Subforums
16,732 topics in this forum
-
- 5.7k replies
- 1.2m views
-
- 1.7k replies
- 354.6k views
-
- 0 replies
- 7.1k views
-
- 4 replies
- 75 views
-
- 54 replies
- 5.1k views
-
- 102 replies
- 11.2k views
-
- 127 replies
- 3.4k views
-
- 15 replies
- 348 views
-
- 8 replies
- 395 views
-
- 10 replies
- 284 views
-
- 20 replies
- 779 views
-
- 1.1k replies
- 127.3k views
-
- 4 replies
- 288 views
-
- 14 replies
- 3k views
-
- 25 replies
- 1.7k views
-
- 8 replies
- 464 views
-
- 331 replies
- 75k views
-
- 2 replies
- 330 views
-
- 55 replies
- 3.1k views
-
- 13 replies
- 507 views
-
- 41 replies
- 2.2k views
-
- 39 replies
- 15.9k views
-
- 443 replies
- 32.7k views
-
- 39 replies
- 6.7k views
-
- 8 replies
- 2.1k views
-
- 3 replies
- 650 views
-
- 235 replies
- 16.5k views
-
- 1 reply
- 355 views
-
- 17 replies
- 2.1k views
-
- 30 replies
- 1.9k views
-
- 16 replies
- 2.5k views
-
- 18 replies
- 2.2k views
-
- 78 replies
- 14.6k views
-
- 17 replies
- 5.3k views
-
- 19 replies
- 2.8k views
-
- 12 replies
- 1.6k views
-
- 473 replies
- 125.5k views
-
- 55 replies
- 10.1k views
-
- 2 replies
- 585 views
-
- 0 replies
- 317 views
-
Popular Contributors
-
Forum Statistics
-
Total Topics16.7k
-
Total Posts338.3k
-
-
Member Statistics
-
Posts
-
It's possible to synthesize all sorts of microphone types/polar patterns, including things like perfectly co-incident stereo pair mics (which are impossible to physically build), from a B-format Ambisonics stream/recording - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambisonics#Virtual_microphones - and also produce a binaural stream - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambisonics#Decoding I think that post-processing flexibility is the real strength of using a Soundfield microphone for ambient sound recording. -
Apparently this is very popular among people who are into paranormal activities and looking to recording on-field audio -
I'm still lost down this rabbit hole, but these are an interesting reference. This is what happens if you put the GX85 through a "look". I put the GX85 test image through a bunch of output LUTs to see which (if any) I liked the flavour of. In order to compare them equally, I adjusted after the LUT to match the black and white points, exposure, and contrast. This way we're not just comparing the different contrast curves, but the other aspects of the LUTs like colour rendering etc. The node structure was this: slightly lower gain to bring GX85 image into range (it records super-whites) CST from 709/2.4 to Davinci Intermediate (my preferred working colour space) (my grade would go here, but for this test no adjustments were made) CST to whatever colour space the LUT expects The LUT (these all convert to 709/2.4) A curve to adjust the overall levels from the LUT to roughly approximate the GX85 image The round-trip from 709/2.4 to DWG to 709/2.4 is almost transparent, if you compensate for the gamut and saturation compression in the conversion at the end, so I didn't bother to grab it. Results: The famous ARRI K1S1 LUT (the ARRI factory LUT): One of the 5000 BMD LUTs that come with Resolve, which I tried just for fun: The Kodak 2383 PFE (Print Film Emulation) LUT. The D55 one seemed the closest match to the WB of the image for some reason, but everyone always uses the D65 ones, so I've included both here for comparison. The D65 one: The Kodak 2393 PFE. It doesn't come with Resolve but it's free online from a bunch of places. I like it because it doesn't tint the shadows as blue, so the image isn't as muddy / drab. The FujiFilm 3513 PFE: I find the ARRI LUT a bit weak - it helps but not as much as I'd like. The comparison above is flattering to the LUT because it has a bit more contrast compared to the SOOC so looks a bit better. The skintones are a little more flattering on it though, which might be enough if you want a more neutral look. All the PFE looks are very strong, and aren't really meant to be used on their own. The film manufacturers designed the colour science to look good when used with a negative film like Kodak 250D or 500T stocks, so it's "wrong" to use it unless you're grading a film scan, I think people use it like this anyway 🙂 Some time ago I purchased a power-grade that emulated both the 250D and 2393 PFE from Juan Melara, which looks like this: To me it looks much more normal than just the 2393 PFE on its own, but it's definitely a stronger look. The powergrade is split into nodes that emulate the 250D separately to the 2393, and the 2393 nodes are almost indistinguishable from the LUT, so I'd imagine this is probably a good emulation. Anyway, lots of flexibility in these 8-bit files! -
I'd agree with you, except that about half the movies in the box office aren't much better.. add in all the religious propaganda movies that thrive in more religious areas of the world and sadly, I think there's a huge market 😞
-
One question that stood out to me immediately was how much you want the audio to move around when the person in the VR turns their head. For example, if you record stereo and the VR person turns their head the visuals will all move but the audio won't change at all - I would imagine that to be unnerving and potentially ruin the immersion wouldn't it? Does VR have a standard where you can record to that and then the headset will decode it to match where the viewer looks?
-
