Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: ron lacy on January 12, 2018, 05:04:04 pm
-
I am not very knowledgable about digital backs but have always lusted for one because of the quality images I see posted here and elsewhere. I have been a hobbyist for 45 years and have shot Nikon and Fuji digital for the past 15 years. However, as I said earlier I really have a desire for a MF camera with a digital back. I continue to read about the "fat pixel" backs. Can someone explain to me what that means and what advantage would that have to a landscape photographer like me? I hear this comment about the Phase One P30+. I am currently looking at one and am close to making an offer but really want to understand what the fat pixel thing in about and why that might be important to me.
Any info you can share would be appreciated.
Thanks
Ron
-
Frankly, in my view you’d be better off with a a7rIII or D850.
If you really want to go MF at least go for a P45+ with a decently sized sensor, although Erik may talk you out or it also... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Agree with Bernard. I've shot those p+ backs, and owned a D810 and now 850. The 850 beats any back I've used from the P+ generation almost across the board. The lenses are obvs better with the phase/hassy and leaf shutters, but at the moment I'd take my 850 over anything but the IQ/Credo series backs (and I own a Credo 60).
-
There is a long thread here:
Fat Pixels (https://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/44225-fat-pixel-digital-backs.html)
Worthwhile reading and it should answer your questions or at least increase your confusion :)
In general, it refers to pixel size as apposed to pixel count. Fat Pixel sensors would be e.g. the P25+ or Hasselblad CFV-16 with 9 micron. The pixels of the P30+ with 6.8 micron are not that "fat" (even less the P45+ or P65+ with 6 micron). All these sensors are quite older CCD types and have some disadvantages as compared to newer CMOS sensors with much more (and smaller) pixels. Whether these fat pixels with old sensor tech render better than smaller ones with newer sensor tech is an interesting discussion :). They are certainly "easier" for older lenses.
Only thing I can say is that I have a P25 back on my Contax 645 and would not part from it, because it gives me a special look ... and yes I have a modern CMOS sensor on my Hasselblad X1D.
-
If you really want the "skinny" on "fat" pixels...visit Roger Clark's website at www.ClarkVision.com.
After your brain fatigues from digesting all that info...you'll be able to rest a bit...re-group...and make a "well-nourished" decision!
Enjoy!
Hank
-
My old 22 MP Mamiya ZD produces files significantly sharper than 645Z or D800e, at the pixel level. Sensor is larger than 645z and so are the pixels.
Must be the fat pixels, or that and lenses, although Pentax 645 primes are excellent. These pixels also scale well, I printed 60" wide from cropped ZD file (with very careful enlarging and sharpening) and it looks amazing.
However, I haven't used ZD in a while... thought of selling it, but never got to it.. and so it sits with its fat pixels looking back at me:)
-
Hi,
Early MFDs had large pixels, like nine microns. That meant that they operated at low frequencies, so they delivered very high edge contrast at the pixel level. Sharpness is usually checked at actual pixels, and those fat pixels looked really good at actual pixels.
Now, modern cameras are around 4.5 micron pitch. That corresponds to something like 110 lp/mm and few lenses will be able to deliver very high contrast at 110 lp/mm, so the images will look a bit soft at actual pixels. But, using the late generation of images at actual pixels would mean twice the magnification.
If you make C-size or A2-size prints, 16-25MP are quite enough to produce an excellent print. So the fat pixel backs would produce very nice prints.
The major downside of fat pixels is that fat pixel backs are very sensitive to moiré. Stopping down increases diffraction thus eliminating moiré (and reducing sharpness).
With my P45+ back having 6.8 micron pixels I need to stop down to f/16 to reduce moiré. With 9 microns you would need f/22 and with 4.5 microns f/11. These apertures can still yield traces of moiré.
Just to say, when I made a few comparisons when I got my 39MP P45+ and I didn't see a meaningful difference between that and my 24 MP system at 16"x23" (A2) print size. But, any such comparison depends on sharpening. You can make very nice 30"x40" images from 24 MP.
Best regards
Erik
I am not very knowledgable about digital backs but have always lusted for one because of the quality images I see posted here and elsewhere. I have been a hobbyist for 45 years and have shot Nikon and Fuji digital for the past 15 years. However, as I said earlier I really have a desire for a MF camera with a digital back. I continue to read about the "fat pixel" backs. Can someone explain to me what that means and what advantage would that have to a landscape photographer like me? I hear this comment about the Phase One P30+. I am currently looking at one and am close to making an offer but really want to understand what the fat pixel thing in about and why that might be important to me.
Any info you can share would be appreciated.
Thanks
Ron
-
There is something about the colours of the backs of that era that I do not see in modern backs. Interestingly, some SLRs of that era also had these colours, so it was not exclusive to MF backs.
The colours of that era look more intense to my eyes, but it cannot be corrected by simply increasing saturation or vibrancy on today's cameras. Skin tones on fair skinned models also look different, the skin looks younger.
The colours of modern cameras are probably a bit more accurate, though.
-
Hi,
Many of the older backs had sensor made by Kodak with Kodak's colour filter array designs. Phase One used Kodak sensors until the P65+, that used DALSA. Leica M8-M9 also used Kodak CCD and so did Pentax 645D.
A very large part of colour rendition depends on colour profiles, but some properties may depend on CFA design.
It may be possible that a sensor would yield strong greens but not being able to separate different greens like clorophyll A and clorophyll B. So, it may yield a very pleasant green but entirely miss that the original greens are quite different.
Best regards
Erik
There is something about the colours of the backs of that era that I do not see in modern backs. Interestingly, some SLRs of that era also had these colours, so it was not exclusive to MF backs.
The colours of that era look more intense to my eyes, but it cannot be corrected by simply increasing saturation or vibrancy on today's cameras. Skin tones on fair skinned models also look different, the skin looks younger.
The colours of modern cameras are probably a bit more accurate, though.
-
The big 22 MP sensors are the last ones with "fat pixels" AFAIK.
They moiré like crazy - low fill factor.
Edmund
Hi,
Many of the older backs had sensor made by Kodak with Kodak's colour filter array designs. Phase One used Kodak sensors until the P65+, that used DALSA. Leica M8-M9 also used Kodak CCD and so did Pentax 645D.
A very large part of colour rendition depends on colour profiles, but some properties may depend on CFA design.
It may be possible that a sensor would yield strong greens but not being able to separate different greens like clorophyll A and clorophyll B. So, it may yield a very pleasant green but entirely miss that the original greens are quite different.
Best regards
Erik
-
As much as I loved my "fat pixel" 22MP back I wouldn't have used it if my principal client had been Harris Tweed.
;-)
-
Well, thanks to all for replying and giving information and their point of view. I have learned a lot from reading the reply and checking some of the websites mentioned. I am a lot more knowledgeable now about fat pixels. i am not sure what i am going to do with all of this information, but I at least I know more know. I guess I'll need to think about everything that has been mentioned and see what makes sense to me.
Thanks again
Ron
-
If you really want the "skinny" on "fat" pixels...visit Roger Clark's website at www.ClarkVision.com.
After your brain fatigues from digesting all that info...you'll be able to rest a bit...re-group...and make a "well-nourished" decision!
Enjoy!
Hank
Hank, thanks for the reply. You are right. After reading some of Roger Clark's website my head hurts. Don't know if I understand everything he talks about, but it is an interesting website.
Ron
-
The "Fat Pixel" backs also don't have microlenses, which I think increases the pixel-level contrast since there's less cross-talk between pixels.
-
Hi
For those who are interested I uploaded three RAW pictures. One with the fat pixel P25+ (Sensor by Kodak, CCD), one with the P40+ (Sensor by Dalsa, CCD) and an other with IQ150 (Sensor by Sony, CMOS).
Camera was Cambo WRS with 32HR, 5mm shift down, no CF, no LCC, F11.
The P25+ is still a great back. I like those files and I like them more than my D810 files.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ckfqdv2no2ys7k6/AAAaygIOAdV8nfC69770hDN1a?dl=0
Regards,
Ben
-
I am not very knowledgable about digital backs but have always lusted for one because of the quality images I see posted here
snip
Thanks
Ron
Use what you want, but don't believe everyone, even me. I've used and still do use the p30+
Downside, 800 iso is tops (never need more),
upside the look and the back never breaks.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/p30+2f.jpg)
It's an interesting back, better than my Leica S2 with the contax 645 and the files are robust.
IMO
BC
-
Use what you want, but don't believe everyone, even me. I've used and still do use the p30+
Downside, 800 iso is tops (never need more),
upside the look and never breaks.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/p30+2.jpg)
to see larger option click (on image) and open in new window. Then double tap the image.
It's much better than my Leica S2.
Camera Contax 645
IMO
BC
BC, the P30+ is not a fat pixel back, although your models are skinny. ;)
I'm sorry.
Regards,
Ben
-
BC, the P30+ is not a fat pixel back, although your models are skinny. ;)
I'm sorry.
Regards,
Ben
I think sometimes we concern ourselves more with the technical specs of a camera than we do who is viewing the image.
This article is more about motion than still photography, but has a some crossover.
I'd look at part two rather than part one as part two has more real life information.
http://yedlin.net/ResDemo/
I select a camera for a lot of reasons, some not always logical, but that's a matter of opinion, not always fact.
These are "fat" pixel images these from my p21+ at 18 native mpx,
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/p21_2_images.jpg)
This from a 1dx 1 also at 18 native mpx.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/atv_800_mpx.jpg)
Obviously different genres, so different cameras, but the mlx never concerned me, getting the image did.
(these are way knocked down jpegs, so they're not meant for pixel comparison but they worked, we're approved, life goes on).
Why these cameras/backs? Because the p21+ shoots at the same speed on the contax as quickly as film did, the 1dx is rugged, takes a beating and focuses very accurately.
Actually the bottom shot is done one handed while I bounced around on the back of the lead ATV at about 35 to 40mph.
Would they make a difference at 100mpx? Don't know but I'll use either of the cameras without blinking.
But I'd always test before I would rely on camera specs. My RED Ones are reported at around 12bit files and compared to a still camera advertised as 14 bit the ol' RED one has more lattitude.
But as they say horses for courses, though I say if it ain't broke, don't worry about it.
IMO
BC
-
Hi BC,
A point that I would make that any camera intended for motion would have an OLP filter matching the pixels. I would also guess that the RED you use does not have fat pixels, like 9 micron. So, it is not the number of pixels but about rendition of detail. Motion folks don't like moiré, I have been told.
I mostly print at 16"x23", that is the European A2 format. At that size, I found that something like 12-16 MP is all I need, mostly. It did happen that I preferred 16MP (APS-C) to 24MP (FF) at times, as things worked out better with the smaller sensor. More accurate focus and better high ISO capability and being able to use a better lens.
But, at times I am also making larger prints. In my case mostly 27"x39" and in that case I would feel more MP can be beneficial.
While I was shooting P45+, I never felt that it did not have all the MPs I needed. But it didn't mix well with my way of shooting. The reason I think so is that so few P45+ images made it the wall.
Best regards
Erik
-
I think sometimes we concern ourselves more with the technical specs of a camera than we do who is viewing the image.
I select a camera for a lot of reasons, some not always logical, but that's a matter of opinion, not always fact.
These are "fat" pixel images these from my p21+ at 18 native mpx,
BC
I was rather hoping for some of those BC M8 images ;D, mine is back at Leica for a service, they did say they would upgrade it forever, let's see. It still has lovely colour and B/W, use it within its limitations and all is good. There's a reason they still sell at £1,000.
Fat pixel backs are a bargain now for their output. IMHO 8)
-
I was rather hoping for some of those BC M8 images ;D, mine is back at Leica for a service, they did say they would upgrade it forever, let's see. It still has lovely colour and B/W, use it within its limitations and all is good. There's a reason they still sell at £1,000.
Fat pixel backs are a bargain now for their output. IMHO 8)
Chris,
I agree.
Last night went to the Leica store on Beverly to pick up some batteries.
Leica stores are like the tiffany’s for people that love jewelry, except there is always a gallery and images of all sorts, usually gritty rock and roll, or street portraits, or historic images . . . everything.
The sales rep asked if I like the M-8 I was buying the batteries for and I said yea I love it. He said a lot of people say that and a few hours before me the great DP Roger Deakins was in store picking up his M-8 after a cleaning.
He asked if I had tried the cmos versions and I said uh, no but I don’t really think of the m8 as a 14 stop digital camera, more like an 8 stop film camera and shoot it as such.
I said I know in the world of digital ccd is considered ancient, but I love the look so what the heck. I never think about the crop factor, or either the size of the file. In fact only a few times have I ever taken the 24mm off of it and all the photos below are with the 24 which I think equates to a 35 or somewhere around that.
Never thought I’d own a leica, but when the m-8 came out I bought it on site. Same with the S-2.
But this is a very latest and greatest, high iso, a trillion megapixel forum (for the most part) so I’m sure a lot of people would disagree.
In fact one thing the m-8 does amazingly well in colour with profoto studio flash. When they came out with firmware updates, I never updated it because I was afraid it would do something to the colour.
Anyway, some m-8 images
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/sf_m8.jpg)
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/moscow_bw_m8.jpg)
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/jeans_m8.jpg)
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/studio_color_m8.jpg)
IMO
BC
-
Love the first one BC. Do you remember what lens is was shot with?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Thanks BC, still flying the M8 flag, and banging that drum.
Take care with the M8 batteries, I ordered a new one from a Leica shop I use and the on-line said "not suitable for M8" on enquiry they state "the battery will work in your M8, but they changed the spec so while you will be able to use it, it won't register on the meter, so you won't know how much power you'll have left." so they added the warning, I bought two.
Leica, Wetzlar, are repairing my M8 for a reasonable amount, thankfully not "upgrading" it, now I can only hope they pull a technician off the M9 sensor line to do it, they need the break!!
On Roger Deakins: "I usually use an M8. The 35mm is my main lens but I do carry a 28mm. I change shutter speeds and aperture depending on the content of the shot."
https://www.rogerdeakins.com/still-photography/still-photography-as-practice/
-
Thanks BC, still flying the M8 flag, and banging that drum.
Take care with the M8 batteries, I ordered a new one from a Leica shop I use and the on-line said "not suitable for M8" on enquiry they state "the battery will work in your M8, but they changed the spec so while you will be able to use it, it won't register on the meter, so you won't know how much power you'll have left." so they added the warning, I bought two.
Leica, Wetzlar, are repairing my M8 for a reasonable amount, thankfully not "upgrading" it, now I can only hope they pull a technician off the M9 sensor line to do it, they need the break!!
On Roger Deakins: "I usually use an M8. The 35mm is my main lens but I do carry a 28mm. I change shutter speeds and aperture depending on the content of the shot."
https://www.rogerdeakins.com/still-photography/still-photography-as-practice/
Don't leave home without it:
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/new_jan_15_paris_car_700px.jpg)
Bernard,
It's a 28mm, though I really thought it was a 24 as I said I rarely remove the lens. I have a 35mm, 90mm (non useable due to the small viewfinder framing) but just shoot everything with that 24 which I guess with an pasha sensor is somewhere around 35mm.
Chris,
It makes sense that Mr. Deakins shoots stills with a 28 or 35mm because 35mm on a super 35mm movie frame is the most used lens in the history of cinematography and even if the crop is different, your brain thinks 35mm so you grab a 35mm.
I don't know why we all like certain things. A manual focus rangefinder isn't the easiest camera to work, but then again easy doesn't always mean good or as fun.
It also doesn't draw a lot of attention, so if your blocking a shot, or scouting, you won't have security tapping you on the shoulder (usually).
It's a camera that I take about everywhere, whether I plan to use it or not. This was from a gig, shooting sponsored olympians, the M8 was sitting on the ground by me as I was using a 300mm 2.8 on a Canon but I saw it so I shot it with the Leica.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/rr_sports_028-26.jpg)
This gig is a few years ago, I just decided to use the M8 on the first shot and continued on
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/m8_malibu_700.jpg)
Once again I know it's ccd I know it doesn't smooth in real low light, but I like the look and the only camera that has that look (that is small) is the first olympus em-5 which is another camera I bought, but didn't actually need. In ways it's much like the Leica in build and size and though it uses a Sony cmos sensor it produces a look (to me) identical to the Leica. In fact I liked it so I bought an em-1 and it didn't have the same look because the em1 uses a panasonic sensor and different processing.
I'd give anything if Olympus had gone with an APS H rather than a 4/3 sensor. I like the ability to change the ratio in camera, the autofocus doesn't track very well, but it is instant fast on single auto focus. so fast if someone is running you can hit focus and fire and it will usually be sharp, but 4/3 is just a little small especially for wide shots and though I usually don't think about sensor size, I still think APSH is almost the perfect format frame, especially if a camera is used for some c cam motion.
In fact when the first Sony a7s came out I tested and tested it against the em-5 and thought the em-5 looked better. When the a7siI came out I bought it site unseen though have only used it in production twice. I guess I should sell the Sony because it's just not the camera for me.
So that's my thought process and I know my brains is a little broken, but . . .
IMO
BC
-
Thanks.
Don’t know whether you’ve given the D850 a try but it has very Leica like colors IMHO. Obviously the shooting experience is very different though.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Thanks.
Don’t know whether you’ve given the D850 a try but it has very Leica like colors IMHO. Obviously the shooting experience is very different though.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard,
Got close to buying an 8 series Nikon, but had just bought 1dx1's and they focused as well as the D3 and D700 (I think that was the camera). The issue with the Nikons I owned I had fits with skintone color in controlled lighting. High iso, mixed lighting I loved them and the focus then was amazing.
I've always owned Nikons, my first digital camera was the F5 based Kodak dcs 760 and I loved the F5 in film and digital. Removable viewfinder, you could manually focus with regularity and though the dcs 760 was far from a low light camera it needed 6 to 10 more mpx, but what a great camera.
(http://russellrutherford.com/malibu_football_650.jpg)
Anyway, I rarely sell anything and had a lot of the new Nikon glass, but just wasn't using it so I sold the glass and bodies. Kind of wish I hadn't but was covered with what I was using.
If I had to do it again, I might have gone another direction, or if Nikon had produced a digital F5 I never would have owned Canons.
But that was a long time ago, though I'll never understand why Nikon took so long to offer a 1.3 crop or full frame. The Nikon 200mm F2 is probably the finest medium long lens I've ever owned and the Canon version just doesn't match the look.
This multimedia video was shot with an F3, mostly the 200 F2 at a high still frame rate, mixed with 5d2 footage. I think this video got us more work than anything we ever produced.
https://vimeo.com/189435657
IMO
BC
-
Thanks for your feedbacks BC.
My post was not a generic plug in favor of Nikon. :)
I was just trying to point out the fact that, with the D850, Nikon took a major turn in terms of colors. They are very different, and in my view better, than their previous bodies. And it is not a small change by any means.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
In fact one thing the m-8 does amazingly well in colour with profoto studio flash. When they came out with firmware updates, I never updated it because I was afraid it would do something to the colour.
Anyway, some m-8 images
Love the pictures BC, the composition, the artistic color casts. On this last point I couldn't help noticing that none of the images show 'real' colors (for example the whites are not white) and they all seem to have been shot with a color filter, producing beautiful results. Of course this could be ascribed to just the processing were it also not known that the M8 produces some of the least accurate color in town, call it the camera's signature. I guess folks love it for the same reason some used to love tube amplifiers: distorted - but melodiously distorted - output. Just don't expect accurate skin tones out of it, I thought.
Then I saw your comment above. Would you happen to have a raw file with a ColorChecker or similar target in it, shot as you suggest? It's quite possible that the M8 was lousy in daylight because they optimized it for the studio. It'd be fun to check that idea out.
Jack
-
Love the pictures BC, the composition, the artistic color casts. On this last point I couldn't help noticing that none of the images show 'real' colors (for example the whites are not white) and they all seem to have been shot with a color filter, producing beautiful results. Of course this could be ascribed to just the processing were it also not known that the M8 produces some of the least accurate color in town, call it the camera's signature. I guess folks love it for the same reason some used to love tube amplifiers: distorted - but melodiously distorted - output. Just don't expect accurate skin tones out of it, I thought.
Then I saw your comment above. Would you happen to have a raw file with a ColorChecker or similar target in it, shot as you suggest? It's quite possible that the M8 was lousy in daylight because they optimized it for the studio. It'd be fun to check that idea out.
Jack
Thank you Jack.
Color is usually a matter of taste. Personally, I’ve only shot one or two color charts in my life, because exact color is rarely exact and rarely interesting.
There seems to be thousands of online and in person seminars/instruction classes on still photography and film making. Some are good, some well . . . but most tell you how to do something but don’t tell you why.*
No matter what we shoot, I try to find the story. One frame, 10,000 frames, I look for the why.
Color, exposure, are just elements to support the story. Below is part of a scene of a fictitious modern day Johnny Cash and June Carter in a Hollywood hotel prior to going on stage.
The warm color on the right side was because the room had a tungsten look, so we added arri Fresnels and the glass door on the left that had a blue look so we also accented that.
We wanted a touch of reality, but also stylized. In other words it's what I saw, but it needed help. Whether we succeeded or not is up to the viewer.
Shot with a Leica S2
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/rock_hollywood_700px.jpg)
Working for clients are unique because they all come with a different mindset. We just finished a series of commercials and videos where the Creative Director came from a still background. Shot it, edited it and got some pushback on some of the clips.
In talking to the CD it hit me that he was not looking at the video in it’s entirety as a story, but was going frame by frame viewing it as singular stills, so I did a second edit with shorter cuts and treated each frame as a still. The story wasn’t as cohesive, but you could click frame by frame and it made good stills. It flew through approval quickly. So moral of the story is regardless of our idea, or the creative brief, we work for people with all kinds of different expectations and if you don’t meet those, it will never play.
Anyway if color is an issue, there is always one way to handle that, monotone.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/2_rock_bw_700px.jpg)
IMO
BC
-
Love it :)
-
Consumers don't want "accurate" skin tones, they want their own cultural values, eg. yellow-orange for white caucasians in the US, pale skin in japan etc.
One can see the consumer colors well in output from low and medium-priced SLRs and of course iPhones, and these produce colors which everybody around the subject usually "likes". And of course there is the printers contribution to standardising skin colors in publications by typing in CMYK numbers regardless of the subject.
On the other hand, people like James are artists, not journeymen, and they get paid to make "edgy" artistic colors which look like nothing else, think of Picasso's skin tones during his blue period or Blade Runner. Maybe I - or you- consider the colors in James' images as "unnatural" but creating them is what he does for a living.
Now regarding the Leica M8, strangely enough, I made a lot of money selling hand-tuned profiles for it. Colorchecker DC shots after profiling were perfectly ok, as they should be. I recall it had a really good Kodak sensor, with good skin texture, but it was necessary to take on-lens IR filtration into account, but after profiling skin color in C1 would be very nice for caucasians, and eye rendering exceptionally good. There was a tendency to magenta on caucasian skin in some individuals which I had to hand-edit out of the profiles. Some of the people who bought the profiles were doing event stuff where one does see high-living males with a florid skin tone.
I think the reason no one ever complained about the skin-tone issues of the Kodak sensors is that they are less problematic on smooth sunburnt young faces, especially with makeup, and the drift towards magenta -when it occurs- can be quite endearing on larger expanses of body skin.
Edmund
Love the pictures BC, the composition, the artistic color casts. On this last point I couldn't help noticing that none of the images show 'real' colors (for example the whites are not white) and they all seem to have been shot with a color filter, producing beautiful results. Of course this could be ascribed to just the processing were it also not known that the M8 produces some of the least accurate color in town, call it the camera's signature. I guess folks love it for the same reason some used to love tube amplifiers: distorted - but melodiously distorted - output. Just don't expect accurate skin tones out of it, I thought.
Then I saw your comment above. Would you happen to have a raw file with a ColorChecker or similar target in it, shot as you suggest? It's quite possible that the M8 was lousy in daylight because they optimized it for the studio. It'd be fun to check that idea out.
Jack
-
This multimedia video was shot with an F3, mostly the 200 F2 at a high still frame rate, mixed with 5d2 footage. I think this video got us more work than anything we ever produced.
https://vimeo.com/189435657
IMO
BC
Watched this video many times and am liking it more and more every time!!!
-
Watched this video many times and am liking it more and more every time!!!
Thanks Yair,
It's interesting that clients love the look and I don't think they know that most of the footage are stills cut frame motion, though it works best in gritty earthy creative briefs and most want the look in new glass and chrome locations.
I did this before the release of mad max fury road, which most don't know but George Miller spent 5 or 6 years in post production and few takes were over 15fps. Once again, gritty and earthy.
Edmund,
Thanks for the kind words.
All the best to all.
BC