IBC 2017 :What to expect?

Danilo Del Tufo

Danilo Del Tufo

Well-known member
Last edited:
J.Brown said:
I like Canons 405. Could be a sweet camera for events and such.
Click to expand...
The interesting thing is it has Dual Pixel CMOS AF (touch screen autofocus, the same of C200) with 5-Axis Optical Image Stabilization. The image looks videoish and dunno how much it could be tweaked to look more cinematic.
 
Danilo Del Tufo said:
The interesting thing is it has Dual Pixel CMOS AF (touch screen autofocus, the same of C200) with 5-Axis Optical Image Stabilization. The image looks videoish and dunno how much it could be tweaked to look more cinematic.
Click to expand...

It's a small-sensor video camera... it's not supposed to look "cinematic."

Not everyone wants their output to look "cinematic" whatever that means.
 
jbregar said:
It's a small-sensor video camera... it's not supposed to look "cinematic."

Not everyone wants their output to look "cinematic" whatever that means.
Click to expand...
I'm referring to the fact that the codec is 4:2:0 8bit, so there's not much room to color grading.
 
Danilo Del Tufo said:
The image looks videoish and dunno how much it could be tweaked to look more cinematic.
Click to expand...

It looks video-ish because it's shot and shown at 60p. No matter how cinematic the color, dynamic range, etc., if it's shown at 60p it will look like a soap opera / news / sports.

If they had shot it at 24p instead, it would have looked filmic.
 
Jaime Valles said:
It looks video-ish because it's shot and shown at 60p. No matter how cinematic the color, dynamic range, etc., if it's shown at 60p it will look like a soap opera / news / sports.

If they had shot it at 24p instead, it would have looked filmic.
Click to expand...


I generally find images from camcorders to look bad regardless of frame rate and depth of field.

Billy Lynn was shot in 120, and I'm guessing the Youtube trailer is shown at 24 fps. It looks pretty normal to me, which I gather means you can shoot at a high frame rate and make it look normal. Of course whether 48 fps or 120 fps looks good or not as a final viewing format for movies is another debate, but I do think the Billy Lynn trailer (and movie, since I saw it) look like pretty standard high end Hollywood production values, and not soap opera. As I said, having viewed it at 24p, but it was shot at 120 fps.
 
Last edited:
Eric Coughlin said:
I generally find images from camcorders to look bad regardless of frame rate and depth of field.
Click to expand...

Me too...and I've never understood why.

7-8 years ago I wrote it off to just being the times we were in, but each release every year still has lacking quality compared to the progress of mirrorless/DSLR/cinema cameras since then.
 
Last edited:
Eric Coughlin said:


Billy Lynn was shot in 120, and I'm guessing the Youtube trailer is shown at 24 fps. It looks pretty normal to me, which I gather means you can shoot at a high frame rate and make it look normal.
Click to expand...

This film looks terrible to my eye. I actually thought it was a made for TV film when I watched it on a plane, very video look.
 
Liam Hall said:
This film looks terrible to my eye. I actually thought it was a made for TV film when I watched it on a plane, very video look.
Click to expand...
On the 8" 480p screen that's in the headrest or the 17" 480p screen that's 25 feet away down the aisle? I almost watched Tracks (2013) on a plane once; glad I didn't, that film is gorgeous.
 
Last edited:
NorBro said:
Met too...and I've never understood why.

7-8 years ago I wrote it off to just being the times we were in, but each release every year still has lacking quality compared to the progress of mirrorless/DSLR/cinema cameras since then.
Click to expand...
The dyanamic range and highlight rolloff is often poor, and so are the colors. Even when it's 8 or 10 bit 4:2:2, the colors of camcorders just doesn't look as rich. Don't know why, though. You'd think they could get good image quality from a small sensor. Maybe the pixels are too small. Or maybe the quality of the fixed zoom lenses is not good.
 
Eric Coughlin said:


I generally find images from camcorders to look bad regardless of frame rate and depth of field.

Billy Lynn was shot in 120, and I'm guessing the Youtube trailer is shown at 24 fps. It looks pretty normal to me, which I gather means you can shoot at a high frame rate and make it look normal. Of course whether 48 fps or 120 fps looks good or not as a final viewing format for movies is another debate, but I do think the Billy Lynn trailer (and movie, since I saw it) look like pretty standard high end Hollywood production values, and not soap opera. As I said, having viewed it at 24p, but it was shot at 120 fps.
Click to expand...

The trailer looks excellent... converted to 24p. But the actual movie projected at 60p looked like a cheap soap opera. It didn't matter how big the budget was for the lighting and production design. 60p looks like a soap opera / news / sports. Same thing happened to The Hobbit movies. There's no escaping the effect of framerate for cinematic purposes.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
The dyanamic range and highlight rolloff is often poor, and so are the colors. Even when it's 8 or 10 bit 4:2:2, the colors of camcorders just doesn't look as rich. Don't know why, though. You'd think they could get good image quality from a small sensor. Maybe the pixels are too small. Or maybe the quality of the fixed zoom lenses is not good.
Click to expand...

The DR and roll-off can be poor in stills cams that shoot video too, but the 4K quality can look amazing. Modern images with nice colors...just harsh clipping.
 
Jaime Valles said:
The trailer looks excellent... converted to 24p. But the actual movie projected at 60p looked like a cheap soap opera. It didn't matter how big the budget was for the lighting and production design. 60p looks like a soap opera / news / sports. Same thing happened to The Hobbit movies. There's no escaping the effect of framerate for cinematic purposes.
Click to expand...
Right. So you agree that 120 converted to 24p can look good. Hence if say a camcorder is shot at 60p, it could be converted to 24p and look good. Aside from that camcorders still look bad at 24p, in my opinion.
 
Technically, pretty much everything we're shooting on are 'camcorders'. C300MKII: camcorder. VariCam: camcorder. F55: camcorder. Alexa: camcorder. Amira: camcorder. Etc., etc.

We just don't call them 'camcorders', because it sounds like a piece of consumer equipment. We just call them 'cameras'. If you read a lot of manufacturers literature and/or manuals for "our" gear they refer to them as Camera Recorders. Which is what Camcorder is short for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top