Subforums
-
The EOSHD YouTube Channel (23,248 visits to this link)
17,286 topics in this forum
-
- 5.8k replies
- 1.8m views
-
- 9.1k replies
- 2.6m views
-
- 1.2k replies
- 458.7k views
-
- 0 replies
- 1.4k views
-
- 700 replies
- 304.3k views
-
- 1.8k replies
- 749.4k views
-
- 0 replies
- 1 view
-
- 2 replies
- 48 views
-
- 15 replies
- 778 views
-
- 58 replies
- 5.5k views
-
- 2 replies
- 187 views
-
- 5 replies
- 1.8k views
-
- 7 replies
- 202 views
-
- 7 replies
- 2.9k views
-
- 120 replies
- 62.6k views
-
- 3 replies
- 294 views
-
- 560 replies
- 257.2k views
-
- 18 replies
- 1.9k views
-
- 2 replies
- 214 views
-
- 20 replies
- 1.1k views
-
- 57 replies
- 18.4k views
-
- 46 replies
- 2.4k views
-
- 60 replies
- 19.1k views
-
- 3 replies
- 686 views
-
- 126 replies
- 57k views
-
- 88 replies
- 57.8k views
-
- 71 replies
- 34k views
-
- 14 replies
- 830 views
-
- 19 replies
- 1.7k views
-
- 10 replies
- 739 views
-
- 79 replies
- 55.2k views
-
- 26 replies
- 19.5k views
-
- 3 replies
- 2.7k views
-
- 105 replies
- 42.2k views
-
- 1 reply
- 446 views
-
- 15 replies
- 911 views
-
- 33 replies
- 6.5k views
-
- 9 replies
- 1.2k views
-
- 0 replies
- 550 views
-
- 4 replies
- 609 views
-
Popular Contributors
-
Forum Statistics
-
Total Topics17.3k
-
Total Posts351.7k
-
-
Member Statistics
-
Posts
-
I thought the title was slightly clickbaity but I’m glad I clicked on this one. There are a lot of “Arri look on your xyz camera” videos but I think this is a far more interesting take on it. The question is are you doomed to never match it because it is baked in (not least the IR cut filter) and it can’t be reverse engineered in post? Can anyone who has bought the Arri license for their supported Panasonic camera chime in with their thoughts? -
For the talking-head stuff, almost any camera will be good enough if given enough light, so I'd suggest you concentrate on getting 1) enough light so your camera is at its native ISO, and 2) lighting that is flattering and creates depth and contrast in the image. There are lots of videos on YT that show this, and the before/afters show what is possible. You don't need expensive lights either, there is tonnes of info on home DIY hacks using lamps and cheap shower screens as diffusers, etc. The standard approach is 3 Point Lighting, like this: This video is a good primer and talks about how to use (or avoid) existing light sources like natural light and ceiling lights etc. Other videos that might be useful: This video is longer but starts with a complete setup, so acoustics etc too. Cameras get all the attention, but in the real world are some of the least important parts of the whole setup. You're lucky in that you're building something indoors for one specific use in an environment you control and (hopefully) doesn't have to be portable and easy/quick to setup and pack away. With a bit of effort you should be able to get a great setup that works really well and doesn't cost much at all. -
Thanks for the feedback! I'm also happier with the images, but I think there is still more juice we can squeeze. My attitude is to assume the aesthetic impressions people have are correct and to try and reconcile those with the technical process, especially when the two are at odds with each other. The new texture approach to emulate a neg stock and then a print stock: Grain added at timeline resolution (full sharpness) with Resolve Film Grain OFX Gaussian Blur added to image+grain so that the sharpness of the image and grain match Grain (same as above) Blur (same as above) I think this more accurately mimics the architecture as with film the grain IS the image, so applying a softening to the grain or incoming image before they are combined would risk creating a mismatch. Then it's done a second time, which makes sense as if you print an image from a film stock onto another one, the image coming out of the print stock will be the print stocks representation of the neg stocks representation of the scene. The Resolve Film Grain plugin is a bit odd, with expanded/different controls than the ones in the FLC, but it lacks the presets I wanted so I had to roll my own. I think the grain was pixel-sharp, but there's a chance some softness is coming from there. Also not sure if Gaussian is the right flavour of blur. Let me know if there are better options.. Thinking about your impression that the image was sharper than the grain brings me to think about what might be making the image too sharp. The first potential culprit might be internal sharpening in the GX85, but I don't think this is the case. I expected that it would have sharpening, and some time ago I sat down to test how much it had and then design a blur that would counter it, but when I compared RAW and JPG stills (4592px wide) vs the 4K h264 on a 1080p timeline, I found no discernible difference, so concluded that the downscale from 4K to 1080p was enough to eliminate the (inevitable) sharpening that will be in the h264 stream if viewed at full resolution. The second potential culprit is that this image pipeline still lacks all the softness of anything in-front of the film-stock, specifically lenses and filtration. The 14mm F2.5 on the GX85 is pretty sharp, even when shot wide open, so might not be typical to the look of S16 from back in the day where the images might not have been so sharp, or they might have been sharp in the middle but not so much towards the corners? I have done a bunch of lens emulation stuff before so could easily reach for some of that, and I should add it anyway, just because it's more in-line with the overall goal of the project which is to evoke a more gritty retro mood, rather than to realistically emulate S16 film as if it was shot on modern lenses. Their vintage ND filters probably weren't quite optically perfect either. I should also do some tests to work out YT compression so I can start sharing moving images, as grain etc is completely different when moving to when not. Is there anything else I should be looking at for Round 4?
-
The GoPro one in Seoul is very impressive.... I'm guessing they must be doing super-duper processing of the image. Still, for the form factor it looks like a great result. I'd be curious to see how the low-light is compared with previous normal GoPros. Some time ago I made the case that an action camera is the perfect vlogging camera, as it's the size of a pair of wireless earbuds but is mostly without the issues that continue to plague the "vlogging" cameras that aren't wide enough / crop for stabilisation / etc. If I was a vlogger I'd be using one of these 8K action cameras for sure, using the wide for talking head stuff and cropping in for more normal FOVs. No-one on YT can tell if you edit a 1080p and upscale to 4K on export, so a 2K crop from an 8K sensor gives a pretty useful FOV, assuming the readout isn't terrible.
-
By Clark Nikolai · Posted
Much better than the previous batch. I like where you're going with this. I think the grain is a bit too extreme now but it's not unrealistic. It would depend on the film stock as some film pictures are this grainy. The ones where I think don't work for me are the 5th ( the trees) and the 8th (city shot). Both of these I think the grain is too much. The one of the trees as well looks like there's more detail in the leaves than that amount of grain would show.
-
