Subforums
-
The EOSHD YouTube Channel (22,452 visits to this link)
17,207 topics in this forum
-
- 9.1k replies
- 2.4m views
-
- 1.2k replies
- 408.9k views
-
- 0 replies
- 522 views
-
- 700 replies
- 278.2k views
-
- 5.8k replies
- 1.7m views
-
- 1.8k replies
- 691.1k views
-
- 11 replies
- 1.2k views
-
- 7 replies
- 341 views
-
- 16 replies
- 829 views
-
- 9 replies
- 496 views
-
- 24 replies
- 1.2k views
-
- 116 replies
- 53k views
-
- 26 replies
- 1.8k views
-
- 139 replies
- 36.4k views
-
- 0 replies
- 127 views
-
- 543 replies
- 244.5k views
-
- 7 replies
- 1.2k views
-
- 78 replies
- 3.5k views
-
- 5 replies
- 290 views
-
- 20 replies
- 951 views
-
- 66 replies
- 32.8k views
-
- 25 replies
- 1.5k views
-
- 8 replies
- 590 views
-
- 462 replies
- 109.5k views
-
- 3 replies
- 894 views
-
- 16 replies
- 878 views
-
- 63 replies
- 32.4k views
-
- 7 replies
- 671 views
-
- 6 replies
- 1.2k views
-
- 10 replies
- 857 views
-
- 8 replies
- 642 views
-
- 3 replies
- 470 views
-
- 12 replies
- 887 views
-
- 0 replies
- 350 views
-
- 15 replies
- 8.5k views
-
- 103 replies
- 52.7k views
-
- 7 replies
- 551 views
-
- 6 replies
- 954 views
-
- 2 replies
- 551 views
-
- 0 replies
- 367 views
-
Popular Contributors
-
Forum Statistics
-
Total Topics17.2k
-
Total Posts350.7k
-
-
Member Statistics
-
Posts
-
I'm seeing a lot of connected things here. To put it bluntly, if your HDR grades are better than your SDR grades, that's just a limitation in your skill level of grading. I say this as someone who took an embarrassing amount of time to learn to colour grade myself, and even now I still feel like I'm not getting the results I'd like. But this just goes to reinforce my original point - that one of the hardest challenges of colour grading is squeezing the cameras DR into the display space DR. The less squeezing required the less flexibility you have in grading but the easier it is to get something that looks good. The average quality of colour grading dropped significantly when people went from shooting 709 and publishing 709 to shooting LOG and publishing 709. Shooting with headlamps in situations where there is essentially no ambient light is definitely tough though, and you're definitely pushing the limits of what the current cameras can do, and it's definitely more than they were designed for! Perhaps a practical step might be to mount a small light to the hot-shoe of the camera, just to fill-in the shadows a bit. Obviously it wouldn't be perfect, and would have the same proximity issues where things that are too close to the light are too bright and things too far away are too dark, but as the light is aligned with the direction the camera is pointing it will probably be a net benefit (and also not disturb whatever you're doing too much). In terms of noticing the difference between SDR and HDR, sure, it'll definitely be noticeable, I'd just question if it's desirable. I've heard a number of professionals speak about it and it's a surprisingly complicated topic. Like a lot of things, the depth of knowledge and discussion online is embarrassingly shallow, and more reminiscent of toddlers eating crayons than educated people discussing the pros and cons of the subject. If you're curious, the best free resource I'd recommend is "The Colour Book" from FilmLight. It's a free PDF download (no registration required) from here: https://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/support/documents/colourbook/colourbook.php In case you're unaware, FilmLight are the makers of BaseLight, which is the alternative to Resolve except it costs as much as a house. The problem with the book is that when you download it, the first thing you'll notice is that it's 12 chapters and 300 pages. Here's the uncomfortable truth though, to actually understand what is going on you need to have a solid understanding of the human visual system (or eyes, our brains, what we can see, what we can't see, how our vision system responds to various situations we encounter, etc). This explanation legitimately requires hundreds of pages because it's an enormously complex system, much more than any reasonable person would ever guess. This is the reason that most discussions of HDR vs SDR are so comically rudimentary in comparison. If camera forums had the same level of knowledge about cameras that they do about the human visual system, half the forum would be discussing how to navigate a menu, and the most fervent arguments would be about topics like if cameras need lenses or not, etc. -
I think this is the crux of what I'm trying to say. Anamorphic adapters ARE horizontal-only speed boosters. Let's compare my 0.71x speed booster (SB) with my Sirui 1.25x anamorphic adapter (AA). Both widen the FOV: If I take a 50mm lens and mount it with my SB, I will have the same Horizontal-FOV as mounting a (50*0.71=35.5) 35.5mm lens. This is why they're called "focal reducers" because they reduce the effective focal length of the lens. If I take a 50mm lens and mount it with my 1.25x AA, I will have the same Horizontal-FOV as mounting a (50/1.25=40) 40mm lens Both cause more light to hit the sensor: If I add the SB to a lens then all the light that would have hit the sensor still hits the sensor (but is concentrated on a smaller part of the sensor) and the parts of the sensor that no longer get that light are illuminated by extra light from outside the original FOV, so there is more light in general hitting the sensor, therefore it's brighter. This is why it's called a "speed booster" because it "boosts" the "speed" (aperture) of the lens. Same for the AA adapter Where they differ is compatibility: My speed booster has very limited compatibility as it is a M42 mount to MFT mount adapter, so it only works on MFT cameras and only lets you mount M42 lenses (or lenses that you adapt to M42, but that's not that many lenses) My Sirui adapter can be mounted to ANY lens, but will potentially not make a quality image for lenses that are too wide / too tele, too fast, if the sensor is too large, if the front element in the lens is too large (although the Sirui adapter is pretty big), and potentially just if the internal lens optics don't seem to work well for some optical-design reason The other advantage of anamorphic adapters is they can be combined with speed boosters: I can mount a 50mm F1.4 M42 lens on my MFT camera with a dumb adapter (just a spacer essentially) and get a FF equivalent of mounting a 100mm F2.8 lens to a FF camera I can mount the same lens on my MFT camera with my SB and get a FF equivalent of mounting a 71mm F2.0 lens to a FF camera I can mount the same lens on my MFT camera with my AA and get a FF equivalent of mounting a 80mm F2.24 lens to a FF camera (but the vertical FOV will be the same as the 100mm lens) I can mount the same lens on my MFT camera with both SB and AA and get a FF equivalent of mounting a 57mm F1.6 lens to a FF camera (but the vertical FOV will be the same as the 71mm lens) So you can mix and match them, and if you use both then the effects compound. In fact, you'll notice that the 50mm lens is only 57mm on MFT, so the crop-factor of MFT is converted to be almost the same as FF. If instead of my 0.71x speed booster and 1.25x adapter, we use the Metabones 0.64x speed booster and a 1.33x anamorphic adapter, that 50mm lens now has the same horizontal FOV as a 48mm lens, so we're actually WIDER than FF. What this means: On MFT you can use MFT lenses and get the FOV / DOF they get on MFT On MFT you can use S35 lenses and get the FOV / DOF they get on S35 (*) On MFT you can use FF lenses and get the FOV / DOF they get on FF (**) On S35 you can use S35 lenses and get the FOV / DOF they get on S35 On S35 you can use FF lenses and get the FOV / DOF they get on FF (*) On S35 you can use MF lenses and get the FOV / DOF they get on MF (**) On FF you can use FF lenses and get the FOV / DOF they get on FF On FF you can use MF+ lenses and get the FOV / DOF they get on MF (***) The items with (*) can be done with speed boosters now, but can also be done with adapters so anamorphic adapters give you more options. The items with (**) were mostly beyond reach with speed boosters, but if you combine speed boosters with anamorphic adapters you can get there and beyond, so this gives you abilities you couldn't do prior. The item with (***) could be done with a speed booster there aren't a lot of speed boosters made for FF mirrorless mounts, so availability of these is patchy, and the ones that are available might have trouble with wide lenses. One example that stands out to me is that you can take an MFT camera, add a speed booster, and use all the S35 EF glass as it was designed (this is very common - the GH5 plus Metabones SB plus Sigma 18-35 was practically a meme) but if you add an AA to that setup it means you can use every EF full-frame lens as it was designed as well.
-
I shoot also mostly with available light, and when the sun has set in the light of dim headlamps. So being able to push and pull shadows and highlights is extremely important. In that regard GH7 is no slouch, but it is not quite the same than Z6iii, ZR nor even S5ii was either. If you have a good HDR capable display (and I don’t mean your tiny phones, laptop or medium sized displays, but a 65” or bigger OLED with infinite contrast, or a JVC projector with good contrast and inky blacks) one must be a wooden eye to not notice the difference between SDR and HDR masters. At least with my grading skills the 6 stops of DR in SDR look always worse than what I can get from HDR. -
The battleships of The Golden Fleet will take down the evil DJI regime from wherever they come from. Greenland or somewhere. -
By eatstoomuchjam · Posted
Probably. I just found it really overbearing. I personally don't bother with diffusion filters at all. The short, lacking detail reason is that I'll just use a vintage lens if I want a vintage look. And yes, your observations align with mine about using diffusion filters. On low-budget sets, they also add headaches on controlled shots as the DP is now complaining that the lights are interacting with their diffusion filter in a bad way, causing time loss due to coddling the darn thing.
-
