G
Guest
Guest
They’d be better off offering a lighting and sound package, as that would go farther to production value than a camera body.
They’d be better off offering a lighting and sound package, as that would go farther to production value than a camera body.
G
Guest
Guest
Not so much in the LED world, as of late.
Also, Cooke pulled a fast one on rental houses with introducing a spectrum of lenses, each coming out with a new “must have” feature. And now they have a full frame (aka large format) 1.8x squeeze anamorphic? Angenieux is releasing a new set of primes..... basically, feels like more lenses were released than high end digital cinema cameras, as of late.
But to your point, they do have a certain kinfd of longevity to them, if you can ever pay them off.
G
Guest
Guest
Thank you for the clarification. I should be more careful when refering to technical aspects.
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
That spec is now updated.
Also, this is a good blast from the past read about the early Canon Cine cameras:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...h-Canon-s-Larry-Thorpe-on-C300-Explains-a-lot
And the video that changed the tide:
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
We are in an interesting time.
It is the first time in motion pictures that consumer could have better image quality than the professional.
Up till recently, there was always some technical limit or reason that professionals had the better image quality. However, for most sports entertainment, tv series, vlogging, and theatrical uses, cameras have reached a threshold of diminishing returns.
However, in the consumer segment, there are plenty people that want the added resolution and dynamic range.
Most professionals are asking manufacturers to slow down, and focus on differrnt aspects that help with stream lining their workflow.
It is great to see consumer products finally starting to break free of the trickle down quality.
It is the first time in motion pictures that consumer could have better image quality than the professional.
Up till recently, there was always some technical limit or reason that professionals had the better image quality. However, for most sports entertainment, tv series, vlogging, and theatrical uses, cameras have reached a threshold of diminishing returns.
However, in the consumer segment, there are plenty people that want the added resolution and dynamic range.
Most professionals are asking manufacturers to slow down, and focus on differrnt aspects that help with stream lining their workflow.
It is great to see consumer products finally starting to break free of the trickle down quality.
Last edited:
Run&Gun
Veteran
We’re in a time where tech is cheap and consumer devices are sold in the millions vs. 10’s, 100’s or 1,000’s for pro gear, so the R&D costs can be spread over a much larger area and some companies could use the consumer side as a test bed for tech that would have been possibly prohibitively expensive to develop on the small scale pro side, but is do-able on the large-scale consumer side.
And it’s easier to fool consumers into thinking that 4K or 8K or “full frame” will magically make their images better, whereas pro’s know it takes things like lighting and... Oh, wait... Oh yeah... Nevermind.
G
Guest
Guest
So on the money!
I’ve seen more pros fall to marketing than ones that don’t. Also in the higher end consumer market, the consumers are generally far more discerning than many of the pros.
G
Guest
Guest
This thread must be causing some touchy emotion. A lot of downvoting going on. But very little else but snarky comments or derailed conversation (which is most welcome, as is dvx tradition). In any case, glad to see some blood boiling under the surface.
jamedia.uk
Well-known member
Why would people be down voting a thread on a camera wish list?
I would have thought it would have been useful for camera makers
Obviously users want "everything" for $10 with a universal lens mount as standard.
EDIT... I managed to hit a down vote instead of an up vote. Sorry I will balance it our with a few ups!!
I would have thought it would have been useful for camera makers
Obviously users want "everything" for $10 with a universal lens mount as standard.
EDIT... I managed to hit a down vote instead of an up vote. Sorry I will balance it our with a few ups!!
G
Guest
Guest
Haha! All good! And thank you!
There are some users with over 400 down votes (and less than 50 up) and they are still posting away with the best of us. I don’t think down votes matter all that much.
I assume we are here to hear other’s thoughts, whether on topic or not, and whether we agree or not. It is the chatting and the banter that makes it dvx.
Last edited:
Run&Gun
Veteran
I've seen a lot of "carpet bombing" down voting over the last month or two. There was, I believe, a thread in the lighting forum a little while ago and pretty much every single reply for about an entire page or two received at least one downvote, even though they were either replies with good information or just a run of the mill reply or question. Nothing deserving of a down vote, for sure. For some reason, my post of the link to the new C500mkII and the first few replies were all downvoted... Either someone meant to upvote and they slipped(easy to do on a mobile device) or someone is just being spiteful.
NorBro
Major Contributor
That particular individual in that lighting thread was upset he was down-voted and then deleted his response and made sure to down-vote everyone else.
G
Guest
Guest
I am curious how difficult it is to make a sensor with more than 16stops dynamic range, and 12+ stops of clean sweet spot?
No camera has come close to it but the dual gain AlevIII.
With 11+ stops you start to get into a good way, but one still needs some feathered roll off both in the shadows and the highlights. You put two stops roll off in the shadows and three in the highlights and you have a very organic looking image.
...heck, might not even need to shoot log anymore.
Until digital goes into that range beyond film, it is just not organic.
Just like you need to super sample 5.7K in Bayer pattern sensors to get anything close to true 4K color output. The digital sensor has to go well beyond film to be able to equal the organic look.
I know Alexa can. Red, Vari35, and Venice are very very close. Wish we could get into the organic digital look now.
No camera has come close to it but the dual gain AlevIII.
With 11+ stops you start to get into a good way, but one still needs some feathered roll off both in the shadows and the highlights. You put two stops roll off in the shadows and three in the highlights and you have a very organic looking image.
...heck, might not even need to shoot log anymore.
Until digital goes into that range beyond film, it is just not organic.
Just like you need to super sample 5.7K in Bayer pattern sensors to get anything close to true 4K color output. The digital sensor has to go well beyond film to be able to equal the organic look.
I know Alexa can. Red, Vari35, and Venice are very very close. Wish we could get into the organic digital look now.
G
Guest
Guest
Here is an inaccurate graph, that shows why 12stops is enough for film, but not enough for digital.
When digital is less than 14stops DR, it begins to look “videoy”
When digital is less than 14stops DR, it begins to look “videoy”
ARRI's implementation is pretty expensive. Stills cameras just stack exposures but that is more difficult with moving images.
More DR is better but I disagree that one needs those 14 stops to look like film or that looking like film is the holy grail of digital. The worst case scenario is film emulation grading (via premade LUT's or custom). The big budget films shot on Red cameras have their own look that is dependent on the preferences of the creative teams.
More DR is better but I disagree that one needs those 14 stops to look like film or that looking like film is the holy grail of digital. The worst case scenario is film emulation grading (via premade LUT's or custom). The big budget films shot on Red cameras have their own look that is dependent on the preferences of the creative teams.
My memory may be lacking, but I thought that one company made a sensor that had low light photosites and high light photosites on the same die which gave a very wide (at the time) range. Probably more than 10 years back and certainly didn't help with resolution.
If you used a beam splitter, you could split the image onto two different sensors, and then combine the images in a DSP to get that multi exposure quality, but the exact same instance in time. Adjust the amount of light on each sensor to favor one or the other exposure condition (60:40 or 25:70, etc.).
If you used a beam splitter, you could split the image onto two different sensors, and then combine the images in a DSP to get that multi exposure quality, but the exact same instance in time. Adjust the amount of light on each sensor to favor one or the other exposure condition (60:40 or 25:70, etc.).