Subforums
-
The EOSHD YouTube Channel (23,361 visits to this link)
17,292 topics in this forum
-
- 1.2k replies
- 464k views
-
- 5.8k replies
- 1.9m views
-
- 9.1k replies
- 2.7m views
-
- 0 replies
- 1.6k views
-
- 700 replies
- 307.5k views
-
- 1.8k replies
- 756.3k views
-
- 20 replies
- 1.2k views
-
- 8 replies
- 394 views
-
- 22 replies
- 805 views
-
- 7 replies
- 809 views
-
- 42 replies
- 2.5k views
-
- 2 replies
- 2.4k views
-
- 82 replies
- 8.1k views
-
- 127 replies
- 59.9k views
-
- 121 replies
- 64.4k views
-
- 96 replies
- 76k views
-
- 13 replies
- 6.5k views
-
- 0 replies
- 295 views
-
- 0 replies
- 352 views
-
- 0 replies
- 358 views
-
- 5 replies
- 783 views
-
- 314 replies
- 149.1k views
-
- 12 replies
- 5.8k views
-
- 51 replies
- 4k views
-
- 30 replies
- 33.7k views
-
- 1 reply
- 356 views
-
- 8 replies
- 13.5k views
-
- 45 replies
- 12.9k views
-
- 13 replies
- 736 views
-
- 6 replies
- 2.2k views
-
- 2 replies
- 770 views
-
- 7 replies
- 595 views
-
- 7 replies
- 3.2k views
-
- 560 replies
- 261.5k views
-
- 18 replies
- 2.3k views
-
- 2 replies
- 511 views
-
- 20 replies
- 1.7k views
-
- 57 replies
- 19.4k views
-
- 60 replies
- 19.9k views
-
- 3 replies
- 952 views
-
Popular Contributors
-
Forum Statistics
-
Total Topics17.3k
-
Total Posts351.8k
-
-
Member Statistics
-
Posts
-
By zerocool22 · Posted
Whatsup with arri clog on the s1ii though? It still seems way off from actual arri footage? -
This is where computational photography becomes impossible to ignore and where it starts to look more like computational cinematography. These Luna Ultra low-light comparisons are not simply about sensor size, ISO or aperture. They are about the entire imaging pipeline. The Luna is not just “seeing better” in the traditional optical sense; it is processing harder. It is lifting shadows, stabilising exposure, reducing noise, rebuilding colour, brightening faces and subjects, and delivering an immediately usable image in situations where more traditional camera pipelines can look extremely dark straight out of camera. The Sony FX3 comparison is especially revealing. The FX3 is a serious full-frame low-light video/cinema camera, here shown in 4K S-Log 3 at ISO 12,800, f/2.8 and a 180° shutter. That is not a weak setup. The Canon R6 V comparison is also striking, with the camera shown in 4K C-Log 2 at ISO 25,600, f/2.8 and 1/50. Yet, in these posted frames, both traditional camera images look dramatically darker than the Luna Ultra low-light mode. Of course, this does not mean the Luna is “better” than an FX3 or a Canon cinema-style camera in any broad professional sense. It is not. Log footage is not supposed to be judged as a finished image before grading, and larger-sensor cameras still have major advantages in colour depth, dynamic range control, lens choice, codec robustness, monitoring, rigging and production workflow. Properly exposed, lit and graded, they remain much more flexible tools. But that is not really the point. The disruptive point is that the Luna is delivering a visible, usable image immediately, in situations where a traditional cinema pipeline still expects the operator to expose carefully, light when necessary, grade later and finish the image in post. The iPhone comparison makes the argument even more interesting, because a phone is already a computational camera. Smartphones built their reputation by using software to overcome small sensors: multi-frame processing, HDR, tone mapping, noise reduction, subject detection and AI-assisted reconstruction. So when the Luna Ultra in 4K low light Mode produces a dramatically more visible image than the iPhone 17 Pro Max 1x lens in this kind of scene, the story is no longer just “computational camera beats traditional camera”. It is “a dedicated computational video camera can beat a flagship smartphone at its own game”. That distinction matters. Smartphone night photography and smartphone low-light video are not the same thing. Phones can do extraordinary things with stills because they can merge frames, hold exposure, stabilise aggressively and tolerate a more processed photographic look. Video is harder. It has to work continuously, frame after frame, without destroying motion, faces, texture and temporal consistency. In this example, the iPhone image remains very dark, while the Luna Ultra clearly prioritises subject visibility, colour recovery and immediate usability. So the real lesson is this: low-light performance is no longer just a hardware contest. It is sensor plus lens plus stabilisation plus temporal denoising plus tone mapping plus AI reconstruction plus exposure strategy. The most useful image may come not from the device with the largest sensor, but from the device with the smartest pipeline. The Luna does not replace cinema cameras. It does not replace phones either. But it attacks the space between them: fast, handheld, available-light video where the most important question is not “which camera has the biggest sensor?”, but “which camera gives me the shot I can actually use?” And in these comparisons, the answer is surprisingly uncomfortable for devices that are much bigger, much more expensive, and much more established. source -
-
By eatstoomuchjam · Posted
There are so many variables when it comes to how you're viewing the film images. Negative film has wide dynamic range and soft highlight rolloff. Positive film has much more limited dynamic range and pretty hard highlight rolloff. Faster film tends to be grainier. Filmmakers with a big budget would be choosing their film stock for aesthetic/style reasons. Imagine shooting Taxi Driver on the same technicolor low-grain film stocks that were used for The Sound of Music. Bright saturated colors would have been terrible for Taxi Driver. Scorcese chose less gritty films than some others might, but Travis Bickle lives in a relatively desaturated/dark world and that's for the best. Filmmakers with low budgets were likely to choose the cheapest film stock they could and some even used the leftovers that weren't exposed from the productions of others. Or in the case of John Waters, whatever film he could steal. Next, as you said, for these classic films, you aren't necessarily looking at scans from the master negatives. You might be looking at scans of the release prints. They didn't always save the masters. It could even be a second or third-generation print. Then to add to that, the way the film gets transferred matters. Did they scan the original negatives or a print? How was it scanned? Was the film being scanned perfectly flat? What compression was used on the scanned image? Was it scanned or telecine? If telecine, which projector lens was used during the telecine process? As far as the lenses, razor sharp lenses have been available for a long time, including in the 50's, and including wide angles. Lots of vintage wide angles are a little softer in the corners, but they can be very crisp in the center... but fashion applied in many eras of film, just as it applies now. For some of the softer images, especially close-ups, they might have been using a net filter, made more complicated by the net filter potentially being mounted behind the lens instead of in front. https://www.provideocoalition.com/the-secret-life-of-behind-the-lens-nets/ I'm sure I'm forgetting more things too. Like almost anything going through an analog to digital process, there are about a bazillion variables to consider along the way. -
Great posts, sticky this! Your contribution here @kye is priceless and a fine example for everyone, myself included : ) It's always a pleasure to read your thoughts! :- ) Keep going… I’m linking to it elsewhere, BTW ; -) Food for my trainee students. : D
-
