Oh great info! This gives me a great indication of why it looks so drasticly different than the original clip.
—-I’ll have a look at Sharp Objects and try and see what it’s shot on too..
Disturbingly ‘Video like’ EVA ProRes Raw footage
- Thread starter Barry1908
- Start date
Oh great info! This gives me a great indication of why it looks so drasticly different than the original clip.
—-I’ll have a look at Sharp Objects and try and see what it’s shot on too..
filmguy123
Veteran
Sure thing!
Yup glass is huge. In general super sharp modern glass on the EVA1 super detailed sensor is not going to give a more traditionally “smooth” / “organic” look at least right out of box. Again many factors at play.
If you like that, consider EVA1 + canon FD set, Nikkors, or Contax. Or Leica R, if you’re feeling rich
Yup glass is huge. In general super sharp modern glass on the EVA1 super detailed sensor is not going to give a more traditionally “smooth” / “organic” look at least right out of box. Again many factors at play.
If you like that, consider EVA1 + canon FD set, Nikkors, or Contax. Or Leica R, if you’re feeling rich
Jason R. Johnston
Well-known member
That isn’t EVA1’s fault. It’s the fault of the filmmakers. If those same people had an Alexa the movie would still ‘look like video’. Composition, lighting, production design (sets and wardrobe, hair and make-up), each have a profound effect on the quality of a motion picture. EVA1 is a good camera capabale of very pretty images. This movie is simply a poor example of EVA1’s capabilities, probably. But that’s just opinion and taste and preference. I certainly don’t shoot this way but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong, or necessarily bad.
I’ve looked at the filmmakers’ website and Vimeo page. All of their work seems to have a very broadcast video look to it. That’s just their style. They think it looks good. More importantly, their clients think it looks good. So if they’re using EVA1 to achieve a look that works for them and their clients then so be it. It doesn’t mean that THAT is all EVA1 is capable of.
It’s not the hammer’s fault the house looks ugly to some people.
Don’t busy yourself looking for EVA1 footage you don’t think looks good. Look for good footage. All you’re doing is scaring yourself. And then posting it here with clickbait-y headings just scares other people, too.
Last edited:
Alex Derrick
Active member
Comparison always leads to suffering. Just rent the camera and shoot some test footage and see if you like it for your creative vision. This is the best advice anyone can give you. Honestly.
Clermond
Veteran
so did I. And sold my FS7 afterwards.
Yep I think I’m gonna need to rent Eva, C200 and Fs7 when it’s time to buy. Put my own glass on and use a check usability basics like magnification output on hdmi which the c100 lacks.
filmguy123
Veteran
I haven’t tested this yet but I’ve been wondering if shooting 4K raw to prores video on atomos, and setting to 24p, would remove unwanted detail / sharp aesthetic for some people. Because it skips the 5.7k oversample. You incur a crop to m43 sensor size area however the 1:1 pixel ratio with no extra resolution may “take the edge off”.
This would be something interesting to experiment with. I would caution that it seems other trade offs would be incurred as well - EVA1 noise reduction works from having more pixels to downsample, and color accuracy is improved with those extra pixels too. But I’d be curious to see the aesthetic this would produce.
This would be something interesting to experiment with. I would caution that it seems other trade offs would be incurred as well - EVA1 noise reduction works from having more pixels to downsample, and color accuracy is improved with those extra pixels too. But I’d be curious to see the aesthetic this would produce.
Run&Gun
Veteran
Or just call your dealer/sales rep up and ask for a demo unit. Heck, last year mine sent me an LT for a month.
Clermond
Veteran
wow. I paid 100€ per day for the EVA1
I got a refund when I bought the EVA1 but 1st I had to pay.
Mitch Gross
Veteran
You could simply shoot in the regular 4K video mode utilizing the 5.7K sensor, but employ the DIGITAL ZOOM function. That uses a 1.4x crop to shoot 4K pixel-to-pixel like other 4K cameras employ. This is the identical sensor area used when shooting 4K RAW.
filmguy123
Veteran
Oh, awesome, thanks Mitch!
What are your thoughts on how that might affect IQ in terms of noise and color?
What are your thoughts on how that might affect IQ in terms of noise and color?
Barry_Green
Moderator
I would say no effect on color, and probably about a small increase in noise since fewer pixels get averaged together during the downsample.
I did that with my C100 actually, but only instore. I'll likely return to them and do some initial testing and then see what ticks the boxes and rent that camera.
mrchirster
Well-known member
Just for clarification.. 1.4 crop on s35mm, correct?
Right, so you have the usual crop factor already... I think it's 1.5x or 1.6x (close if not the same as APS-C, but I forget if it's Canon or Nikon version).
Then, the Digital Zoom adds an additional 1.4x crop factor.
Shoot the EVA1 uncropped at 5.7K to get true 4K (5.7K Bayer is required to get true 4K RGB output). That's a big deal! We've waited for years to get true 4K cameras. More real detail = a more filmic look since there are no artifacts. "But it's too sharp, too detailed"... What if you decide you need to crop in, in post, for framing, or for a slow zoom etc.? You need all the real detail you can get. You can tune the look in post:
I was doing some experiments with the Tiffen Black Pro Mist filter and then did tests in Premiere Pro using a blur and blended copy to simulate diffusion in post. I realized I like the looks I could get in post far better than the lens filter, and also had many other options to dial in a variety of looks in post, vs. a single look provided by the lens filter (and the same would be true if shooting with a soft vintage lens). It's so simple and fast: just copy the video layer and place above the original. An adjustment layer will also work. Now blur the top layer with Gaussian Blur (say 50). Cycle through the Opacity Blend modes and see what each one does. You can then experiment with opacity, blur amount, exposure, etc. You can take the super detailed true 4K footage and make look like traditional film shot with diffusion filters. Lots more examples online: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=using+blend+modes+premiere+pro+soften . These techniques will also work with FCPX, Resolve, Avid (any NLE).
I was doing some experiments with the Tiffen Black Pro Mist filter and then did tests in Premiere Pro using a blur and blended copy to simulate diffusion in post. I realized I like the looks I could get in post far better than the lens filter, and also had many other options to dial in a variety of looks in post, vs. a single look provided by the lens filter (and the same would be true if shooting with a soft vintage lens). It's so simple and fast: just copy the video layer and place above the original. An adjustment layer will also work. Now blur the top layer with Gaussian Blur (say 50). Cycle through the Opacity Blend modes and see what each one does. You can then experiment with opacity, blur amount, exposure, etc. You can take the super detailed true 4K footage and make look like traditional film shot with diffusion filters. Lots more examples online: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=using+blend+modes+premiere+pro+soften . These techniques will also work with FCPX, Resolve, Avid (any NLE).
