Crews.TV Stills - Now available uncompressed

Just for the heck of it.

The cheek is a little bit blown.
beforenafter2.jpg
 
Wow guys.
All I can do is look at that image and think "I want to make movies that look that good."
Hats off to Crews.tv
 
I'm actually pleasantly surprised by these. The noise and macro blocking that should be in the shadows, is there, but it really isn't as bad as I was expecting.
The difference between the AVC Intra and the AVCHD, is very subtle too.
 
AdrianF said:
I'm actually pleasantly surprised by these. The noise and macro blocking that should be in the shadows, is there, but it really isn't as bad as I was expecting.
The difference between the AVC Intra and the AVCHD, is very subtle too.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. Again, always considering that we don't have a final product yet, if you compare the two raw stills and really push them, it takes quite a while before the codec breaks up and we see it's weakness. A better test will be to use fast moving water, spray, rain, or trees and then compare those two, but that will come in time.
 
DylanReeve said:
The fantastic lenses probably help :)
Click to expand...

Will this myth persist longer than Big Foot and Atlantis? Expensive cine lenses are very, very good, but they may not be optically superior to less expensive still camera lenses. Cine lenses are mechanically designed for motion picture use, with greater rotation of focus, very accurate T-stops and focus marks. They are also optically designed to reduce breathing on focusing, but they don't necessarily produce better picture quality. I don't believe anyone can differentiate cine from still glass unless they are looking at the pictures side by side and examining very closely.

So why invest in cine lenses? Because they are superior for making moving pictures, primarily for follow-focusing and when the marks say 6', the lens is perfectly focused at precisely that.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
Ticheli said:
Will this myth persist longer than Big Foot and Atlantis? Expensive cine lenses are very, very good, but they may not be optically superior to less expensive still camera lenses. Cine lenses are mechanically designed for motion picture use, with greater rotation of focus, very accurate T-stops and focus marks. They are also optically designed to reduce breathing on focusing, but they don't necessarily produce better picture quality. I don't believe anyone can differentiate cine from still glass unless they are looking at the pictures side by side and examining very closely.

So why invest in cine lenses? Because they are superior for making moving pictures, primarily for follow-focusing and when the marks say 6', the lens is perfectly focused at precisely that.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
Click to expand...

first of all big foot is not a myth. I have his body in my freezer, smelly bugger.

secondly, beautiful post...I wish someone could do an analysis on this but what you said is something I have suspected for a very long time ever since I saw GH1 footage with Red Pro Primes attached and to me it looked no different at all than footage with any other lenses.

The only thing I will say is that Cine lenses will often produce a better image slightly by producing better, more even, less sharp BOKEH this is due to the fact that cine lenses (at least some of them like zeiss ultra primes) have far more blades in the Iris and are able to produce more appealing and better looking bokeh ........at least I think this is true.

I would LOVE for someone who has some cine lenses to do a side by side with some Canon FD's or some "crappy" lenses. Who is up to the challenge?
 
Yeah, I'm thinking at HD resolution you would not see the full effect of such sharp glass.
 
What people need to realize is that all the best photographs in the world were taken with still camera lenses! They didn't use cine lenses, they used Nikon, Canon, or other SRL lenses, and the photos are perfect. There's no difference in optical quality, only in mechanical quality. No need to spend a fortune on cine lenses, when SLR lenses will do just fine.
 
jrv3034 said:
What people need to realize is that all the best photographs in the world were taken with still camera lenses! They didn't use cine lenses, they used Nikon, Canon, or other SRL lenses, and the photos are perfect. There's no difference in optical quality, only in mechanical quality. No need to spend a fortune on cine lenses, when SLR lenses will do just fine.
Click to expand...

excellent point. you guys are killing the cine-lens hype.
 
Are you saying then that the only need for cine style lenses in the industry is for build quality, form factor, large degree focus turn, t stops and bokeh?

Not trying to be snarky, actually wondering..
 
however let me ad an addendum, this doesn't mean cheap quality crap still lenses compare to top quality cine lenses. I'm sure you guys are merely saying top QUALITY still lenses are optically equal to cine lenses.

and top quality STILL lenses are still expensive and can cost as much as lower end cine lenses
 
at what resolution then would you see the effect? 4k?
Click to expand...
Not even. How many megapixels is a 5DmkII photograph? If the Canon L lenses are sharp enough for that sensor (in stills mode) then they're already overkill for the RED ONE at 4K.
 
PaPa said:
Are you saying then that the only need for cine style lenses in the industry is for build quality, form factor, large degree focus turn, t stops and bokeh?

Not trying to be snarky, actually wondering..
Click to expand...

yes just like the only reason hollywood uses 10,000$+ steadicams is because their camera systems weigh hundreds of pounds, whereas if you're shooting a DSLR a cheap Merlin steadicam will get you the same exact results for a few hundred bucks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top