Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: m43 Lenses mini kit for video  (Read 11404 times)

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1376
Re: m43 Lenses mini kit for video
« Reply #20 on: October 06, 2015, 10:21:25 am »

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
« Last Edit: October 06, 2015, 10:24:01 am by fredjeang2 »
Logged

smthopr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 612
    • Bruce Alan Greene Cinematography
Re: m43 Lenses mini kit for video
« Reply #21 on: October 06, 2015, 12:21:41 pm »

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
Logged
Bruce Alan Greene
www.brucealangreene.com

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1376
Re: m43 Lenses mini kit for video
« Reply #22 on: October 06, 2015, 12:39:01 pm »

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.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2015, 12:51:33 pm by fredjeang2 »
Logged

John Brawley

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
Re: m43 Lenses mini kit for video
« Reply #23 on: October 08, 2015, 06:57:42 pm »

John, you know what? I've Heard that the 2K versiĆ³n 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

 

Logged

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1376
Re: m43 Lenses mini kit for video
« Reply #24 on: October 08, 2015, 07:27:09 pm »

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?
Logged

Morgan_Moore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2356
    • sammorganmoore.com
Re: m43 Lenses mini kit for video
« Reply #25 on: October 09, 2015, 04:22:32 am »

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?
Logged
Sam Morgan Moore Bristol UK

Hywel

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 294
    • http://www.restrainedelegance.com
Re: m43 Lenses mini kit for video
« Reply #26 on: October 09, 2015, 05:34:05 am »

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
Logged

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1376
Re: m43 Lenses mini kit for video
« Reply #27 on: October 09, 2015, 06:39:01 am »

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.

« Last Edit: October 09, 2015, 08:00:44 am by fredjeang2 »
Logged

John Brawley

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
Re: m43 Lenses mini kit for video
« Reply #28 on: October 20, 2015, 04:40:51 am »



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
Logged

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1376
Re: m43 Lenses mini kit for video
« Reply #29 on: October 20, 2015, 07:23:16 am »

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.
Logged

Morgan_Moore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2356
    • sammorganmoore.com
Re: m43 Lenses mini kit for video
« Reply #30 on: October 20, 2015, 01:32:46 pm »

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
« Last Edit: October 20, 2015, 01:36:10 pm by Morgan_Moore »
Logged
Sam Morgan Moore Bristol UK

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1376
Re: m43 Lenses mini kit for video
« Reply #31 on: October 20, 2015, 05:35:08 pm »

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.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2015, 05:38:40 pm by fredjeang2 »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up