)
http://www.vimeo.com/13932815
S
-
Morgan, I really liked the brynn farm studio phylosophy. Kept in favorite. If I go to cornwall I'll be pleased to rent it. I'll need those kind of hollidays, a quiet studio in a gorgeous countryside. Are there local models too?(girls and boys)
Cheers.
-
OT : no proper fashion models here but some surf girls and boys
-
Isn't the D3 a kick-ass timelpase camera?!!! Built-in intervalometer, nice big battery and two CF slots. Every time I think about selling mine I find some need for it.
CB
-
You know, a lot of people will be perfectly happy with a 5d2. The fact that none of my work is going to Cinema release, that it's largely going to be on the web or in powerpoints makes the Red massive overkill.
There are two aspects to it though... the malleability of the files... I'm talking substantial dynamic range and the lack of moiré that has plagued my 5d2 footage... that, for me, warranted the expenditure. I would be hard pressed to advise anyone else to go out and spend 30-50k on a system when they're brand new to motion work, and I wouldn't suggest it to you unless you're were absolutely sure of the potential.
CB
I agree with CB and can put this into simple terms, investment equals return.
Obviously a camera by itself doesn't make you money, or get you booked, unless your a rental house.
The bottom line is will the RED work for my clients? I think so, it has seemed to and I'll know more in the coming months.
A lot of this depends on what you do. 4k seems like overkill for the web, but I think the consensus is that web play is dramatically changing from video download to streaming and streaming will have an impact on everything we watch from advertising to entertainment.
All of us could write a book on where we think advertising and media is going, but that really isn't in my power to decide for a client where or how they should advertise. My only thought is to be ready for whatever comes.
I personally think the RED offers me more control over the look and quality of our content and though the still frames are not medium format digital equivalent, they do offer the ability to be used across different mediums and I think more useful than the dslr files.
5d2 still files and still files from motion image (http://ishotit.com/rundsmc.jpg)
Right now the only thing anyone talks about is cost. That is where the video capable dslrs have an advantage, not just because the cameras and lenses are cheaper, but because they're small and you can run a lot of them at once with less intrusive camera hardware, less crew.
I was told yesterday that Hollywood plans are to move into more digital capture from dslrs to the RED and the only reason is costs. Some people are aghast at that thought, some revel in it. It just depends on which side of the fence you sit. I personally think the cost of the camera will have little to do with the quality or look of the content, because it's always come down to the creativity of the story, the quality of the talent and budget. Just like in still photography post production can dramatically change the look of any file, but just like in still photography the more robust file you start with the more you can do with it.
Just like in still photography, I don't believe it's a one camera world. There are things you can do with a dslr that you just can't do quickly with the RED, but consequently for certain productions the RED does things a dslr or any video camera doesn't.
After testing a lot of lenses, right now we've decided to make the RED as lightweight and moveable a camera as possible. Instead of a huge Oconnor head we went with the largest Bogen and a carbon fiber tripod, Zeiss ZF nikon mount lenses and the ways to get the battery off the camera.
We want to build the fastest system we can, because for the next few years, speed of production will be a large component to any project.
IMO
BC
-
There is a nice article about the 5D2 (http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/dslrs-for-digital-cinema-their-potential-your-responsibility) by a DP on the Creative Cow today. Color depth is one of his biggest concerns, and like me, he wonders if Canon will take up the torch and come out with something that competes with the heavies.
-
Thanks for the link Chris. Very interesting. I agree with Dave Stump's conclutions and they go in alignement with what B.C said in another thread.
James, without permission and in a "pedagogic"intention, I took the file you linked and added for comparing one of my file from a 720 movie. (if you want I delete that file as I didn't ask you permission)
It's interesting, I wanted to see more or less if size matters, and as always, yes size bloody matters. From a 720, I export a frame from the mov and did a quick retouched pushing from 400 to 800isos. This is more or less the size where the file is falling appart. a 40 MB object.
Putting that into numbers, the 720 would give me reducing the image after pp a max of a bearable 20cm printable at 300, bigger it just falls completly appart.
In your still, it's clearly visible that you have more room. In fact, if I had enlarged to the same size it was not tolerable.
Now, I did an instant retouch to see, I could have refined more the grain added by the pushed process (I passed myself there) etc...but for what? there is not much more to say about it.
The comparaison with your image shows clearly that your still is much more workable.
http://www.fredgasc.com/files/rundsmc2.jpg (http://www.fredgasc.com/files/rundsmc2.jpg)
Your still was it a 1080 from Canon? or a Red?
But it's frustrating, with dslrs we can't take advantage of raw neither get the benefit of the sensor size. Grrrrr
Canon? they may come with a surprise. (raw video?) Too many people are using them for video now.
a Kowa for your Red: http://cgi.ebay.com/Arri-PL-Cine-Kowa-25mm-T1-25-Aaton-Red-One-2K-Super-16-/120655788390?pt=UK_Photography_Film_Cameras_ET&hash=item1c17a53966
-
Canon? they may come with a surprise. (raw video?) Too many people are using them for video now.
It looks like they really did get the message, what is not clear is how they will address the new market niches of mirrorless "SLR" and movie-quality video. It's pretty obvious they are hesitating. Of course in the end the software guys will get to make the profit even if Canon makes the camera.
Edmund
-
Isn't the D3 a kick-ass timelpase camera?!!! Built-in intervalometer, nice big battery and two CF slots. Every time I think about selling mine I find some need for it.
CB
Yes it is--pity about the sensor being a Dust magnet though!
Des
-
Your still was it a 1080 from Canon? or a Red?
I posted two links.
One file with a RED , A nikon and another RED file which were frame grabs from RED cinex software at 4k.
red_nikon (http://ishotit.com/red_nikon.jpg)
The second link was from a 5d2 in two native sizes. The image on the left is a still quicktime grab from a 1920x1080 video file, the large image on the right was a still shot from the same session using the full 22mpx of the 5d2 in still mode.
5d2_still_motion_images (http://ishotit.com/rundsmc.jpg)
_______________________________________________
In regards to pulling stills from any video camera, today, it's kind of ok, but not any real clear cut system where one RED or Alexxa file will make a stunning still camera equal file.
It might be good enough for a lot of use, but if you want a still and motion camera in one, the Epic is probably the only answer though few people have seen any results.
red_epic (http://www.red.com/learn)
(go to video 10 FAQ about the Epic)
IMO
BC
-
I posted two links.
One file with a RED , A nikon and another RED file which were frame grabs from RED cinex software at 4k.
red_nikon (http://ishotit.com/red_nikon.jpg)
The second link was from a 5d2 in two native sizes. The image on the left is a still quicktime grab from a 1920x1080 video file, the large image on the right was a still shot from the same session using the full 22mpx of the 5d2 in still mode.
5d2_still_motion_images (http://ishotit.com/rundsmc.jpg)
_______________________________________________
In regards to pulling stills from any video camera, today, it's kind of ok, but not any real clear cut system where one RED or Alexxa file will make a stunning still camera equal file.
It might be good enough for a lot of use, but if you want a still and motion camera in one, the Epic is probably the only answer though few people have seen any results.
red_epic (http://www.red.com/learn)
(go to video 10 FAQ about the Epic)
IMO
BC
;D ;D Now I understand my frustration! When I saw the cow-boys, I thought the still file was extract directly from the movie frame and upsampled. When I saw the quality I thought "this is not Canon", I thought that could be Red.(and honestly was impressed, of course it was 22mpx!!)
This is why my upsampled to a 40mb file from the movie frame was falling appart. I mean the file of the model I linked was a frame from the 720 movie from the Pentax, upsampled to 40mb with a little pp.
No surprise I was saying bigger is best!!! Couldn't reach the size you linked and stopped on my image at the point quality has dramatically decreased. (did same testings with the 5D and obtained slightly, very marginally better results from a 1080).
Now I got it.
Thanks for those precisions James.
-
;D ;D Now I understand my frustration! When I saw the cow-boys, I thought the still file was extract directly from the movie frame and upsampled. When I saw the quality I thought "this is not Canon", I thought that could be Red.(and honestly was impressed)
This is why my upsampled to a 40mb file from the movie frame was falling appart. I mean the file of the model I linked was a frame from the 720 movie from the Pentax, upsampled to 40mb with a little pp.
No surprise I was saying bigger is best!!! Couldn't reach the size you linked and stopped on my image at the point quality has dramatically decreased.
Now I got it.
Thanks for those precisions James.
All the video formats use some type of blending/smoothing to kill noise and/or make a smooth transition from frame to frame. When in motion everything looks sharp, stopped as a still it looks soft.
The Red looks soft, though less soft than the 5d2 when both are used to pull frame grabs.
What is probably more useful on RED is the 4:4:4 compression and 12 bit, vs. the 10 bit of the Canon. On a gray scale the Canon holds up, but shooting in the real world the transitions are abrupt, especially if your going from dark medium tones to highlights.
IMO
BC
-
...and to keep going the saga, an Arri Alexa still, no comment.
jpeg is here: http://blog.localheropost.com/display/ShowImage?imageUrl=/storage/LocalHeroAlexaTest-Day-A-Grade.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1286582795760
uncompressed tiff is there: http://www.localheropost.com/alexa/LocalHeroAlexaTest-Day-A-Grade.tif