Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Motion & Video => Topic started by: adrjork on September 25, 2015, 11:31:17 am
-
Hi guys,
I've started this topic in "Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear" but with no reply. My mistake, because m43 lenses for video is actually a "Motion & Video" matter. So here we are.
As I tell you in a former topic, I'm going to order a GH4R (R is for VLog upgrade) for still and - mainly - video shooting, and I'm searching for a small kit of lenses.
For ergonomic and sharpness reasons I'm searching for m43 lenses only (so no metabones) and I need to work in low-light, so lenses must be fast.
I'm searching for a really small kit: I think just up to 3 lenses: a wide, a tele and (perhaps) a macro.
I'd love you could help me to choose a custom 3-lenses kit.
WIDE
I'm interested into 2 wide lenses:
1. Olympus Zuiko 7-14mm f/2.8 weather-sealed (no filters over it)
2. Panasonic Lumix 12-35mm f/2.8 OIS, weather-sealed
Both are weather-sealed.
Pana 12-35 has stabilization (good for video) and possibility of mounting ND filters, but I've the doubt that 12mm would not be a real landscape lens (2.3 crop factor: 28mm referring to 35mm).
On the other hand Oly 7-14 is a real wide lens but I can't use ND or IR filters over it (not a good new for GH4 outdoor) and it hasn't stabilization.
Perhaps I could solve the OIS lack with a pistol-gimbal, but the no-ND-filters issue remains.
So, what is in your opinion the best compromise, guys? Oly + gimbal (filtering in post), or Pana + filters (no gimbal need)?
TELE
The doubt is between 2 tele lenses:
1. Panasonic Nocticron 42.5mm f/1.2 OIS
2. Panasonic Lumix 35-100 f/2.8 OIS weather-sealed
Nocticron f/1.2 is perfect for my low-light need. (Anyway someone says it's "too" fast to use it as all-days-tele...)
On the other hand only Lumix is weather-sealed.
So, what do you prefer? A nice f/1.2 shallow DOF or weather-sealing?
MACRO
Between two macros:
1. Olympus Zuiko 60mm (macro) f/2.8 weather-sealed
2. Panasonic Leica DG Macro-Elmarit 45mm f/2.8 OIS
Two differeces here: weather-sealing vs OIS, and 60mm vs 45mm.
Let say that if I'd buy the fast Nocticron 42.5mm, another 45mm (even if macro) could be a sort of a replica, isn't it? And perhaps, in a 3-lenses kit (with just a wide a tele and a macro) having a 60mm could be useful. But what does make here the dufference: weather-sealing or OIS?
Well, I can image that macro shots are critical for stabilization, but I can also image that I will want to shoot in macro exclusively with tripods, isn't it? (Or at least with the gimbal - if I'd buy one.)
Which one do you prefer, guys?
Thanks a lot for your help.
-
Well, I partially replay to myself (please guys, don't let me alone in this topic!)
WIDE
I've seen some demos, and it seems to me that curved Zuiko 7-14 gives a too strong distortion (for my taste) at 7 (but also higher). On the other hand Lumix 12-35's OIS seems to have some micro-jittering issue.
I'd say that for video-shots it's better to go for a 32bit-gimbal (like Pilotfly H1+) together with an OIS-free lens like the Zuiko 12mm f/2 prime lens. Yes, it's actually a mid-wide lens but hasn't distortion at all and it's fast! (See this VIDEO (https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1&v=U1NKoAHERf8) by Moeru Maruyama.)
Anyway I have to take into account that I could use the lens for stills too, and perhaps OIS becomes more useful than a gimbal for this purpose, isn't it?
So, what do you think is the best compromise:
1. 12-35 with OIS (for both video and stills)
2. 12-35 (OIS disabled + Pilotfly for video, OIS-on for stills)
3. 12 f/2 + Pilotfly (for both video and stills)
TELE
More or less same question here: it doesn't seem to me that 42.5's OIS can replace an "external" stablization for video. So the competition could be between two different lens: Pana 42.5 f/1.2 (OIS disabled) vs Zuiko 75mm f/1.8. I've seen wonderful videos with the 75mm (another Maruyama's VIDEO (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNlm73lEFUo)) but I wonder if it's right for my purpose: I'd use tele for close-up shots, for details like hands, faces, eyes. 75mm seems perfect but I wonder if the great shallow DoF could become a problem, especially without a tripod (even with the gimbal). I've read someone saying that 75mm DoF forces you to stop down to take more in focus, but it means less light! Therefore many prefer a more "usable" (they say) 42.5mm.
And again there is my need for stills to take into account (do I need OIS for handheld stills?)
So, what is the best tele compromise?
Please guys post your advices!
-
Perhaps one more consideration about 42.5 lens:
Panasonic has two 42.5 lenses: f/1.2 and the cheaper f/1.7. Outside the price, 1.7 lens can work at the minimum distance of 30cm, while 1.2 lens has a limit of 50cm.
So 1.2 is faster (just 1 stop) but 1.7 could become a sort of tele-macro hybrid.
If that stop doesn't make the difference, could make sense to go for the 1.7, isn't it?
-
I use my GH4 on a Ronin Gimbal rig, recently shot a narrative short film on it as well as my usual fetish fashion films.
I found the Panasonic 12-35 mm very useful as my primary lens for when the camera was on the gimbal rig. I don't find OIS particularly useful for video work myself- I prefer to mechanically stabilise either with a gimbal, tripod, dolly or slider. Other people's style will differ.
I have the Panasonic 7-14 mm which is a pretty good lens if you don't need lots of light. For my use cases I don't generally need to be that wide in low light- indoors I'm usually fine at 12 mm. I only used the 7-14 mm for mountain vistas in my film, we used the 12-35mm for 75% of shots probably. The main limitation with the 7-14 is definitely the lack of filtration- very tricky, ended up shooting some stuff at f/16 and compromising shutter speed too, just because we couldn't get ND on in bright summer sunshine.
So for me if I had to pick one I would definitely choose the 12-35mm over the 7-14 mm.
For the tele end we mostly use the 45mm macro- it's a nice lens. I have an older Olympus 12-60 four thirds lens on a micro four third adaptor which we use in rougher outdoor shooting conditions where you don't want to be swapping lenses. But it's not a fast lens.
When I really need light, I use a Voigtlander f/0.95 lens. I have the 25mm, but I wish I'd bought the 17.5 mm instead (I find the "normal" focal length virtually useless for video shooting. It isn't wide enough for medium shots indoors in the sorts of spaces I shoot, and it isn't tight enough for close ups. Your mileage will vary if you shoot in bigger spaces than me, of course). And actually if I had to buy one wide lens it might be the 10.5 mm f/0.95 Voitlander because that's wide enough for nearly all my purposes and can take a filter for when it is bright or open up all the way when it is dark.
If I have to choose just one lens to pair with the GH4, I usually take the Olympus 12-60 mm. But more commonly I'll take the 7-14, 12-35, and 45 macro as my basic shooting set for video.
I would like to add the 35-100 f/2.8 lens at some point to complete the focal length range, I have the 50-200 which is awesome for what it is but isn't optically on a par. But I rarely find myself needing to go much tighter than the 45 Macro for video.
Cheers, Hywel
-
I have most if not all of the Olympus fast primes, the two constant panasonic 2.8 zooms and the .95 voights.
My take is if your own a tight budget and want to keep prices low, the Olys offer more alternatives since they are faster than 2.8, though the pana zooms are a good price and the voights I never use.
The GH series isn't our main cam and we use it for fast car mounts, to quick pickup shots.
The gh series is good, and you'll need to learn to work the files. The blacks collapse but can be brought back as it's a thick little file.
I dont know your budget, or your plans, but if I was going to stick with 4:3 then I'd use 4:3 mount lenses, but if I had plans to move to a different system later, I'd probably buy full frame zeiss f2 lenses using a metabones booster to give you essentially the same field of view as super 35.
The beauty of the Zeiss is they are mechanical focus and accurate and you can easily move the Zeiss to another larger camera later on.
They also come in Canon mount which is more accepted by the newer cameras than Nikon, but there are a lot of options including Duclous who has changeable mounts, and adds gears for focusing and zoom.
I kind of think 4:3 for higher end productions is becoming rather limited, but panasonic seems to be dedicated to the system and they are widely in use.
IMO
BC
-
I kind of think 4:3 for higher end productions is becoming rather limited, but panasonic seems to be dedicated to the system and they are widely in use.
IMO
BC
I agree. There was a time when the m4/3 system was specialy interesting
For motion work, the mount is probably the most versatile,
And Panasonic understood earlier with their gh line that
Imagery was going to be motion so they developped a
Very well featured system for video. But since then, many things
Have happened and I really don't see nowdays what is the
Point of investing in m4/3 mount.
Unless they pop-up with another revolutionary game changer,
I don't see a future in m4/3 for filming.
There are lots of powerfull options nowdays that really
Are much more interesting and versatiles.
Ok, I bought the BMCC with m4/3 mount but when I did,
I knew it was going to be the last time I drop money in
A micro 4/3 system. I wanted a super 16 sensor and
Use exclusively vintage lenses I ebay here or there because of the buzz
Some lenses are excelent, others are pure crap but it's romantic,
It's vintage, it smells metal, oil on blades and oxydation. I like to feel
That touch.
The real value of super16 lenses is overpriced, the market has
Become speculative and you see authentic crapperies sold for the
Cost of a new cine lens...it's not the gold rush but the c-mount rush.
To me, the BM strengh was the Prores + raw in a small package. (not
That small by the way after rigged).
Now...
-
Agree with what you wrote James.
This:
http://m.ebay.es/itm/PDMOVIE-BMD-ARMOR-RIG-Wireless-Follow-Focus-Rig-FOR-BMCC-BMPC-/391090123564?nav=SEARCH
Is IMO a very clever configuration, very much
In the design's line of the antique Konvas.
All in the control of fingers, very compact.
Configurable handgrip with 2 motors..
I specialy like to leave the handgrip with a 40ish degree angle.
But costs more than the camera itself, but it makes
The BMCC truly useable.
The m4/3 is, I think, not going to be attractive any longuer.
You see the Sony and those super 35 getting each time cheaper...
They are not that smaller and wide lenses are overpriced
Because that's one of the weaknesses of this crop factor.
They aren't very good at higher isos...
I think Panasonic will have to put his engineers on the
Design boards and pop-up soon with a gamechanger otherwise
People will step away.
-
Interesting perspective, BC.
I think m4/3 has got a future in a specialist niche- lightweight systems and B-cams- but I agree that the mainstream seems to be settling on APS-C/s35 or full-frame sensors.
Personally I like to have the GH4 as a B-cam, specifically for flying on a gimbal rig.
I tried flying my RED but my middle aged body simply isn't up to the physical demands without investing another £3000+ in an Easyrig vest. I also needed to have two other people trotting alongside me- one to pull focus and one with a control box to control the gimbal, as with that much weight the best I could do was try to keep the whole platform stable. The results one gets when doing that are pretty awesome, but it is too many people for my standard shoots.
I've found that with the GH4 on its battery grip, it sits very neatly on the gimbal, runs literally all day without changing batteries either on camera or gimbal, takes a Sennheiser radio receiver for sync audio, and has autofocus good enough to grab focus at the start of a shot. It intercuts well with RED footage the way I usually grade, too.
GH4 autofocus isn't good enough for live focus pulling, but I'm happy to forego doing focus racks for most gimbal shots... and when I need to in extremis, I've used an iPad on the rig and touch screen to AF to get it. I can even do it when I'm operating solo. It's not Hollywood- it does hunt a bit, so one often needs to do several takes and cross one's fingers, but for one man band operating on my budgets it does OK.
Gimbal rig operation is one place I'm very grateful for m4/3's greater depth of field, too.
I am intrigued to see how my A7Rii compares on the gimbal rig. I haven't played with the remote app yet, but its continuous autofocus with face detect and all those PDAF points is little short of magical for stills, so I'm hopeful it might play nice for video too. But the A7Rii's smaller camera size compared with a dSLR is a bit meaningless when you have to lug so much heavy glass.
The biggest bonus of m4/3 for me is being able to take a full camera rig with focal lengths from 14 mm to 400 mm (FF equivalent) and battery enough to last for 12+ hours of timelapse in the mountains in a single small camera case strapped to the outside of my rucksack. I haven't weighted the full bag but I'd be surprised if it came to as much as 3 kg. Larger sensors means larger lenses, broadly speaking- taking the A7Rii, 14 mm to 200 mm focal length range and the bag weighs easily twice as much, and requires space in the pack as well as strapped to the side, which is not ideal.
The GH4 is simply the best all-rounder I've ever used in the mountains. Great ergonomics even with gloves on, light lenses, great battery life, shoots acceptable 16 megapixel stills and 4K video, plus very good built in time-lapse, in a tiny package. I've been doing a 12 month project at the summit of a local mountain and when camping up there I'm very glad of the smaller size and weight of the GH4. I did take the A7Rii up one time, and the results probably are a bit technically nicer, but I had to choose between a 14 mm for Milky Way shots or a 70-200 for closeups, whereas the GH4 I took both without thinking.
The A7Rii has better ultimate image quality and is great for hand-held stuff, but for the mountains I want a tripod anyway (timelapse and long exposures for night shots), so I prefer to take a wider range of focal lengths and halve the pack weight and live with 16 megapixels vs 42.
Cheers, Hywel.
-
But Hywel,
Can't we find compact lenses on PL mount and so? I beleive glasses like the Rollei planar in PL mount ar really compact and are priced at 1000ish euros.
(http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NDUwWDYwMA==/z/cuEAAOxyTMdTNY1h/$_1.JPG)
(http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NDUwWDYwMA==/z/awQAAOxydUJTNY1g/$_1.JPG)
And those Lomo in Oct 19 o PL are really small and very nice
(http://41.media.tumblr.com/e4ca9e13706b8f11e2781e7db99b6ed8/tumblr_nhrzi6OJER1u7zdgco1_1280.jpg)
I had 2 of them, they are cheap and perform like hell.
The current Lomos are not cheap at all but cheapper than
The zeiss, smaller, with an identical image performance. (FJS has on sale in Hollywood. The guy's called Fred like me, but they only sell the whole kit)
And, and and and... then there is no convertion involved.
It's tirying that a 20mm becomes a normal lens on a m4/3 system, unless you want to shoot wildlife like birds on the tres etc...otherwise it's really painfull.
Because of this weired crop factor c-mount super16 vignete on
The GHs (but not on the bmpcc).
In the end, the GH's sensor is too big for super16 and
Too small for super35 and falls in a sort of no-one's land.
Is the m4/3 system that much smaller? That much lighter?
I think that this is small, usable for motion, but yeah, no 4K. Although RAW
(https://images.blackmagicdesign.com/media/products/blackmagicvideoassist/main/uses.jpg)
More versatile also because you can place the video assist far away from the camera if you wish. Even rigged, all takes place in a city bag.
And the VA can be used as a grip with a bit of rigging.
-
I am fully equipped for m43 video and love it. I have multiple Oly/Panny lenses but in practice normally only use two - maybe three - per shoot
but
if I was starting out today, I would invest in full frame knowing that my lens investment purchases would very likely hold through generations of future bodies.
The Sony A7rll is actually smaller than my GH4. The extra weight and coverage of ff over m43 lenses is well worth it - seems to me today. If I need smaller kit, there is my iPhone...
-
The micro has a 4K versión? I ignored it. That changes all.
-
.... Who doesn't have standard Canon batteries?
BC
Meeeeee ! 8)
-
James, I can not find the 4k version of the micro BM
So far it seemed that it was hd only like the pocket, went to check the BM
Website and no mention I can find on 4k.
It' his bigger brother that has 4k. The one on the cage I linked further-up
With the motorized hand-grips.
Ok, bigger than the micro but still smaller than a rigged dslr.
-
To get back to one of the OP's questions about going wide with m4/3 native lenses, the Oly 9-18mm/4-5.6 hasn't been mentioned. For 4K UHD, a very nice ~21-42mm EFL range and it takes front filters. Don't have this one, but own I did the 4/3 version long ago, and I'm finding my Panny 7-14 limiting due to lack of the filter option, and the range of the 9-18 is appealing. $700 at B&H now, which is surprisingly pricey for a slow lens you rarely see mentioned. Got a great deal on the 12-35/2.8 recently for only $730 through one of Amazon's affiliates.
Pete
-
Well, dear guys, after reading and thinking, I decided to go for Lumix 42.5mm f/1.7 as my first lens, and as wide lens I think I will buy Lumix 12-35mm f/2.8.
Now I'm thinking about filters... Actually I don't want to manage a bag of filters. Just 2 or 3.
As I said, my needs are: being practical and maintain image sharpness.
My questions are about ND circular filters...
Correct me if I'm wrong: a moderate ND filter (0.6 or 0.9) helps to control light maintaining full aperture and then shallow D.o.F., while an high ND filter (2.4) doesn't have much sense for video (right?) but a big sense for long exposure photography. Is it all correct? (Question: does long exposure video exist?)
Anyway, it seems there are two ways here:
1. having 3 or 4 different ND filter + Xume Adapters;
2. having 1 variable ND filter.
A single VND filter is more practical indeed, but there is the risk of IR pollution, so we need adding IR filter (2 filters: goodbye sharpness) or a unique variable IRND filter.
The only one good IR-VND filter seems to be Tiffen 77mm IR-VND. But it's... 77mm! (While 42.5 f/1.7 is 37mm... and 12-35mm is 58mm.)
Naturally step-up rings do exist, but it seems to me a bit... forced (I do not know even if I could hold the camera resting on a table...)
What are your advices, guys?
1. Should I go for some fixed IRND filters? (Which kit? 0.6 + 0.9 for video with shallow D.o.F., and an high 2.4 for long exposure photography? With Xume Adapters to change filter easily?)
2. Or should I go for the cyclopic Tiffen 77mm IR-VND?
3. Or perhaps a 58mm Eclipse VND + a Tiffen IR?
Just curious, what do you think about this set:
37mm lens + 37mm Xume lens >
> 37mm Xume filter + 37-58 step-up + 58mm Xume lens >
> 58mm Xume filter + Hoya 58mm UV and IR Cut Filter >
> 58mm Xume filter + Tiffen 58mm VND filter + 58mm Xume lens cap.
Any alternatives?
Thanks
-
but
if I was starting out today, I would invest in full frame knowing that my lens investment purchases would very likely hold through generations of future bodies.
Another interesting point, Chris.
I think you're right. If I was starting out today and didn't have any legacy kit, I don't think I'd buy m4/3. I'd buy an A7Rii and a few lenses to go with it, including some lighter-weight options for the mountains (eg Sony 16-35 f4 and 70-200 f4) and some faster glass for low light.
Add an iPhone 6s for everything else. I've had good results with my iPhone 5s on a motorized gimbal rig actually, surprisingly good footage.
The battery life and ergonomics would still suck compared with the GH4, and the quality isn't necessarily quite up there with Hasselblad or RED, but it would be very hard to beat for imaging quality bang for buck.
I wonder what lens mount I'd go for? Probably Canon, despite the fact that Canon bodies aren't currently top-of-the-heap. They work well on the A7Rii with Metabones and the new firmware, and so many other manufacturers now support EF mount (RED, BM, Sony via Metabones, even Arri IIRC) that it's probably the safest all-around investment? That way one could invest in a Canon body for stuff like sports where the mirrorless cameras aren't quite up to scratch yet, or grow into a raw video workflow via RED or BM if you develop that way.
Cheers, Hywel
-
Well, dear guys, after reading and thinking, I decided to go for Lumix 42.5mm f/1.7 as my first lens, and as wide lens I think I will buy Lumix 12-35mm f/2.8.
Now I'm thinking about filters... Actually I don't want to manage a bag of filters. Just 2 or 3.
As I said, my needs are: being practical and maintain image sharpness.
My questions are about ND circular filters...
Correct me if I'm wrong: a moderate ND filter (0.6 or 0.9) helps to control light maintaining full aperture and then shallow D.o.F., while an high ND filter (2.4) doesn't have much sense for video (right?) but a big sense for long exposure photography. Is it all correct? (Question: does long exposure video exist?)
Anyway, it seems there are two ways here:
1. having 3 or 4 different ND filter + Xume Adapters;
2. having 1 variable ND filter.
A single VND filter is more practical indeed, but there is the risk of IR pollution, so we need adding IR filter (2 filters: goodbye sharpness) or a unique variable IRND filter.
The only one good IR-VND filter seems to be Tiffen 77mm IR-VND. But it's... 77mm! (While 42.5 f/1.7 is 37mm... and 12-35mm is 58mm.)
Yes, long exposure video is possible with the GH4: Set M exposure mode, and select MF with focus mode lever - then exposures down to 1/2 sec are possible. I imagine it does this by exposing the first frame 1/2 sec, then rapidly cloning the other 29 in 30p 4K or 59 in 1080p60. It works for both. For static night shots, that's a 4-stop light gain over the lowest SS of 1/30th sec otherwise, and can give ghostly renderings of people in motion, broken light trails, etc.
About the IR "pollution" thing with video and a VND or fixed ND filter, I've never come across a discussion about this. Surely the common ND filter attenuates IR to some degree, and we're talking about a 1/60-1/120sec exposure for a 180 deg. video shutter angle. To get an IR exposure without removal of the IR blocking sensor stack hot mirror, using, say, a 720nm IR front filter, I think you're talking exposures of seconds in bright conditions, with total blackout of DSLR's OVF's.
Pete
-
James, I can not find the 4k version of the micro BM
So far it seemed that it was hd only like the pocket, went to check the BM
Website and no mention I can find on 4k.
It' his bigger brother that has 4k. The one on the cage I linked further-up
With the motorized hand-grips.
Ok, bigger than the micro but still smaller than a rigged dslr.
The 4K version has no re-corder built in, less DR and isn't GS or RS switchable.
JB
-
The 4K version has no re-corder built in, less DR and isn't GS or RS switchable.
JB
John, you know what? I've Heard that the 2K versión upsized to 4K isn't ridiculous at all. Have you tried that?
-
John, you know what? I've Heard that the 2K versión upsized to 4K isn't ridiculous at all. Have you tried that?
I know this is off topic but has anyone here delivered 4k in a hefty codec like 4444 ProRez and tried to play it? All of our machines are at the highest spec of ram and video cards and I've never played more than two clips in 4k without them stuttering and skipping.
In a lower bitrate and depth, h264 4k will play, but even on a 5k monitor with no noticeable difference.
This week started an edit in 4k and 2k. Actually did the test first. Debayered the R3d files through CineX in 4444 2k and 4k ProRes, with the same quality settings, same debayer settings (mitchell).
Then took the 2k footage and upressed it in 4k. Comparing all three on a 5k monitor, the 4k looked equal or worse compared to the 2k . The 2k, even on a 5k monitor upressed look 25% better.
I see the advantage of shooting 4k or uhd, but not the editorial or delivery as long as you conform out at upressed 2k then insert the titles at 4k.
IMO
BC
-
Yep...
I also use mainly the Mitchell
Same story here. Edit 4k or more footage native
In Lightworks means that I have to debayer to 1/16
For longuer than a 5min.
And looking at a display at 1/16 is hugly.
As I don't have a rocket I can max go up to Premium,
Wish is frankly the same than the 100 per cent.
2k upres does not look crap, surprisingly.
Lol...we'll end doing tricks that nobody notices...he he he
-
Just a thought:
at 24fps, 1/48 sec exposure per frame, there will be motion blur in almost every frame unless the camera is locked off and nothing is moving. It should be no surprise that 2k looks the same as 4k. And even when the occasional sharp frame occurs, the chances of dead on focus accuracy, at shallow DOF (f2.0 - 4.0) is slim.
And lastly, I went to the movies recently a couple times. 95% of the audience sat so far back that there is no way they could have seen the benefit of 4k projection, even if they had been projecting in 4k :)
There may be one real benefit to 4k origination, but I'm not so good at the math... Down re-sizing from 4k to 1920 pixels may look better than down re-sizing from 2048 pixel (2k) to 1920 pixel (HD) which shows a significant drop in detail. But to get this advantage, you'll need to master to 4k before re-sizing.
I know this is off topic but has anyone here delivered 4k in a hefty codec like 4444 ProRez and tried to play it? All of our machines are at the highest spec of ram and video cards and I've never played more than two clips in 4k without them stuttering and skipping.
In a lower bitrate and depth, h264 4k will play, but even on a 5k monitor with no noticeable difference.
This week started an edit in 4k and 2k. Actually did the test first. Debayered the R3d files through CineX in 4444 2k and 4k ProRes, with the same quality settings, same debayer settings (mitchell).
Then took the 2k footage and upressed it in 4k. Comparing all three on a 5k monitor, the 4k looked equal or worse compared to the 2k . The 2k, even on a 5k monitor upressed look 25% better.
I see the advantage of shooting 4k or uhd, but not the editorial or delivery as long as you conform out at upressed 2k then insert the titles at 4k.
IMO
BC
-
Just a thought:
at 24fps, 1/48 sec exposure per frame, there will be motion blur in almost every frame unless the camera is locked off and nothing is moving. It should be no surprise that 2k looks the same as 4k. And even when the occasional sharp frame occurs, the chances of dead on focus accuracy, at shallow DOF (f2.0 - 4.0) is slim.
And lastly, I went to the movies recently a couple times. 95% of the audience sat so far back that there is no way they could have seen the benefit of 4k projection, even if they had been projecting in 4k :)
There may be one real benefit to 4k origination, but I'm not so good at the math... Down re-sizing from 4k to 1920 pixels may look better than down re-sizing from 2048 pixel (2k) to 1920 pixel (HD) which shows a significant drop in detail. But to get this advantage, you'll need to master to 4k before re-sizing.
Exactly Bruce.
I'm happy to read those latest posts with some
Common sense.
4ks are interesting for reframing and control composition.
Only us are concerned about this endless quest of
IQ, not the theater's audience. Never.
You could do a cult movie with a Bolex camera and
Win at Cannes.
The highest, more sublime undescribled point reached in ridiculousness
Is the gazillion people doing 4k who will never ever be
Featured in any theater but just YouTube.
I believe some psychatrists and doctors in mind
Conditionning should read the motion forums for
Their thesis.
As Coot said, fear we can be when clients contaminated
By the virus will start to ask for 8k...lol...
It's going to be so unique...
And most of those fourkayers aren't really aware of the
Requirements that supposed in post, in capture, and storage...
I'm falling from my chair laughing...all that is crazy.
But it also shows the mind and how easy
Advertising controls masses.
It's all about printing in minds desires that are
Not only unnecessary but ultimately not possible
To handle for the common mortal. And it's so easy,
Looking at how many people have bite.
They sell illusion.
-
John, you know what? I've Heard that the 2K versión upsized to 4K isn't ridiculous at all. Have you tried that?
Well, pretty sure very very few have that camera....Not sure how you've heard that about that camera specifically.
The sensor in the 4K isn't the same at all as the 1920 version in terms of DR. And that to me is the most important element of making a nice looking cinematic picture.
I would also say, the advantages of 4K are important to some and it's inevitable that we'll need to incorporate 4K delivery into our workflows. Notice I say 4K delivery and not 4K acquisition.
Let's look at the camera I don't think anyone would complain about having to use, the Arriflex Alexa and all it's iterations.
None of them acquire at 4K.
None.
Some of them can do an in-camera up rezzed 4K file, but none of them actually have a 4K sensor....
Yet is hasn't stopped it being the choice of most of the worlds filmmakers, both monied and not.
I would also add you need to view resolution through the prism of MOTION.
You can't compare a 4K frame and talk about it's motion blur (or lack of) without then looking at it IN MOTION.
Noise too. You perceive noise differently (and resolution) differently to a file in motion than a still frame.
JB
-
Interesting. Thanks John.
Now I have a big question.
A big big big one.
I'd like to understand why the sacro saint DR
Is regarded as so important to get to the film look
When most of film stock did have a much reduced DR
Than digital?
This is a point I never ended to fully understand.
People want the "golden age" look when they filmed at
How many stops? 7? 8?
-
Jean - go point your camera at the sun - your digital file will have a 'white hole' maybe that white hole will have a magenta or green ring round it. I will look horrid.
The scene has too much DR for digital capture.
Now point film at the same scene.. yep it will be white but the roll off is there.
Digital can put you in a 'box' where a scene has too much DR and you just cant really shoot, no scene has too much DR for film.. yes the whole scene may not be recorded on the film but you can still shoot in that place without nasty artifacts.
I think people lust for not being trapped in a box.. not actual DR?
-
I agree, it's the roll-off rather than the actual DR. Having more DR means you can expose to avoid clipping the highlights in an ugly way, then brighten up shadows and mid-tones without introducing unacceptable noise. So DR is what digital has to do in order to keep highlights attractive. It isn't the DR per se.
Film had a beautiful roll-off (that we didn't fully appreciate at the time :) because it had a logarithmic response, more like our eyes, whereas digital has a linear response and a sharp cut-off when the sensel wells get full. The real problem comes because the channels don't all clip at the same time, which is what gives the horrible colour artefacts when close to clipping. If the sun just went white it wouldn't be such an issue.
Cheers, Hywel
-
Here we go.
You answered my question (that was on purpose)
And same mystics happen with sensor size and
Resolution.
Do a blind test on film look and you'll see that 80%
Of the people would choose a Digital Bolex footage
As more authentic, vibring and in tune with the human
Perception if I might say. Look the sensor tech of a Bolex.
Ain't CMOS.
The footage of most cameras nowadays looks ultra sharp
Surgical, but videolike. Cold and unorganic.
So I reiterate mi question in a different way:
Could a small 16mm 2k resolution sensor, with 10 stops
DR at max deliver the film look in a theater and would
Visually catch the audience?
This ain't one of my provocative inputs but an honest question.
We want the film look, the organic Bolex, and we chase
Equipments that are each time more sophisticated,
More reso, more DR, big sensors, lots of K that produce
A NASA astrophysicist imagery and to get back to the human
Scale we need to make post prod tricks with luts bombings
And grain layers...
It makes think.
-
So I reiterate mi question in a different way:
Could a small 16mm 2k resolution sensor, with 10 stops
DR at max deliver the film look in a theater and would
Visually catch the audience?
Seems like Slumdog Millionaire proved that ?
http://www.siliconimaging.com/DigitalCinema/News/PR_01_31_09_Slumdog.html
JB
-
I checked the company that builds the cam,
Very impressed I must say.
That's really the kind of specs I was talking about.
The recorded datas are stunning
And probably the closest to film I can think of.
Couldn't find the price of the mini. Might not be cheap
I suppose.
-
I think about the price of Red.
rent.. http://www.radiantimages.com/cameras/hd-beyond/silicon-imaging/285-silicon-imaging-si-2k-nano-sensor
the bmc micro should eat it for $1000
-
Yeah.
So as the indiecam, about the same.
What I like is that it does not fall into
A no-man's land like the micro4-3
But is C-mount and takes B4 lenses.
Most great lenses would vignette on
The 4-3. If not in crop mode.
But those aren't really cameras for a large audience
But really to make feature film.