Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: JoeKitchen on April 29, 2016, 02:37:13 pm
-
So a couple of nights ago I want to a retouching event my local ASMP chapter put on. Essential they had the owner of one of the best retouching firms in the country come in and talk about what they do and the relationship between a retoucher and photographer.
Something that really caught my eye was the creation of cinema-graphs from still pictures. I have no desire to shoot video, but creating a still with some motion would be pretty bad ass.
I just got off the phone with him talking about a personal project I want to do. He told me that if I had a camera that did both stills and video, it would be so much easier. I could capture the still and then grab a few seconds of video to drop in using after effects.
Yes, there certainly is a need for video with MFDB. It may not be optimal for traditional video, but for something like this, it would be very beneficial.
-
The problem I see with video on still cameras is that they never record the full frame, it's always cropped down to 16:9 or something. So if you are doing motion to complement a still image, say in my case a magazine cover that then has a motion element for the iPad version of the cover, it means you have to pull back to make sure you don't lose the sides. Better than having to change cameras, but I don't know why it's always assumed by camera makers that we need cinema or TV screen proportions.
Ben
-
The problem I see with video on still cameras is that they never record the full frame, it's always cropped down to 16:9 or something. So if you are doing motion to complement a still image, say in my case a magazine cover that then has a motion element for the iPad version of the cover, it means you have to pull back to make sure you don't lose the sides. Better than having to change cameras, but I don't know why it's always assumed by camera makers that we need cinema or TV screen proportions.
Ben
True, that does annoy me too, now, I guess.
-
Yes, the other challenge for stills guys shooting video is getting the hang of grading, especially if you don't want it to look flat and indie-film like, but more like the punchy stills you have just shot. Videos on Dslrs/Sonys is essentially thousands of jpegs so there's not much room to push them around before they get grainy and highlights blow out etc. I'm keen to see what the video will be like on the Hasselblad H6, because the specs mention it shoots RAW, and can be processed in Phocus before transcoding to Prores, so it will be hopefully a much more flexible file and a more familiar process for photographers.
-
Yes, the other challenge for stills guys shooting video is getting the hang of grading, especially if you don't want it to look flat and indie-film like, but more like the punchy stills you have just shot. Videos on Dslrs/Sonys is essentially thousands of jpegs so there's not much room to push them around before they get grainy and highlights blow out etc. I'm keen to see what the video will be like on the Hasselblad H6, because the specs mention it shoots RAW, and can be processed in Phocus before transcoding to Prores, so it will be hopefully a much more flexible file and a more familiar process for photographers.
This is what professionals are for!
I absolutely despise retouching. I don't mind working a raw file in C1, but I hate doing anything in PS. I often will work a file to as far as I can in raw, and then not touch it again for a week because I know I have to take it to PS to get it done.
So, here, I would hire it out.
-
Ha, well each to their own! I quite like the retouching/grading side and think it's part of a photographers personal 'look'. Besides, who's got the time or money to pay third parties with budgets what they are these days!
Ben
-
Ha, well each to their own! I quite like the retouching/grading side and think it's part of a photographers personal 'look'. Besides, who's got the time or money to pay third parties with budgets what they are these days!
Ben
Well, the grading and color processing and contrast and dodging/burning and what not, I like. The tedious shit, like cutting out hanging chandeliers from faster exposures to drop in over the same chandeliers in the actual exposures because they were swaying and you could not do anything about it, really really gets me.
With this kind of work, like splicing video and stills to make a gif, let the pros do it. Not to mention it will look better in the end.
-
Well, the grading and color processing and contrast and dodging/burning and what not, I like. The tedious shit, like cutting out hanging chandeliers from faster exposures to drop in over the same chandeliers in the actual exposures because they were swaying and you could not do anything about it, really really gets me.
+1....
or cleaning dirty glass because the assignment was rushed before the builder did their final clean....hoo hum
-
Well, most makers of lower end cameras do and as you mentioned the thought is the standard for video on broadcast and the web is 16x9, though in reality we've all see 4:3 videos, 1:85 to 1, 2 to 1 in broadcast and even much wider in cinema.
People love standards, but honestly I wish they all would offer square to 2 to 1.
I've shot a lot of still frame videos, with all kinds of cameras, even to go as far shoot 4:3 in medium format.
In editing them down I have a few processes, one even being lightroom to produce a series of image stills that we put in the edl for image sequences.
You can really do some interesting looks from stills in motion, but it does take testing.
It really depends on the look/style your after and if you displaying in quicktime as a final edit, you can easily crop the black sides off a quicktime video with a simple mask.
Though right now it's basically untested the new Canon 1dxII will allow for high quality stills along with footage, though their 4k standard is around 185 to 1 but nothing stops anyone from cropping or changing the look.
It will be interesting to see how the 1dxII performs because even though it uses an older codec of motion jpeg due to heat, it has a high bit rate and each frame is captured independently.
I know people will go OMG JPEG, but remember every movie you see from the dcp is an image sequence of jpeg 2000.
IMO
BC
GH4 has one decent bit rate codec that does intra-frame only compression ie. independent frames, I think. They have released a firmware, this is optimised for extracting stills from motion; but maybe they even have a better HD codec. Of course in your book these cameras are toys - I would agree, but high-end is not for everybody's budget.
Very strangely I've found my GH4 gives MUCH better results when extracting stills from motion than when shooting still images. I've found the motion stills out of Final Cut Pro X nothing short of incredible. Probably something Im doing wrong but these days with Alzheimer looming even my PhD isn't enough training to assemble a Lego kit without difficulty, or set a camera, and my english is not good enough to read an instruction manual written in Tokyo. I *think* the GH4 can shoot at least HD in 4/3 format, but I'm not sure.
Edmund
-
While we're on the subject - I assume you're talking about this - http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a41394/sundance-photographs-2016/
I know she shoots Canon/Hasselblad (maybe more too), but no idea how this was done.
-
+1....
or cleaning dirty glass because the assignment was rushed before the builder did their final clean....hoo hum
Duplicate layer, dust and scratches, hide all mask and paint back. Just saying :)
-
Can anyone describe, or link to a source, that shows how these "stills with motion" are created?
-
Can anyone describe, or link to a source, that shows how these "stills with motion" are created?
See post #10 above by Doug for one example.
-
See post #10 above by Doug for one example.
Thanks, aye, Doug's post is what sparked my interest.
But those are finished examples. I'm looking for how they're done.
-
Thanks, aye, Doug's post is what sparked my interest.
But those are finished examples. I'm looking for how they're done.
Sorry, my bad.
-
You can do it in PS, but you need the extended version or the current monthly plan version.
It is not too hard if you are just doing it all from a video file. It gets harder when you are layering motion and effects over an image. Hence, why you hire it out.
-
Found this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DU0Sim_BJ4
The more I think about this, the more I am of the opinion that Phase One is not looking to the future by not incorporating video into their CMOS backs.
I know that high quality traditional video would probably never work in such a small box (due to many reasons, or at least for any long recordings), but for something like this, it is a disadvantage to not have a video option.
-
Just watched another video on adding motion to a still using After Effects.
With out a doubt, way over my head and not something I have the time, nor the desire, to learn.
-
Raw video comes in handy for this stuff, as you can apply your usual photoworkflow, and it gives very good quality. The cheapest way is a canon 5d mkiii with the MagicLantern hack, this also opens the possibility of 3:2 videos (1920x1280, I think this is good enough for WEB consumption). I wouldn't be scared of the hack nature, as this has been around for some while. Shooting a movie would be another story, but for short clips, it's perfect I think.
You could also try RED or the new hasselblad for higher resolutions.;D
-
Great conversation - thanks guys.
-
You should describe your bandwidth issues to some guy who does deployment for big companies; there are ways to mirror stuff out so that people get to see it fast.
Thank you for posting some very interesting info.
Edmund
I have clients that want to see an edit in some form of HD (which covers a lot of territory) usually from their home, on an I-pad.
They always call and say "it won't play" and I always say give it 10 minutes or more.
10 minutes to a client is like 10 days, so . . .
In the end it will all get there but right now the web bandwidth we all receive is variable.
IMO
BC
-
J,
We are lucky to be now. With digital and VR and holography and drone cameras starting up seriously around now, we're back not to a big clean slate, but at least to a wiped corner of the big slate: we can experiment with new visual expressive modes that can be achieved by ways of digital capture and presentation, and if we are lucky some of these modes we invent might even outlast the job they were placed in, or even outlast us. I think the gifs in this thread are one such small novelty ...just think of what a cliché timelapse has become ever since every digital camera contains an intervallometer.
Edmund
My bad.
I didn't want to ruin this discussion talking about band width.
My clients are fine viewing in their offices as they have loads of bandwidth, but when they go home it all starts creeping slower.
I'm not Dreamworks, but I can conform video for web play and have about 4 dozen settings depending on client, device and local.
Maybe France is rocking with speed but that could be that Edmund is still working on a minitele. (that's a joke for my French friends).
Actually Joe is probably right. Messing with this stuff is a lot of work for not a lot of return and none of it is really new and for it to really work you need (oops said it again) good bandwidth and more importantly a good idea.
That fiat 500 link I showed was I believe shot with a series of still cameras fired sequentially from a computer.
Not to go totally of topic but Douglas Trumbull then his protege John Geata (Matix . . . the bullet effect) really developed it a long time ago (at least in the digital world).
For any of us mortal still and motion photographers to get close to what these guys did we'd have to drill a tunnel to empty the Federal Reserve and live to be 300 years old.
http://www.wired.com/2003/05/matrix2/
Once again sorry to go off topic, but what the heck.
IMO
BC
Oh and BTW: A lot of background plates for effects are requested from still cameras. Usually something in the range of a Nikon D800. That's more than enough resolution for a film like the last Mad Max.
-
I've been getting ads in my facebook feed for weeks now for a software that does this.
Flixel (https://flixel.com/)
I looked at it and thought, 'oh that's cool' for about 2 seconds and then I was bored. You guys really think there will be demand for it? Feels like a gimmick that will lose impact very quickly.
-
I've been getting ads in my facebook feed for weeks now for a software that does this.
Flixel (https://flixel.com/)
I looked at it and thought, 'oh that's cool' for about 2 seconds and then I was bored. You guys really think there will be demand for it? Feels like a gimmick that will lose impact very quickly.
I think there will be, more for social and perhaps website front pages.
I still think the still image for print is the main deal and what is most important to get right. However, the creative briefs I am seeing from agencies all have some sort of cinemagraph added in for social. Most of the time, they are handling the post in house, but it would be important to have the files to make it possible.
Personally, just like most picture, most cinemagraphs really don't catch my eye beyond the initial few seconds, but most are not being well produced or are too gimmicky.