Canon R5 Announced with 8k

[Guest]

Always so hard to tell if you're joking.

I shoot a lot of SOOC but one can finesse the look more in post.

But yeah - SOOC for life

Just getting it right in camera saves the colorist from being a technician and fixing all your shots. getting it right in camera tends to show more intent as well as give the post look more time for creativity.

I don't know about you, but whenever I get a shot wrong, I sometimes can't even fix it in post. And when I get a shot right, almost every single grade or LUT looks great.

And yeah, SOOC for life. Agreed

 

[ahalpert]

Not exactly joking. But yeah, if a DP has a good line of communication and control of post and working with a good colorist, then SOOC is less important. Otherwise, SOOC or die, even on a big budget shoot.

It's tough because you might lose some details here and there and worsen the footage defending. Why not just embed a LUT to show them what you meant? (True, they could still screw you)

I remember hearing that Gordin Willis' editors complained that he forced edits with his lighting. Not sure exactly how he did that, maybe killing lights within the scene

 

[Guest]

Not exactly joking. But yeah, if a DP has a good line of communication and control of post and working with a good colorist, then SOOC is less important. Otherwise, SOOC or die, even on a big budget shoot.

I'm the guy with the clean shave and the dark shirt.

 

[AndreeOnline]

Shaking my head.


All that wishful thinking about adding the curve you like did not save RED cameras from looking less natural than the Alexa.

There is a very simple explanation for that though: the RED never had the DR of Alexa.

Had it had it, it should have been possible without too much fuss.

Part of being a colorist (which I'm not), is solving technical issues as well as artistic. Sometimes these things might pre-solved in prep, but doing a transform from one curve to another is certainly possible. Especially if we're not talking willy-nilly, but purposeful and controlled as part of a workflow.

Professional software has nodes to go in and out of linear and between color spaces. I'm not saying it's trivial for a hobbyist or a "shooter first", but possible.

That said, there is certainly strong reasons to go with the camera that takes you closer to your goal, faster.

 

[ahalpert]

I don't know about you, but whenever I get a shot wrong, I sometimes can't even fix it in post. And when I get a shot right, almost every single grade or LUT looks great.

Well I think you're definitely screwed if you plan to rebalance your midtones in post. (Then you end up with awful Steven Soderbergh facelights everywhere. That guy's a great editor but not a great DP.) I agree with Andree - planning for global corrections is best.

I think the light/expose for the preview lut but record in log makes sense. So do a lot of people

 

[ahalpert]

That said, there is certainly strong reasons to go with the camera that takes you closer to your goal, faster.

Heresy!

 

[Guest]

There is a very simple explanation for that though: the RED never had the DR of Alexa.

Had it had it, it should have been possible without too much fuss.

Part of being a colorist (which I'm not), is solving technical issues as well as artistic. Sometimes these things might pre-solved in prep, but doing a transform from one curve to another is certainly possible. Especially if we're not talking willy-nilly, but purposeful and controlled as part of a workflow.

Professional software has nodes to go in and out of linear and between color spaces. I'm not saying it's trivial for a hobbyist or a "shooter first", but possible.

That said, there is certainly strong reasons to go with the camera that takes you closer to your goal, faster.

You really want to bring home the fact that people can avoid real world situations so that they can remap the sensor curve to look like a camera with a much larger DR, but it isn't

That's fine. It is true.

I want all the mass consumers to want DR so that camera companies actually put more DR in cheaper cameras. If people try to argue it isn't needed, and people get confused by that, then we lose. But, I think the mass consumer has already caught the DR bug, so it may not matter.

Keep on making pretty images.

 

[AndreeOnline]

You really want to bring home the fact that people can avoid real world situations so that they can remap the sensor curve to look like a camera with a much larger DR.

Wait, what?

You can't remap a curve on a camera with lesser DR to look like one with greater DR. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

I thought the one thing we agreed on in this thread already was, more DR is better?

 

[Guest]

Wait, what?

You can't remap a curve on a camera with lesser DR to look like one with greater DR. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

I thought the one thing we agreed on in this thread already was, more DR is better?

Ok, then we all agree then. Was a semantics issue then.

 

[AndreeOnline]

Hmm. Lot's of hammering, but mostly crooked nails it seems.

I think I've written "more DR is better" in at least 3 posts.

My stance is basically:

• More DR is better. Visually and technically. We can't have too much.
• Similar DR cameras (actual, not soft quotes) can be made to match.
• After around 12 real stops and shooting raw, I feel we have passed the point of diminishing returns. I feel I can cover most situations occurring in the real world effectively, if not perfectly.
• See bullet point one.
• Personal preference may invalidate any or all of the above.

 

[AndreeOnline]

Reading my own post I come upon a huge fork in the road when I write: "I feel I can cover most situations occurring in the real world effectively, if not perfectly."

In this thread, reading between the lines, I feel some of you are pushing for a camera that captures all available light and the reproduces it on a media that reflects/emits all of that light.

In essence, we capture 1:1 of reality.

If THAT is the rainbows end... well, we are looking for different things. At least if I go by my current preferences. To me, the whole point of photography—in motion or not, is the... abstraction (that's not really accurate)... instant drama! that happens when you remap light. I don't want to see, on paper or on a monitor, what I saw in the real world.

Maybe that's another discussion.

 

[ahalpert]

In this thread, reading between the lines, I feel some of you are pushing for a camera that captures all available light and the reproduces it on a media that reflects/emits all of that light.

I don't want to reflect/emit all of that light in the viewing medium. I just want to capture the full range of detail in the original scene and have the freedom to remap it however I see fit to the viewing medium. (Though that's a good question regarding how much dynamic range would be available in an ideal viewing medium.)

To take a real-world example, it would be nice to shoot an interior interview against a window and light your subject as you choose without regard for the exposure level through the window. The camera captures full detail inside and outside, and you choose how to roll off and clip the window.

That's a simple, obvious example. I think in a narrative film context there are much more interesting things you could do with high contrast scenes and/or exposing your subject at the edges of the exposure range.

 

[Guest]

Reading my own post I come upon a huge fork in the road when I write: "I feel I can cover most situations occurring in the real world effectively, if not perfectly."

Yes, it is these overtones that kept me arguing. Because I feel I get into conversations with people that claim DR after 12stops is not necessary. "not necessary" is the vague language tacked on to the tail end of an intelligent and technical sentence, and then makes everything less clear. Diminishing returns is true.... but again vague. For me, after Alexa is diminishing returns. That is a true mix of art and efficient engineering compromises, where any more is diminishing returns, but more is always welcome. But a twelve stop camera gets tripped up by simple lampshades in the backs ground, car head lights, blonde hair back lit, red channels might clip a little early, and on and on.

In this thread, reading between the lines, I feel some of you are pushing for a camera that captures all available light and the reproduces it on a media that reflects/emits all of that light.

In essence, we capture 1:1 of reality.

If THAT is the rainbows end... well, we are looking for different things. At least if I go by my current preferences. To me, the whole point of photography—in motion or not, is the... abstraction (that's not really accurate)... instant drama! that happens when you remap light. I don't want to see, on paper or on a monitor, what I saw in the real world.

Maybe that's another discussion.

That may be a nice place to end up, but might be a while, but for now, we can roll off the highlights. To be honest, I like a lower dynamic range screen to a degree. Like plasma and OLED. It is more comfortable than getting blasted with true HDR sometimes. While I look forward to HDR, I don't intend to have every image using the full nits.

I think there are plenty of uses for abstraction and capturing things in high fidelity. I like finding colors and moments in life by my eyes and making those into abstractions. They don't have to look too real. It is only 2D on a flat screen. I just don't like the "Video" look. I want Vermeer, and if things are clipping, than I don't get Vermeer unless I bring in lights, or at least only shoot certain things at certain times of day. Which is not what I want to do all the time.

Saying I don't want to see clipping is not saying I want things to replicate real life exactly 1:1, it just means I want to trick the eye into accepting the image is not digital video.

 

[Guest]

for what it is worth, I also have a DVX100, because I like it because it is so abstract and flawed. Much easier to get impressionistic looks.

However once cameras got kind of good, like the C300mk1, we started running into issues where the camera looks soooo good when everything is safe, but once the light gets a little spicy, the thing clips and clipping on such a pretty image is like finger nails on a chalk board sometimes. And if one is avoiding clipping to make pretty images, than why not have more DR to keep those images pretty even when there are a few bright spots in the frame.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

I feel like my eye sight's dynamic range is still way better than cameras. And even with Arri, I still often run into situations where the dynamic range of a scene cannot fit into the dynamic range the camera has. Cameras have a long way to go in terms of improvements for dynamic range.

Of course, we can make do with 12 stops, and it may even be enough for most lighting situations, but it will still come up short at times to anyone who does not only shoot in fully controlled studio settings.

I shot my senior thesis feature film in college with a DVX100. In the second thumbnail below you can see the DVX's blown highlights. I prefer the Amira I use now in terms of image quality. I am glad I used the DVX100, though, because otherwise I would not have been allowed on a forum called DVXuser.

 

[DLD]

FWIW, the next generation of consumer cameras is likely to feature exposure bracketing for video. It was advertised by a Korean chip/sensor company (not Samsung ... I linked to it last year but can't recall in which thread) as new tech for smartphones with a live +/- four stop blend. One has to assume that a pro camera should have enough computational power to adjust the "live" exposure in camera, with the rest being nailed in post/editing.

PS. I turned the brightness down on my inexpensive 37" LED because ten stops, for me, is not very comfortable.

 

[Run&Gun]

Just getting it right in camera saves the colorist from being a technician and fixing all your shots. getting it right in camera tends to show more intent as well as give the post look more time for creativity.

I don't know about you, but whenever I get a shot wrong, I sometimes can't even fix it in post. And when I get a shot right, almost every single grade or LUT looks great.

And yeah, SOOC for life. Agreed

It's tough because you might lose some details here and there and worsen the footage defending. Why not just embed a LUT to show them what you meant? (True, they could still screw you)

I remember hearing that Gordin Willis' editors complained that he forced edits with his lighting. Not sure exactly how he did that, maybe killing lights within the scene

I'll say this, I've been F'd over more times by an editor than I've been saved.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

I'll say this, I've been F'd over more times by an editor than I've been saved.

I recently watched a video I shot around a year ago to find that of the two interviews, for one of them the editor properly muted the on-camera mic on track 3 & 4 so it was just the proper overhead boom feed which sounded great, but for the second interview (starting at 2:46), the editor did not mute the on-camera mic so the audio sounds pretty crappy. I really don't know how an editor can be smart enough to mute the on-camera mic for one interview but not smart enough to do it for both interviews.

Part of me wants to never have the on-camera mic on for an interview, but the other part appreciates that backup, as well as always having it on can save you in non-sit down interview situations where if you keep turning it on and off you may end up screwing yourself when you do eventually need it. But then there's always incompetent editors you have to worry about.

 

[ahalpert]

I recently watched a video I shot around a year ago to find that of the two interviews, for one of them the editor properly muted the on-camera mic on track 3 & 4 so it was just the proper overhead boom feed which sounded great, but for the second interview (starting at 2:46), the editor did not mute the on-camera mic so the audio sounds pretty crappy.

Meanwhile, the client is somewhere saying, "That Coughlin is so lazy - he only bothered to record good audio for half the interviews!"

 

[ahalpert]

FWIW, the next generation of consumer cameras is likely to feature exposure bracketing for video. It was advertised by a Korean chip/sensor company (not Samsung ... I linked to it last year but can't recall in which thread) as new tech for smartphones with a live +/- four stop blend. One has to assume that a pro camera should have enough computational power to adjust the "live" exposure in camera, with the rest being nailed in post/editing.

They must be applying different gain to each pixel in a quad Bayer array. Exactly what I'm hoping the A7SIII will do.

I don't think you can call that bracketing though, calling it HDR would be more accurate IMO. And ideally it just gives you wider DR, like DGO but moreso. And I don't see how the camera's computer will guess the exposure any differently than they currently do, but it'll be harder for it to miss. (As an aside - the "face priority" exposure mode on the Sony ZV1 is pretty much all decent autoexposure needs to do. I mean, it's basically what an actual cameraman does, plus maybe a little tweaking to accommodate the rest of the scene.)