Jump to content

hmcindie

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    992

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by hmcindie

  1. hmcindie
      Ok but what the f? You are not the only guy who has worked (I actually still do so there) at a posthouse and every project is different. In some projects, the DoP does indeed sit quite awhile with the 3d guys, working out issues and going through the look. In smaller projects that almost never happens but when the budget is there, and the DoP is recognized properly, he does have a say. He doesn't have the FINAL say, but who really has anyway. Maybe Cameron but a lot of directors are stepped over by producers anyway. Cameron is one the few directors who doesn't really care about his DoP guy anyway, but don't start claiming every director works like that. Some actually do appreciate the input of the DoP creatively.   And yes, in the majority of projects (especially commercials and small gigs) the DoP is nowhere to be found in post. But you can't just categorically claim to know what was done in another project, in another post house, with a completely different crew. Unless you were there.
  2. hmcindie
    Yup. That's why I always wondered why people were crazy about the HX100v. It's electronically sharp (oversharpened) and the AVCHD breaks down. Same thing with the RX100 though I haven't used it personally but every video I've seen gives that HX100v vibe.   AVCHD breaks down even in FS700 but the 5dmarkIII all-i never breaks down that badly. Even the old Canon 7d I still have lying around, never broke down as bad as some of the AVCHD stuff I've shot with macroblocks flying. Except for some horrible aliasing here and there.
  3. hmcindie
    You are talking about the fixed pattern noise that appears at the lowest shadows. They should actually be clipped. Professionals cams feature "black balance" that helps you clip that. It's not "noise". CCD's will have them too if you just dig in deep into the shadows. It just depends on the implementation.
  4. hmcindie
    You sure that it's the graphics card being the bottleneck? It could also be your harddrives if you play several streams at once. 
  5. hmcindie
    I'm gonna so have to disagree with this part. Color was always completely unworkable. I could get way better results with AE and Colorista plugins than anything in Color. It was just so ridiculously ludicrous that I always wondered how could people use that shit. I even went to a course through my workplace where this one dude was talking about Color. I asked a pretty simply question: "What happens to the workflow when the edit changes?". He was fucking stumped. "oo, I think there is a way to ...hmm..it's not simple".    Also FCP7 does not have good media organization. You are confusing it with AVID. FCP X is a consumer program that works well for a limited type of editing.    I also wonder about people claiming transcoding is the thing to do. No it isn't. Transcoding is dumb and it takes away lots of time from actually doing stuff. Just get a program/system in place that can see the files for what they really are. If you work in professional editing environment, that's what you have to do. If you do independent music videos and the like occasionally, it doesn't really matter but if you want to do things the right way, do them.  
  6. hmcindie
    Not noise, I meant blowing out the highlights earlier. That's what happens when cameras go less than native db or ISO usually.
  7. hmcindie
      One of the reasons that it's difficult is that human eye is not very sensitive to color. You can spot the differences when doing greenscreen because the green channel is now suddenly 1/4th the resolution of the luma channel. 4:2:2 brings that up to only half res. But you won't really spot that difference easily, except in motion graphics with clear lines and chroma. There it can actually be quite a distraction. DVD's suffered badly from 4:2:0 artifacting, The Abyss film with it's huge reds and blues really suffered from it on DVD. But in HD the effect is quite a bit smaller. Because when you increase the res from 720x576 to 1920x1080, you also increase the chroma res.    You can also get 4:4:4 from just scaling down a high res 4:2:0 file. Though basically EVERYTHING on the internet, bluray and anywhere you project stuff is only 4:2:0. So this just helps in grading (if you do masks based on chroma, and then it only helps on the edges) or greenscreen.    So a lot of people have misconceptions of 4:2:2 and the like because it is not that easy to spot. Also, if you have an original 4:4:4 file and just convert it to 4:2:0, it will have no benefit at all compared to shooting 4:2:0 originally. Unless you do specific chroma related stuff.
  8. hmcindie
    If you are not using any profiles (just going with the standard one) then you are missing out on some great dynamic range and highlight roll off with the cinegammes.
  9. hmcindie
    I looked at those original files in After Effects. It looks like they are both originating from 4:2:0 material. H264 version looks worse but color wise they are quite equal. Except in h.264 looks like there is some chroma smoothing but I guess that's normal.   Screencaps of red channel:   h264: http://talvi.com/asiakas_ftp/temp_mikko/demo_h264.jpg   prores: http://talvi.com/asiakas_ftp/temp_mikko/demo_prores.jpg
  10. hmcindie
    It's not just 8-bits guys. If you haven't noticed, the D800 and D600 suffer from this a bit more than other 8 bit cams. Why? Because they apparently debayer the image into 8bit and THEN apply a picture profile.   You will get more banding with the D800 and D600 than other 8bit cams so blaming this on 8bits is kinda weak.
  11. hmcindie
    Those tests don't take into account highlights. So even if ISO 125 is clean in the shadows, who knows what happens to the highlights. 
  12. hmcindie
      Exactly. And almost every HDMI device tends to output a 4:2:2 signal, but is it actually 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 embedded in 4:2:2 is a different thing. 
  13. hmcindie
      Erm. That's just because those images have been zoomed in 200% with pixel resizing. So they are actually blocky in both images, only the other one is so full of noise that it looks smoother.   Confirming an ACTUAL 4:2:2 colorspace requires a bit more. It actually requires a scene with colors, preferably saturated reds or blues and then analyzing just those chroma channels. People seem to be mistaking a good looking uncompressed image with 4:2:2. 4:2:2 can actually be quite hard to spot from 4:2:0 without hard contrasty lines with saturated colors. 
  14. hmcindie
    Details are not on par. The GH3 image looks way more detailed. The D5200 has more contrast in that image which increases apparent resolution but it is not as sharp. You can see way more detail on the ground and on the tree from the GH3. D5200 also has wayyy more sharpening artifacts, for example haloing on the left of the tire.   If we could dial that sharpening completely out, this could be good.
  15. hmcindie
      I always wonder about comments telling someone to wait for a camera (or a graphics card, cpu, whatever that is just looming on the horizon). The BMC won't magically help you make money off of youtube/clients anymore than anything you have now.   BMC looks great when done properly but it won't help people make "filmmagic". For that you can start with a way lower cost camera before you get the skills to really appreciate the quality differences and what they REALLY mean. This place is full of pixel peepers which is good but don't confuse that with actually doing something with the equipment you have (there are forums specifically for people doing content). So go with the GH2 / Canon / Nikon DSLR's before splashing into BMC world, especially if you are just starting to make something.   Also please be atleast aware of the requirement of editing RAW DNG files. Especially the file sizes / backup and shoot ability for one day. For a newbie, it's very important to get a lot of coverage as that is one of the things most missing when people just start out.
  16. hmcindie
    Atleast with the Sony nex-5n, the compression is significantly worse when doing 50p instead of 25p. It will also alias more. So I will stick with 25p usually. Same thing with the FS700. When doing 50p, it is significantly worse compression, unless you use s&p. If you use smooth motion, it will use the buffer to record 24mbps AVCHD as a 25p stream so the compression is better.   I have no idea how someone can see it differently, but there it is.   28mbps at 50p = sucks. Just a little bit of motion and half the frames break up. Macroblocking and smoothing.
  17. hmcindie
    jcs: People don't frame 100% the same. That immediately throws out some comparisons. They don't use the same lenses. That throws out even more. Or the same settings. Not to mention the printer resolution problem. Also you can't just "estimate" that stuff like the 1DX is somehow sharper than the 5dmarkIII. I don't think it is. Does your thinking outweigh my thinking? That's why it has to be measured, to get rid of placebo and the human brain which is foolhardy. Some guys on the DVXuser forum think that the 5dmarkII is sharper than the 5dmarkIII which is just because the III lacks aliasing. That aliasing does increase "apparent" sharpness, same thing that is going on with the 1dx. If you are going to do a proper resolution chart, do it properly. Alan Roberts from BBC rates the AF-100 at about 680/pvi ""Resolution is clean up to 63% of 1920x1080, where there are low-level null zones visible. This means that the image has clean resolution only up to 1210x680, which is not good, given the strength of the aliasesResolution is clean up to 63% of 1920x1080, where there are low-level null zones visible. This means that the image has clean resolution only up to 1210x680, which is not good, given the strength of the aliases." http://thebrownings.name/WHP034/pdf/WHP034-ADD66_rev_2_Panasonic_AF101.pdf http://provideocoalition.com/awilt/story/ag-af100_and_pmw-f3_on_the_charts/P2
  18. hmcindie
      Review? You can actually do a review without touching the cam or shooting with it?
  19. hmcindie
    Peaking isn't really used for actual narrative productions. They are used for one man band operations. When you plug a monitor in so the director can see the image, peaking is always turned off.   I do use peaking when I operate small cams like the Nex-5n but with cams that have larger display, I always turn it off because it is distracting when you try to look at the complete shot. I also turn off histograms and waveforms.   Agreed though that it should be there.
  20. hmcindie
    "A CCD sensor generally has better colour reproduction and sharpness than CMOS"   What? There is no difference in colour reproduction or sharpness between a CCD and CMOS. There are two main variables. Light streaks with CCD and rolling shutter with CMOS. Everything else depends on the actual engineering of the CCD/CMOS, not the type. And even then you can make a global shutter CMOS if you make the space for the electronics needed.
  21. hmcindie
    It seems quite odd that "post-sharpening" has increased resolution on the 5dmarkIII. If you are gonna do something cool and get cameras into a resolution list, then they would actually need to be measured. Changing sharpening in post does not change results from a real resolution chart.
  22. hmcindie
      Canon HV20 had a SPECIFIC mode for progressive 25p footage. That was actually completely progressive and great looking to boot. It was inside a 25i file (because that's what HDV was at that time) but there were no interlacing lines and there was no need to deinterlace anything. NLE's at that time didn't do deinterlacing automatically (except FCP which occasionally caused quite big problems as it wanted to deinterlace stuff that didn't need it. Still some people fall for those pitfalls and then you see "testvideos" which have 50% less resolution)   It also shot 50i the exact same way an RX100 does it.   You would not see any interlacing lines with the HV20 in progressive mode. If you see those lines in quicktime (or a player that does not do deinterlacing, WMP actually does do it) then it means that a) it is interlaced and b) it has 50 frames interlaced in it.
  23. hmcindie
    I think you guys are quite confused with 50i. Yes, you can drop that into a 25p sequence and edit away but the NLE will just deinterlace the material quietly in the background. You can also drop a 50p sequence into a 25p timeline and the NLE will just drop half the frames.   I can guarantee you that the RX100 does shoot in fact 50i.   "Opening it in Quicktime or Photoshop will show you the interlaced lines." If you have interlacing lines then you are dealing with interlacing. Interlacing means that you have 50 frames interlaced into one 25p file. That's how it worked in the "old" days. Those frames are then extracted by either bob-deinterlacing (preserving the 50 frames per second) or just by dropping half the frames - and resolution - away and staying at 25p.
  24. hmcindie
    Imagine if the Blackmagic had the e-mount... ooooo
  25. hmcindie
    A lot of production houses do buy regular cams like the EX-1, PWM-200, Canon xf305 etc. If you compare the price of the 1d-c to them, then it's not really that bad. For example, Freddie Wong bought the EX-1 to do all their stuff a couple of years ago. Would you buy that cam nowadays for narrative filmmaking? But FWong put that cam to use and really made a fanbase for himself over the youtube those couple of years.   I suggest though not buying the 1D-C but renting it if the need arrives. The price will come down.   Also a Scarlet/1D-C won't immediately make anyones cinematography better. When CorridorDigital switched from the FS100 to the Red Scarlet, it didn't make their films look 50% better. They are slightly sharper but the lighting hasn't really improved at all except maybe for the couple of newest ones. So put some of that moolah into lighting. It's just a better way to get some production value.
×
×
  • Create New...