Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13   Go Down

Author Topic: 645D vs D3x  (Read 140916 times)

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #200 on: June 11, 2011, 01:30:07 am »

BC,
Could you please mail me some info on the led lights ?
Handheld like a flashlight especially got my attention, we're moving more and more into motion and light on location is something I would love to have that portable.

info@frankdoorhof.com
Logged

bcooter

  • Guest
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #201 on: June 11, 2011, 02:37:59 am »

BC,
Could you please mail me some info on the led lights ?
Handheld like a flashlight especially got my attention, we're moving more and more into motion and light on location is something I would love to have that portable.

info@frankdoorhof.com

No secrets.

It's all here.

http://www.filmtools.com/liledliandli.html

though call Karen at Samy's on Fairfax for the best deal and service.

Ask for her in the pro dept.


    Los Angeles

    431 S. Fairfax Ave.
    Los Angeles, CA 90036
    Tel: 323-938-2420
    Fax: 323-937-2919
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #202 on: June 11, 2011, 04:01:44 am »

I've seen those panels. What I didn't like about the panels I saw was the bluish color; however I expect sooner or later we will see panels with an adjustable color temperature like the Just Normlicht LED color booth.

The moving picture crowd really like bluish ambiences and blue backgrounds etc because it plays well with LCDs and projectors. I find they're not so good with rendering red, and thus pleasing flesh tones, but I guess that depends on whether you prefer showing your vics asphyxiated or bleeding :)

I have used the model light of my Octa for years now with no flash; it's not a camera-mounted-lamp :) but it is very smooth.

Edmund

No secrets.

It's all here.

http://www.filmtools.com/liledliandli.html

though call Karen at Samy's on Fairfax for the best deal and service.

Ask for her in the pro dept.


    Los Angeles

    431 S. Fairfax Ave.
    Los Angeles, CA 90036
    Tel: 323-938-2420
    Fax: 323-937-2919
« Last Edit: June 11, 2011, 04:07:13 am by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 8763
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #203 on: June 11, 2011, 06:52:33 am »

No secrets.

It's all here.

Does anyone know if there is info about the spectral quality of light? I'm concerned about metamerism effects, e.g. on makeup and clothing, and not to mention skin color.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

bcooter

  • Guest
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #204 on: June 11, 2011, 01:32:40 pm »

I've seen those panels. What I didn't like about the panels I saw was the bluish color; however I expect sooner or later we will see panels with an adjustable color temperature . . .

They do make the lightpanels with adjustable color temp or tint or something that mimicks that but I don't see motion imagery dedicated to any one color pallet.  I see warm, cool, everywhere in between and every gaffer has their own way to get there.

Anyway,

I find color in digital to be as much subject dependent as camera and light dependent.

This is a screen grab from a RED daily, shot with light panels and it's a warm scene, because it's a warm scene and I wanted a warm scene and the RED seems to like yellow doesn't seem to like blue, at least at high isos.



Now the lightpanels are amazing but they are not hmi replacements, though hmi's are not led replacements.  They all have there place and all continuous daylight is expensive, unless your buying Chinese HMI's (not that there is anything wrong with Chinese HMI's).

I've always found digital to be very sensitive to ambient color and subject color and the digital backs, though very, very sensitive to picking up most colors sometimes are a little too smart and see too much.

This was shot with daylight, bron_kobald and a p21+ and the back saw everything, every bounce color, everything, so it was hell to work the colors.



Just like the RED seems to want to default to warmer colors, (actually it defaults to a green tint that can be adjusted in camera), and my 1ds3's seem to default to warmer smoother faces, my digital backs to more exact faces (which can be good or bad depending on subject).

Personally I'd rather shoot the whole world in tungsten but that's just not possible in most commercial settings, but I wouldn't think that LED lights are any more or less warm or cool than anything else.  With digital there is just too many variables.

Regardless, a few bags of those light panels and a camera that will default to 1000 iso and you can pull off a lot of crazy s*&t.


IMO

BC

« Last Edit: June 11, 2011, 02:07:10 pm by bcooter »
Logged

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #205 on: June 11, 2011, 02:38:51 pm »

Thanks BC will dive into that.
Logged

nightfire

  • Guest
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #206 on: June 11, 2011, 04:50:04 pm »

This was shot with daylight, bron_kobald and a p21+ and the back saw everything, every bounce color, everything, so it was hell to work the colors.

Finally, a shot in which the clothes cost less than the camera ;D Great image!
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #207 on: June 12, 2011, 05:03:15 am »


Personally I'd rather shoot the whole world in tungsten but that's just not possible in most commercial settings, but I wouldn't think that LED lights are any more or less warm or cool than anything else.  With digital there is just too many variables.

Regardless, a few bags of those light panels and a camera that will default to 1000 iso and you can pull off a lot of crazy s*&t.

IMO

BC



Actually, with the hi-end SLRs eg. D3s one could already shoot the whole world (in stills) with Tungsten or even available light if one had to. I wonder when that sensor will be converted to moving images? It does *very* good 1600, and goes up somewhere into the stratosphere.

Edmund

Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

bcooter

  • Guest
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #208 on: June 12, 2011, 06:23:37 am »

Actually, with the hi-end SLRs eg. D3s one could already shoot the whole world (in stills) with Tungsten or even available light if one had to. I wonder when that sensor will be converted to moving images? It does *very* good 1600, and goes up somewhere into the stratosphere.

Edmund




Edmund,

I agree with you to some extent.

When it comes to thinking about the dream camera for motion and stills, Nikon seems to be the one that could do anything they want.

After all, they have no legacy video camera market to protect, they seem (as you mentioned) to have the high iso market covered (and high iso is amazing in motion imagery because of the wattage involved.)

There is also all this talk about Nikon's EVIL system and the ability to track focus on colors so it seems all the pieces are in place, not to mention that Nikon lenses are used in a lot of motion production so they're familiar with the process.

But, Nikon seems like a strange company.  It took them forever to offer a full frame 35mm digital camera, there software is at best challenged when it comes to speed and how long did it take Nikon to finally enter the 20 something pixel race?

From the start of the EOS system, it seems like Nikon would have moments of falling asleep.  They let Canon in, then cranked up the F5 that was probably the very best 35mm camera of all time, then digital hit and though they opened up the lower cost area with the D-1, they then kind of went to sleep for another few years while Canon took the market.

Then the D3 and here comes the best high iso camera ever, the D3x which moved a lot of hard core mfd fans over Nikon, then kind of back to sleep when it comes to video, though they do have combo cams.

Anyway, I kind of think Nikon could slip in under the radar, build a raw file shooting combination camera, or they could go back to sleep.

Time will tell, but the company that gives you some form of full frame raw video with touch pad type of autofocus (real high speed autofocus), real 4k/5k that can be purposed to stills and real high iso,  is gonna mop up the floor.

IMO

BC

BTW:  I did use the D3 pre production camera in Osaka and it was the only camera I have ever used without really testing it. 

This series was not only used for print, but the complete sequence was purposed over to motion and used in a series of videos.

it's an amazing camera in low light and focus.

Logged

JdeV

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 120
    • http://www.jonathandevilliers.com
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #209 on: June 12, 2011, 07:29:35 am »

LEDs have poor CRI.
They give you nasty spikes at certain colour points on the visible spectrum.
You can get round that with combinations of different coloured emitters but even then it's hard to get them to match HMI or tungsten for smooth spectral response. This is very manifest with skin-tone.
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #210 on: June 12, 2011, 07:39:23 am »

J,

 We live in interesting times.

 Some insiders tell me the pro still camera market in 35mm has just about disappeared and while mostly amateurs are still buying for stills, the sellers hate this situation because the profits on the hi-end are seen by corporate as losses from the low-end cash flow.

 As regards AF, I wonder whether pro cameras eg. RED shouldn't do it by using a laser tracking dot synched between frames, with a pointer held by the focus puller. Kind of like the missile aiming technique used by special forces :)

Edmund




Edmund,

I agree with you to some extent.

When it comes to thinking about the dream camera for motion and stills, Nikon seems to be the one that could do anything they want.

After all, they have no legacy video camera market to protect, they seem (as you mentioned) to have the high iso market covered (and high iso is amazing in motion imagery because of the wattage involved.)

There is also all this talk about Nikon's EVIL system and the ability to track focus on colors so it seems all the pieces are in place, not to mention that Nikon lenses are used in a lot of motion production so they're familiar with the process.

But, Nikon seems like a strange company.  It took them forever to offer a full frame 35mm digital camera, there software is at best challenged when it comes to speed and how long did it take Nikon to finally enter the 20 something pixel race?

From the start of the EOS system, it seems like Nikon would have moments of falling asleep.  They let Canon in, then cranked up the F5 that was probably the very best 35mm camera of all time, then digital hit and though they opened up the lower cost area with the D-1, they then kind of went to sleep for another few years while Canon took the market.

Then the D3 and here comes the best high iso camera ever, the D3x which moved a lot of hard core mfd fans over Nikon, then kind of back to sleep when it comes to video, though they do have combo cams.

Anyway, I kind of think Nikon could slip in under the radar, build a raw file shooting combination camera, or they could go back to sleep.

Time will tell, but the company that gives you some form of full frame raw video with touch pad type of autofocus (real high speed autofocus), real 4k/5k that can be purposed to stills and real high iso,  is gonna mop up the floor.

IMO

BC

BTW:  I did use the D3 pre production camera in Osaka and it was the only camera I have ever used without really testing it. 

This series was not only used for print, but the complete sequence was purposed over to motion and used in a series of videos.

it's an amazing camera in low light and focus.


Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #211 on: June 12, 2011, 07:44:09 am »

I was waiting for someone else to say this, as I lack credibility :)

So called "white" Leds are not really spiky, just ugly, they are actually blue LEDs coated with phosphor, reemitting in various bands, a bit like a Neon tube. I put up an explanation on my color blog .

Repeat after me: Tungsten is best, Tungsten is best :)

Edmund



LEDs have poor CRI.
They give you nasty spikes at certain colour points on the visible spectrum.
You can get round that with combinations of different coloured emitters but even then it's hard to get them to match HMI or tungsten for smooth spectral response. This is very manifest with skin-tone.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2011, 07:45:42 am by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

fredjeang

  • Guest
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #212 on: June 12, 2011, 12:37:00 pm »

Repeat after me: Tungsten is best, Tungsten is best :)

Edmund
I do agree 200% !
Logged

mhecker*

  • Contributor
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 93
    • http://www.wyofoto.com
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #213 on: June 12, 2011, 01:16:03 pm »

I have tried white LED floods for gallery lighting.
The power bill is a big consideration when you have 80 flood lights running 10/7 .

The bottom line is they suck!   :(
Even a 3500K flood with a CRI of 85 had very blue looking light.
I measured the spectra with my spectrometer and it was very spikey in the blue range.

I will post it online here tomorrow when I get home.
The 11 watt power consumption to replace 75 watt tungsten floods is very attractive, but we found the bulbs only
suitable for B&W photo display.

IMO it would take an array of seperate Red, Green and Blue LEDS to get a good spectrum.
The higher end IPS LCD screens use this trick rather than "white" LED's to get a high quality color gamut.

If you shot RAW it would be possible to do a custom camera profile to patch the spectral holes,  but no common Kelvin color temp setting will work.

Logged

bcooter

  • Guest
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #214 on: June 12, 2011, 03:22:30 pm »

J,

 We live in interesting times.

 Some insiders tell me the pro still camera market in 35mm has just about disappeared and while mostly amateurs are still buying for stills, the sellers hate this situation because the profits on the hi-end are seen by corporate as losses from the low-end cash flow.

 As regards AF, I wonder whether pro cameras eg. RED shouldn't do it by using a laser tracking dot synched between frames, with a pointer held by the focus puller. Kind of like the missile aiming technique used by special forces :)

Edmund





The problem with counting on RED for anything is they're slow to get stuff out.  Real slow so as much as I think they could do about anything, it may be a long time before you see it on a shelf.

I can't imagine how many cameras they'd sell if you could just walk in and buy one, considering they've already sold about a billion dollars worth of product.

In regards to lighting . . .

I respect that everyone works differently.

I ain't no Pablo, but this was done with a RED and one tiny LED.


(and yes it's suppose to have this look which I worked in RED cinex and photoshop, so don't pixel stare.

Anway . . .

I don't know what CRI is.  Don't care, but I hold to the theory that most digital is very subject and ambient light dependent, but honestly I don't care as long as I can make it work for the situation.


This is the same model in three obviously different settings and what works for one doesn't necessarily work for another.

I'd hate to see a color meter on these images because I'm sure something would spike (i guess, cause once again I don't know what CRI is).

I'll second the thought about tungsten and digital, I love tungsten but only in a blacked out studio or at night. 

Still, you had better get used to LED's.   They don't burn a lot of power, a camera like the RED has a native 800 to 1000 iso and you can throw 4 or 5 of those square light panels in a suitcase and hit the road.

The world's changed, even clients mention power draw, they drive prius', they actually ask where the recycling bin is and LED's draw nothing in comparison to any other conventional light.

Also they're cool, instant strike, can battery power and are fast to set up.

We still run large crews, but not like three years ago.  Then we ran large crews because . . . well we just did.  Now we run large crews only if we're shooting 2 hard days into 1 so a crew is always setting up ahead of us, one tearing down behind.

Even adding the RED hasn't increased the crew size past one or two people, (depending on sound).

So as far as lighting goes, whatever works and I don't have any one preference, though we just finished an ad series where two shots just could not have been done without leds.  Well, they could have, but the set up would have been another 2 hours instead of 45 minutes as it was a very difficult image with white lab coats, a lot of background light and we needed small face fills and cross light in the foreground for effect.  The shooting area was very tight, so those battery powered led's were like magic. (I'd show the image but it's not released yet).

But with this image in still and RED I didn't see any blue, just warm nice skintones, clean bright whites.

So, after a 12 hour on set day, an hour or so savings is a big deal.

IMO

BC
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #215 on: June 12, 2011, 04:49:47 pm »

J,

 Ok, so we now know that the LED panels *you* use work well with the RED sensor. Those I tested some years ago with a Canon 1Ds2 gave me really cr*ppy files.

 I still think Tungsten with standard lightboxes is a good choice when shooting @ ISO 1600, but the flash guys don't want people to know that those huge generators can be replaced by a $30 lightbulb in a 6 ounce ventilated holder.

 It's interesting that people like you are using lighter and lighter rigs, maybe controlled light will go out of fashion and be replaced with assisted available light, even in movies.

Edmund


But with this image in still and RED I didn't see any blue, just warm nice skintones, clean bright whites.

So, after a 12 hour on set day, an hour or so savings is a big deal.

IMO

BC
« Last Edit: June 12, 2011, 04:57:32 pm by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

fredjeang

  • Guest
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #216 on: June 12, 2011, 06:25:00 pm »

Edmund, I moved in another district last month. Before I used to live near a square where they contantly shoot movies.  Each time it is 2 or 3 trucks at least, 2 tents and 20 people minimum on set, and I'm not talking about Bo/Holliwood. No, just low-end cine mostly produced by TV channels to keep asleep the middle class when there is no football on tv or disasters on the news.

Then comes Canon video with the FF low light saga etc etc...
and with zero light at higher isos, more or less 3 people on set,  you do this (aps sensor, and FF): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48Ig59zgQkM

the behind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmjmqXyMV3Q

All in available light.

And now Red with 4 and 5K for less money than the super MF backs...




« Last Edit: June 12, 2011, 06:59:39 pm by fredjeang »
Logged

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #217 on: June 12, 2011, 11:16:57 pm »

As to the lite panel LED:  I know they spike in the blues, some in the greens, which is hard to balance out.  They are sometimes hard to balance with different sources.  This is very important if you are documenting or recording information to be as close to the actual measured color as possible, such as cosmetics or products.  If you take photographs or film people you use the panels to do things that would have been almost impossible a few years ago. You go with what you have, creating mood, not accuracy in depiction.  If you photograph or film people you should be creating a fantasy, so who cares if the CRI is shitty.  Clients don't care, tehy want the mood.  I lit scenes on the subway with a 1dIV and super 16 Fuji stock rated at 1600.  Handheld.  Two lite panels and the subway car's practicals replaced with Kino tubes.  The panels were handheld to provide modeling for the actress' face.  I used to do this with a Kino tube in a fixture on a boom, with the ballast and battery on a grip's belt.  The panels provide more controllable, unbreakable light that fit into small places and don't require much power.  It looks beautiful, haunting and mysterious, which is what we wanted.  It moves people, which is the goal.  Had it been acurate, sterile, a mere recordation of actual color, it would have been a complete failure. 

IMHO
Logged

fredjeang

  • Guest
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #218 on: June 13, 2011, 03:32:44 am »

As to the lite panel LED:  I know they spike in the blues, some in the greens, which is hard to balance out.  They are sometimes hard to balance with different sources.  This is very important if you are documenting or recording information to be as close to the actual measured color as possible, such as cosmetics or products.  If you take photographs or film people you use the panels to do things that would have been almost impossible a few years ago. You go with what you have, creating mood, not accuracy in depiction.  If you photograph or film people you should be creating a fantasy, so who cares if the CRI is shitty.  Clients don't care, tehy want the mood.  I lit scenes on the subway with a 1dIV and super 16 Fuji stock rated at 1600.  Handheld.  Two lite panels and the subway car's practicals replaced with Kino tubes.  The panels were handheld to provide modeling for the actress' face.  I used to do this with a Kino tube in a fixture on a boom, with the ballast and battery on a grip's belt.  The panels provide more controllable, unbreakable light that fit into small places and don't require much power.  It looks beautiful, haunting and mysterious, which is what we wanted.  It moves people, which is the goal.  Had it been acurate, sterile, a mere recordation of actual color, it would have been a complete failure

IMHO

Yes, yes and (2004592489x4666664)x(+∞) ouiiiii
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #219 on: June 13, 2011, 03:47:35 am »

Edmund, I moved in another district last month. Before I used to live near a square where they contantly shoot movies.  Each time it is 2 or 3 trucks at least, 2 tents and 20 people minimum on set, and I'm not talking about Bo/Holliwood. No, just low-end cine mostly produced by TV channels to keep asleep the middle class when there is no football on tv or disasters on the news.

Then comes Canon video with the FF low light saga etc etc...
and with zero light at higher isos, more or less 3 people on set,  you do this (aps sensor, and FF): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48Ig59zgQkM

the behind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmjmqXyMV3Q

All in available light.

And now Red with 4 and 5K for less money than the super MF backs...






Hi Fred

I can see why you are moving interest away from stills into motion; however, exciting as it appears to be, it must spell the death of the one-man band. Sad, but in a commercial world, I suppose inevitable.

A great time to be young, though, and quite possibly the start of another, different, Golden Age. JR seems to have landed on his feet at exactly the right time!

In a modest way, I experience the very same 'liberation' in my little muso shots: umimaginable ISO, available (mixed) lighting and hand-held except for longer lenses. What a world! And best of all, when it doesn't matter what colour anything is as long as it's not boring, what scope!

Rob C
« Last Edit: June 13, 2011, 03:52:37 am by Rob C »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13   Go Up