Page 15 of 55 FirstFirst ... 511121314151617181925 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 546
  1. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    7,355
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Arthurs View Post
    This old animation I created for Convergent Design...
    It's interesting you didn't claim/put a number on DR for the F3 in that video (or maybe I missed it) like today's marketing would to push more products/units (especially for something that made the camera better).

    Was that on purpose for CD to stay honest as a third-party?


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    Senior Member James0b57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    5,240
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by combatentropy View Post
    ---

    I feel that most people decide how much dynamic range they want in camera like this:

    1. Find an image you like.
    2. Find out which camera took that image.
    3. Look up that camera's dynamic range.

    This is unscientific. It's subject to a lot of variables. There are many other things that can affect the look, even if you're considering only highlight roll-off:
    Pretty much what I do when talking on the boards. my personal numbers are more conservative, because I don't like noise and I roll off the highlights more than most do. I don't mind a little of it, and the Alexa does this better than most, but I still don't care for it. And noise reduction tends to feel false, but some of it is done really well. (analogue noise is different though, I don't mind true analogue noise)

    The main thing you and I have disagreed with over the years has been in terms of image quality. I like super sampling. An Alexa does not have enough dynamic range for me. it is pretty good, but isn't there yet. And I like the idea of 8K, but currently I am settling for 4K until technology makes 8k more feasible. And color will hopefully continue to improve.
    But if an Alexa is 14+ and has some noise at iso800, and I wish it had a little more finesse in the highlights and cleaner shadows. So, there is 16stops there, and then add the Canon and Red DR ratings and you get 18. Not scientific at all, but totally within the realm of discussion.


    One thing about the 1DC and the Sony F35, both beautiful cameras, but I kept running into burnt out highlights. A sun streak on a wall in the background. a lamp. a car headlight. some hot spot bokeh ball turned to a white blob cut-out. These issues are much less common with the Gemini and the Alexa. However, they still happen. I have a sort of dark living room as it is surrounded by trees, so when I shoot a person sitting back lit with a C300mk1, some of the back ground is clipping. I can work around that, but would prefer if it went to clipping softly and organically.

    The idea of super sampling DR is for all those near invisible subtle that we might normally use a bounce or frame out to compensate for.

    Did any of you see this film vs digital thing on YouTube:

    ^even at 10 stops over, film is still really graceful. The digital image on the right is completely blown out.

    There is a lot of what makes analogue nice in the compressed high end. Like when recording high spl or shrill instruments to tape vs some cheap digital recorder. Film kind of does the same thing. Like the interrogations scene in the "The Dark Knight", Wally Pfsiter over exposed 5stops and brought the image back down. I don't think we would do that in digital. Even the Alexa is barely holding on at that point.

    But imagine having the highlight roll off of film, and the clean shadows of digital. That is a lot of DR. So, in order to be better than film, digital has to reach beyond what the Alexa is doing and go much further than even film does, so that it can begin to emulate a more analogue feel, even in challenging situations.
    Last edited by James0b57; 05-31-2020 at 06:08 PM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    Senior Member James0b57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    5,240
    Default
    Although, there is a difference between what i want and what i expect. To be honest, i don’t really expect anything from the manufacturers. I like cameras in general. I like making images. The camera doesn’t really matter to me. But if we are talking about what technical capabilities a camera would need to be better than my eyes can perceive, then we are talking some major specs and dome crazy attention to detail and aesthetics to make that camera. But who could afford it, unless it is cheap enough to put in a mid level mirrorless camera? So, i don’t really expect anything to exists like that ever. I hope it does. But it won’t.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    Senior Member Jim Arthurs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    859
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by NorBro View Post
    It's interesting you didn't claim/put a number on DR for the F3 in that video (or maybe I missed it) like today's marketing would to push more products/units (especially for something that made the camera better).

    Was that on purpose for CD to stay honest as a third-party?
    In truth I don't remember how that all played out in regards to dynamic range, but what the Gemini bought to the table (and CD primarily promoted) was uncompressed 4:4:4 higher bit-depth DPX files. This was original "slog", not "slog2" of course, and undoubtedly there's a 2 hour plus long Alister Chapman video somewhere about the actual dynamic range of the camera internal vs external dual link recording.

    Sony's Peter Crithary did co-op this video with CD's blessing, hacked out any reference to CD or the Gemini and played it in their NAB booth as a sensor/slog tech aid.
    Jim Arthurs


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    132
    Default
    Shooting on film has a magical quality about it

    Can’t be compared via specs

    It’s just different (a different process and experience working with)

    It’s been a big difference for me and does stand out in a video world


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    901
    Default
    Everything can be compared via specs. Everything is quantifiable whether or not we have the means to quantify it. (But I see your point.)


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    7,355
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Arthurs View Post
    In truth I don't remember how that all played out in regards to dynamic range, but what the Gemini bought to the table (and CD primarily promoted) was uncompressed 4:4:4 higher bit-depth DPX files. This was original "slog", not "slog2" of course, and undoubtedly there's a 2 hour plus long Alister Chapman video somewhere about the actual dynamic range of the camera internal vs external dual link recording.

    Sony's Peter Crithary did co-op this video with CD's blessing, hacked out any reference to CD or the Gemini and played it in their NAB booth as a sensor/slog tech aid.
    I hear you...

    IMO, I don't think many video people knew what the heck dynamic range was in 2011.

    Photographers had an idea since their technology was always more advanced, but there were barely any cinema cameras. There was no LOG in anything besides a few options out of reach for most.

    I never heard the term until the following year when Blackmagic announced and released the BMCC, which immediately had better IQ than 99% of cameras on the market, and high dynamic range became a must-have feature overnight.

    As the cinema industry started to really change around that 2012-2014 block, I think Sony played a big part in continuing to evolve camera marketing for the next 4 years.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    Senior Member James0b57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    5,240
    Default
    Dvx members have been talking about dynamic range since the beginning. This thread dates back to 2005.

    http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread...om-your-DVX100
    Last edited by James0b57; 05-31-2020 at 11:49 AM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,526
    Default
    I shot 16mm film for TV for a decade. That 10 stop over sample has to be shot on negative stock, which gets progressively denser in the highlights, but loses contrast and range with overexposure. Kodak 5247 neg was what I mostly shot. Ektachrome reversal films behaved just like a digital camera. The highlights blow out. Both of those film stocks were under 10 stops DR. My Digital Bolex handily exceeds the DR range of those at 12 stops. More is obviously better for shooting, but even modern HDR high nit displays max out around 10 stops photometric DR. (2000 nit white with 1 nit black makes 11 stops, but I have never seen an LCD/LED panel with that much range.)
    Last edited by Razz16mm; 05-31-2020 at 02:52 PM.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    987
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by James0b57 View Post
    I think you described it better than i could have!

    Will just post this inaccurate graph here, perhaps for the lurkers, if there are any anymore, as at least it shows how many cinema cameras do iso. Canon seems to add gain along the way, so, i believe Canon is a type of “true” iso, and this graph does not apply to Canon C. Also, dual iso has become popular, and those cameras have two “base” iso settings. But within each base iso, they shift iso using pushing and pulling.

    However, Alexa and most Red’s tend to do iso like this:

    Iso800 - cleaner shadows, “thicker” mids, but less highlight roll off.
    Iso1600 - noiser shadows, “thinner” mid tone tonality, longer highlight roll off

    The clipping points aren’t changing, just where the operator chooses to land the exposure. Iso 1600 boosts the brightness of the mids and allows for more highlight rolloff. Or pulling down to iso 400 cleans up the shadows but leaves less elbow room in the highlights making a “video” look up top sometimes.


    There is a good interview with Rob Maclachlan who DP’d the ‘Red Wedding’ episode for the HBO series “Game of Thrones”. In the interview, he says that they shot the wedding by candlelight at iso1600, which not only gave them an extra stop to work with, but extended the highlight range keeping the candle flames from clipping.



    When lowering the iso, the operator is using less of the shadows and working their back against the highlight clipping point. Whereas raising the iso, the operator it lifting the shadows and exploring the murky waters of noise, which tends to have more wiggle room for a stop or two. But highlights are that impassable barrier, there is not wiggle room with highlight clipping on digital, unless you have a lot of dynamic range for a film like infinite roll off. Wally Pfister over exposed the film in shooting the Joker interrogation scene in the Dark Knight by like 5 stops and they pulled it back down.
    Arri doesn't do it like that. White paper here -> https://www.arri.com/resource/blob/3...n-vfx-data.pdf

    Also see that there is no highlight rolloff with Arri except at 3200. The highights are extended because middle gray is lowered. Also note that highlight extension above middle gray depends on the chosen EI.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 15 of 55 FirstFirst ... 511121314151617181925 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •