Jump to content

Per Lichtman

Members
  • Content Count

    78
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Per Lichtman

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.pasadenapulse.net
  1. @EOSHD Andrew, I notice you have responded to a more recent post but haven't clarified  what you meant by the line "In its factory guise whilst not quite as clean as the Canon C300 or Sony FS100, it is the best DSLR for low light shooting (though the Nikon D5200 puts up a good fight)." Do you mean the best "value" as opposed to "highest performing"?   Either way, you really should address how you feel it measures up against the 1DX, 1DC, D4 and D3s since those are all DSLRs as well. For instane you mentioned thinking the 1D C outperformed the C100 in a previous post - which has fairly similar lowlight performance (minus codec differences) to the C300, which you say above outperforms the 5DMkIII. And then there are your earlier blogs about the 1D X video quality, etc. which do not seem to indicate that the 5DMkIII is somehow massively better, making it seem odd that the 1D X sensor (which has been objectively and repeatedly tested to provide superior low light performance to the 5DMkIII in RAW stils) would somehow have more noise at high ISOs than the 5DMkIII.   Anyway, if you could just clarify what you meant - like "the best lowlight DSLR under x number of dollars" or something, I think many of your readers would appreciate it. :)
  2. And just to be clear, I was very surprised that Canon did not include the six-digit ISO video support on the 1D X/1D C, etc. that they did in the 1DMk IV and had to get it confirmed by a Canon representative last summer. http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/943-canon-1dx-v-canon-5d3/#entry14136
  3. The D4 video is generally considered soft when using the full sensor, but that criticism is not frequently leveled when the footage is shot at a crop instead. And we aren't talking about overall quality - if the original statement was "combination of lowlight performance and detail" then it might be a bit less controversial as a statement. But the D4 is currently the only commercially available camera that shoots video at ISO 204,800 and that means that whether it does so well or not... it literally has no competition at the highest ISO (unlike stills, where the 1D X comes into play). The next stop down we have ISO 102,400 where it's between the D4, D3s and 1DMkIV: the D3s shoots 720P instead of 1080P and the 1DMkIV has noticeably worse performance at the ISO than either the D3s or D4 - so the D4 is the winner for 1080P footage at that ISO again. The next stop below that, we start to get some competition from outside the DSLR range coming into play, but the current Canon range (the 5DMkIII included) tops out in video mode at 25,600 (which one stop further down). So once again we are looking at the D4, D3s and 1DMkIV as the competitors for 51,200. So if the 5DMkIII has 3 stops of ISO range where it is not even competing and some of those competing products have been demonstrated to match or exceed the ISO performance of the 5DMkIII at 25,600 how can the 5DMkIII be the "best"?
  4. @EOSHD Andrew I'm about to read the rest of the article but the line " In its factory guise whilst not quite as clean as the Canon C300 or Sony FS100, it is the best DSLR for low light shooting (though the Nikon D5200 puts up a good fight)." needs to be updated, since it is factually inaccurate if not qualified.   The 1DX, 1DC , D4 and D3s all offer superior high ISO performance and the D4 and D3s stretch their max ISOs further than the 1DX in video mode. Now the 5DMkIII may be the "best DSLR for low-light shooting under x number of dollars" or the best combination of certain features in combination with lowlight shooting, but by every metric (including the posted comparisons of video clips, the scores for the sensors on DXOMark and the RAW stills posted on DPReview for the stills side) the sensors used in the cameras I mentioned outperform the 5DMkIII for lowlight/high ISO, both in stills and video in their compressed modes.   Looking forward to reading clarified version of your original remark on your blog and thanks for the early RAW footage and testing. :)
  5. Definitely interested in seeing how this ends up pricing. Great to see development in this area.
  6. @bruno @jgharding The compromised shutter speed did have a negative impact on visual quality but whether there was "more" or "less" motion blur depends on whether you are thinking of it as a 24 fps or 48 fps film. I agree, it's less than 180 degree for 24 fps but for 48 fps there was actually too much motion blur for the framerate (since it was greater than 180 degrees). Honestly, though, having seen it in theatres in 4K HFR 3D, part of it in 4K 24 fps 2D and part of it in 2K 24fps 3D, I would have to say that I really thought the look improved at the lower framerates, even accounting for the shutter speed compromise (which was somewhat unfortunate). My personal favorite version was probably 4K 24 FPS 2D but 24 FPS 3D wasn't as far behind as I expected.
  7.   Having seen him in Love Actually andThe Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy as well as The Office, I never tied him to a particular franchise. So that's at least one thing I won't have to worry about. :)
  8.   An apparent focus of this website for some time (and one that interests me) has been the relationship between current inexpensive gear to both upcoming technology/products and to more expensive gear that is (or has been) used in higher budget productions. High-Frame-Rate (HFR) is something that indie-shooters need to make a conscious decision about, just as they have with 3D. Shooting 4K 48 FPS currently requires over $9k of equipment, but shooting 50 FPS or 60 FPS is possible on many inexpensive cameras (either at 1280x720 or 1920x1080, depending on the model). So indie-shooters do have the option of shooting HFR content if that is either what they think look best (or what they think the audience wants). Many people are likely very sensitive as to whether they are likely to be called upon to start shooting that sort of content or not - and whether there camera can do so and what resolution they can do it at.   I'm reserving judgement on how well it works in 3D in theatres. I can tell you that I do not like it at all for what I think of as traditional narrative film-making in 2D. I would greatly favor if I was not pressured to shoot content that felt better suited to 2D in 24FPS as 2D 48/50/60FPS. This isn't just academic - the market reaction to films in that format is a big factor in determining the presence or absence of that pressure. Do indie-shooters really want to have shoot at a different frame-rate (or have to buy a different camera to upgrade to 1080 50/60P from 720 50/60P or even 720 24/25/30P) if they don't find it more aesthetically pleasing? I would say no. So I think each of us really should think about (and voice) whether the exhibition format seems to offer advantages to our eyes. I'll wait to weigh in on 48 FPS 3D after I've actually seen it. I'm currently planning on seeing the Hobbit film in at least 2 formats (24 FPS 2D and 48 FPS 3D) and possibly even 3 (24 FPS 3D) just to be able to weigh in as objectively as I can (acknowledging that my experiences with HFR 2D have biased me against the 3D version and trying to compensate for that).
  9. The comments about attentionspans, video games and frame rates are pretty much universally missing the point.   At Thanksgiving I was talking to my 18 year old brother about video games, movies, etc. He had never been educated on the frame rates involved with various formats but he made a comment about how much he disliked watching movies on his friend's TV - using several disparaging analogies, etc. When he described the phenomenon, I was able to piece together that his friend's TV had motion-smoothing and explained how that worked. It was like a lightbulb went off for him and he could understand what was going on. He was glad to know such settings could be disabled.   Someone that spends more of their time playing high frame-rate video games is not inherently going to like higher frame-rate movie formats. He likes them in his games in part because they reduce the input and response latency (something I've discussed in several previous posts as being unique to interactive media and a non-issue in cinema). As far as attention-span, I can tell you that before he ever turned 7 years old, I used to watch artistic computer animation compilations with him (the kind that had essentially no dialogue to the tune of two sentences in 45 minutes) and he would watch intently, ask one contextual question during the viewing and be fully engaged the rest of the time. Some people in each generation will have taste and some will not. The same goes for people that enjoy a given form of entertainment. As far as computer animation in movies, let's not forget just how far the boundaries were pushed by Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within in regards to realistic human figures as compared to all the other CG movies around that time. It took a while for everyone else to catch up and if you look at what some of those animators have been doing recently compared to "The Hulk" examples, it's a pretty stark contrast. Just because CG makes extensive use of technology does not mean that the artists stop being one of the biggest differentiating factors. :)
  10.   Just to be clear, it is the use of motion-smoothing (or other forms of interpolation) to playback content at higher frame-rates that creates the effect you seem to be referring to. A higher refresh rate does not create that on its own.   Higher refresh rate = Reduced flicker. Higher frame rate = The complex set of variables that people usually discuss. I personally prefer my movies at 24 FPS in the U.S. (I have no problem with native 25 FPS content in Europe either) and I dislike the use of motion-smoothing in playback. But I do not mind high refresh rates on a display monitor - under normal circumstances, I prefer them. Just make sure I get the content at 24 or 25 frames per second for cinema. :)
  11.   @bruno Yes, it would almost seem as if I was talking to a different person... which I was. I had just typed the wrong name. Sorry about that. :) Fixing it now. It should make more sense in a minute.
  12. @EOSHD Andrew, that was one of your best blogs to date. Kudos. I mean I'm sure lots of us have small differences of opinion about some of the analysis, but you put so much great information into this one and often did a good job of clearly indicating what was fact vs opinion that I really can't see how anyone interested in the topic could fail to benefit for reading it. I personally I'm really looking forward to the C500 (the image quality I'e seen so far has been so very good) but this was a really good blog - if we nominated our favorites for the year, this might be it for me.
  13. [EDIT: There was a typo before so this was directed at the wrong person.]   @endlos You want to know why those apps are not getting the attention the BMCC is? Because with the BMCC you are talking about expanding a segment of the pro philosophy, workflow, paradigm and quality into a much lower price range. It's about asking people to do more with their images, asking prosumers, amateurs and indie people to take advantage of a new opportunity to work like their higher budgeted peers would (or to adopt a variant of that approach) in regards to getting a bit more serious about color, detail and grading. It's about not saying "good enough" in terms of quality.   Key components: - Massive increase in quality available at a given price point. - Preservation of/refinement of a workflow designed for professionals (in regards to color grading) and emphasis on a tweak-able RAW acquisition format. - To be crystal clear: the camera is designed to encourage people to really focus on getting good quality.    There are tons of issues that go along with that camera that are more or less important to given people but let's compare that to the Apple Final Cut X Pro (I'll ignore Motion for the moment because I think a smaller community could contribute to the discussion at present).   - Final Cut X Pro was not an evolution of the industry standard editing approaches. It could not be seen as Final Cut Pro 8, etc. and it did not encourage a lower income subset of the existing market to think more like their higher paid counterparts had done. Instead it completely restructured the approach taken and asked everyone (professionals included) to adopt it. The fact that certain facets of the approach had been more clearly signaled in earlier consumer products than in the professional ones also left a bad taste in many peoples mouths.   - BMCC delivers a product that directly responds to what many indie filmmakers (and would-be filmmakers) had been asking for. The benefits were clearly visible and many parts of the online community felt listened to and respected by the design decisions. Some people wanted to wait for the next evolution (in terms of mount or sensor size) but few people said anything amounting to "this is the wrong direction".   - There was no obvious increase in image quality with FCP X. Let me be crystal clear about that: if you spend a similar amount of money on a new or used competing product vs Final Cut X Pro new, you will be able to buy something else that can get you similar quality. You are paying for the workflow approach you prefer. I am not saying that one is better or worse and I know several people that really enjoy FCP X and I'm not trying to bag on the app. But it is not (and never has been) a product that brought higher image quality to a massively lower price point - it just brought Apple's price point down.     - Final Cut X Pro launched at $300. That's a big cut from ca. $1,000 but less impressive compared to some of the competitors. Premiere Pro and Vegas already occupied a price-point between the two and Premiere Pro currently offers a rental program that the competitors do not. On top of that, the low end variants (such as Sony Vegas HD Movie Studio Platinum) have expanded to included more and more functionality at price points under $100 (not to mention less mainstream efforts such as Lightworks being even more aggressive).   - All this doesn't even take into account that Apple already had Final Cut Express available at $200. FCP X represents a price increase for that (discontinued) product.  - The BMCC represents the addition to the marketplace of a new product without the removal or discontinuation of another.  - To re-examine the respective differences, the gap in price between FCP 7 Studio (which included more in the way of bundled applications) and FPC X (which costs less but got rid of some of the bundled software) is $600. If we consider the excluded apps as having value of their own, that means we are looking at a proportional difference that is smaller than that. Apple had already reduce the pricing of FCP 7 by $300 compared to a previous edition - so they completely changed functionality but continued with their decreasing pricing strategy.   - By comparison, the BMCC arrived into a market that had no RAW movie options under $9,700 - yet it launched for just under $3K, with $1k professional color grading software bundled at no additional cost. While that may look like a similar percentage to the Apple pricing change, that's a price cut of more than $6,500 in the market with no competitors (then or now) available at the same price point for RAW recording (without factoring in the software). If we look at the overall price difference (as it relates to the funds available for the potential consumers) this is a very big deal.   And in regards to discussion of Redmatica and Logic: I remember when I was read to switch sequencers to Logic, right as Apple bought EMagic and discontinued the PC version. I remember all the headaches of AU and the discontinuation of VST support - not to mention the frequent Quicktime/AU incompatibility issues that cropped up with subsequent OS upgrades. I also remember that quality did not improve in the plug-ins compared to TDM, VST, MAS, Direct X (etc.) alternatives already in play at the time.    I remember their consolidation of the Logic range, the eventual price cuts and I compare to those to the price cuts by many competing companies on products they were about to discontinue. I do this not as evidence that Apple has any plans to discontinue their audio products, but to refute the argument that they could be used as evidence that Apple will not discontinue those product lines.   I remember how one of the first things Apple did after the bought EMagic was to port underlying technology from Logic to Garageband. I also remember that Garageband had very serious limitations in terms of sample rate and bit depth - limits that were exceeded by various freeware applications on the PC that adopted a different workflow. In fact, if you were just recording live players, you could have gotten better samplerates and bit depth with inexpensive shareware like Cool Edit 2000. In other words, Apple bought a company primarily making professional tools and one of the first things they dedicated their resources to was an inescapably consumer/amateur oriented product with some very hardwired limitations. While Apple may use Redmatica to leverage their professional line, they might just as easily emphasize the lower end here.   Apple has a history of creating new approaches, discontinuing old ones and forcing their entire customer base to either adopt the new approach or jump ship. Some markets are much more open to this than others. Microsoft, for all their faults, only recently discontinued support for Windows 3.11. Different companies take different approaches and people value one priority over another. I really like Apple's industrial design. I consider them to be market leaders in that area for good reason. I find their software design to be much more of a mixed bag and I disagree with many choices they've made in the software area. In other words, I feel both positive and negative things towards them and have no desire to see them put on a pedestal or unfairly critiqued. But I see very little to support your thesis that Apple is doing for video editing software what BMCC is doing for low-priced cinema cameras. To some people it may be just as important, but it is fundamentally different - and to people like myself, it is less helpful.
  14. Also, Happy Thanksgiving Andrew. Thanks for being one of the first places to mention a lot of technology and for all the effort that went into the recent BMCC comparison. :)
  15. [quote name='EOSHD'] [color=#333333][font=Helvetica, Arial, FreeSans, sans-serif][size=3]The specs are certainly high end for digital cinema well into Red Dragon / Arri Alexa territory.[/size][/font][/color] [/quote] When I read that, I was prompted to write this blog post, so I hope you'll take my disagreement in the light-hearted tone it is intended rather than as something personal. I enjoyed reading your post, it's just that line didn't seem to come our right. :) I agree that the sensor has potential for a low-cost 4K S35 camera and that it would be a good thing to have more competition in that area. [url="http://perlichtman.com/pasdenapulse/wordpress/2012/11/22/the-real-sensor-specifications-for-current-cinema-camers-vs-eoshds-characterization/"]http://perlichtman.c...aracterization/[/url] I've adapted my thoughts from my blog into this forum post. I think I understand the spirit of what you were originally trying to say, but it was only partially accurate in terms of the specifications. The CMV12000 actually competes more with Red Epic/Red Scarlet/Red One/Sony F55/FS-700/Arri Alexa/C500/original BMCC depending on what specs you are looking at and how you approach it. The Red Dragon clearly exceed it in terms of dynamic range/resolution combinations, both native and extended. But more on that below. [quote name='EOSHD'] [color=#333333][font=Helvetica, Arial, FreeSans, sans-serif][size=3]Above is the CMV12000 scientific sensor by European company CMOSIS – it has amazing potential in a cinema camera.[/size][/font][/color][list] [*]Super 35mm / APS-C sized [*]4K raw at 12bit (90fps) and 10bit (150fps) [*]4:3 anamorphic 4,096 x 3,072 [/list] [/quote] [u]Max Horizontal Resolution[/u] - BMCC: [b]2.4K[/b] [i]- Arri Alexa: [b]2.88K[/b] max horizontal resolution[/i]. - Sony FS-700: [b]4K expandable[/b] with [b]1.92K at release[/b]. - Sony F55: [b]4K[/b] max horizontal resolution (4096x2160). - Canon C500: [b]4K[/b] max horizontal resolution (4096x2960 RAW max). [i]- CMV12000: [b]4K[/b] max horizontal resolution (4096x3072, higher vertical resolution than the Sony F55 and slightly higher than C500).[/i] - Sony F65: [b]Greater than 4K.*[/b] - Red One/Red One MX: [b]4.5K[/b] max horizontal resolution. - Red Scarlet: [b]5K[/b] max horizontal resolution (but 4K max horizontal resolution at 24/25/30P). - Red Epic: [b]5K[/b] max horizontal resolution. [i]- Red Dragon: [b]6K[/b] max horizontal resolution.[/i] *As for the Sony F65, I don't want to get into that can of worms. With it's 20MP sensor, let's just say "easily 4K, probably more in the future" but not get too far into it. [quote name='EOSHD']Global shutter[/quote] Out of all the cameras mentioned above, the only one implementing global shutter like the CMV12000 is the Sony F55, so that's definitely a potential marketing point in favor the CM12000. Neither the Alexa nor Epic uses a global shutter (and I haven't seen one mentioned for the Red Dragon yet but I don't know one way or the other about it). [quote name='EOSHD'] [color=#333333][font=Helvetica, Arial, FreeSans, sans-serif][size=3]The frame rate at maximum resolution is a mammoth 150fps but that also needs huge power on the image processor side. At this frame rate bit depth drops to 10bit from 12bit. It goes to 90fps with the full colour gamut.[/size][/font][/color] [/quote] [u]Max Framerates at 4K and Highest Resolution[/u] - BMCC: Cannot do 4K. Max [b]30P 12-bit log at 2.5K.[/b] - Arri Alexa: Cannot do 4K. Max [b]60P 12-bit log[/b] at 2.88K in 16x9 mode. - Red One MX: [b]30P 12-bit at both 4.5K and 4K.[/b] - Canon C500: [b]60P 10-bit at 4K.[/b] - Sony FS-700: Upcoming [b]60P at unspecified RAW bit-depth in 4K[/b][b].[/b] - Sony F55: [b]60P 16-bit linear 4K.[/b] - Sony F65: [b]120P 16-bit linear 4K.[/b] [i]- CMV12000: [b]90P 12-bit or 150P 10-bit at 4K.[/b][/i] - Red Scarlet: [b]30P 16-bit at 4K. 12P at 5K.[/b] - Red Epic: [b]150P 16-bit at 4K. 120P 16-bit at 5K.[/b] [i]- Red Dragon: Unknown 4K (expected to meet or exceed Red Epic at all framerates but guaranteed 120P at 5K). [b]At least 85P 16-bit at 6K[/b].[/i] [quote name='EOSHD'] [color=#333333][font=Helvetica, Arial, FreeSans, sans-serif][size=3]There’s an on-chip HDR mode which works in a similar way to Red’s. This boosts dynamic range from 60db to 90db[/size][/font][/color] ... [color=#333333][font=Helvetica, Arial, FreeSans, sans-serif][size=3]60db is around 11 stops of dynamic range. 90db is over 15 stops (similar to the new Red Dragon sensor).[/size][/font][/color] [/quote] [u]Native DR[/u] - Sony FS-700: Untested in RAW. [i]- CMV12000: ca. [b]11[/b] stops official (maybe a little more)[/i] - Red One (not MX): [b]11.3[/b] stops official. - Canon C500: [b]12[/b] stops official. (though the highlight roll-off has been garnering praise) - BMCC: [b]13[/b] stops official. [i]- Red MX (as used in MX/Scarlet/Epic): [b]13.5[/b] official. (Some sources measured at under 12 but I'm not invested in one measurement over the other).[/i] [i]- Arri Alexa: [b]14[/b] stops official.[/i] - Sony F55: [b]14[/b] stops official. - Sony F65: [b]14[/b] stops official. [i]- Red Dragon: [b]Over[/b] [b]15[/b] stops official.[/i] So the CMV12000 has the lowest native dynamic range of any of the above current cinema cameras. Once again, it does have global shutter (and the only other camera on the list that has that is the F55) but the native dynamic range is around 2 stops lower than a ca. $3,000 BMCC. In terms of extended dynamic range modes, the CMV12000 ([b]over[/b] [b]15 stops[/b]), Red Epic and Red Scarlet (both [b]18 stops[/b]) all have them. The Red Dragon is also on track to feature one but with [b]over 15 stops[/b] native, as long as the Red Dragon implements [i]any [/i]form of HDRX the [b]Red Dragon will [i]easily outperform[/i] the CMV12000[/b] [b]in their respective HDR modes[/b] without the slightest challenge. It would have to decrease in dynamic range not to. So your quote should say "the HDR mode would allow it to approach the official native dynamic range of the Red Dragon" because otherwise it doesn't give a correct idea of the respective performance of each (and completely ignores HDRX on the Red Dragon). The Arri Alexa has not implemented an HDR mode, so there's no issue if you want to emphasize the CMV12000 HDR mode outperforming the native dynamic range on the Alexa. Of course, with both of them in native mode, the Alexa has a 3 stop advantage. The CMV12000 has some great features on paper (anamorphic 4K and global shutter) but it is outperformed by the Red Epic in every specification (by varying amounts) other than global shutter. The Arri Alexa outperforms it in dynamic range, but has a mechanical shutter option instead of global shutter. The Sony F55 matches it in global shutter . And the Sony F65 and Red Dragon outperform it in every specification by a wide margin, except global shutter (with the F65 available with a mechanical shutter option instead).
×
×
  • Create New...