Jump to content

stephen

Members
  • Content Count

    49
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About stephen

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. stephen

    Davinci Resolve 16

    Agree with you on the point that deleting a clip and moving the play head the same length ahead is annoying. This is something they should definitely think about and fix. But other than that, like the new cut page. Did some edits on the weekend - a short 2 minute video composed from approximately 30-40 smaller clips. And a bigger one assembled from 150-200 clips. The two timelines approach, with whole thing on the top and detailed clips at the bottom really helps me cut faster. Guess it all depends on our editing habits. Was able to almost finish the two small projects (total length of 7 min) in one day. Usually it takes much longer and this is the most difficult part for me - choosing the clips, or parts of the clips, figuring out the way to arrange them, composing the whole video. Now this whole process was easier, faster and even fun. Here is a good demonstration how new cut pages helps get this part done faster: Resolve is an incredible piece of software, especially considering the price.
  2. Latest EOS M ML RAW builds are from master chef Danne, here: https://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=9741.msg208959#msg208959 And you can follow development on the same thread. MLV App is de facto the only application to use as starting point of your editing. It is as an extension of the EOS M ML RAW video for many reasons: - effective way to remove focusing pixels - correctly debayering 5K Anamorphic crop mode. Or pseudo anamorphic is reality but anyway And yes get the latest MLV App and EOS M RAW versions. Ilya keeps adding new features to MLV App and Danne keeps fixing bugs and improving the build.
  3. Cinema 4K is fully supported and working on Samsung Galaxy S10+. Camera 2 API checker application shows full support which was kind of a problem with previous Galaxies. High bit rate and flat profiles are available trough Cinema 4K and other applications. Quality of the video is quite good IMHO. Filmic Pro checker reports everything is supported even log profile, including [email protected] and Cinematographer Kit with [email protected] FPS with log profile, the only exception being [email protected] and maybe Log v2 profile which as far as I understand is only working on some iPhone models (Apple A12 CPU required). Keep in mind that in Europe Samsung Galaxy 10/10+ smartphones come with Exynos 9820 CPU, which according to Filmic Pro they can hack to support better their application. The version with Qualcomm CPU doesn't offer this support. At least that was the case with Galaxy S9. https://filmicpro.helpscoutdocs.com/article/41-samsung-s9-and-s9-filmic-pro-v6-compatibility-guide Optical stabilization is quite good. Basically this is the second best smartphone to buy for video after iPhone XS and XS Max.
  4. Also looking for gimbal able to carry cameras slightly bigger than mirroless - BMPCC 4K, Canon 5D Mark III. And so far Moza Air 2 seems to be the best choice with only 2 drawbacks - weight and size. Moza gives a weight of 1.6kg with batteries. Brandon Li complains in his review about the weight. But in Feiyu AK2000 gimbal review he says weight is OK. According to the specs Feiyu AK2000 with batteries is 1.4-1.45kg. Don't think 150-200g will make such a perceivable difference. And in most other reviews Moza Air 2 is measured to be close to Ronin S. Time for Moza to come with Moza Aircross 2
  5. Title Color Science Means Nothing With Raw... Really? is misleading. At least when related to the test you are using as a show case. Three different cameras were used and while the sensor is the same, 4 different codecs / formats were used and only one of them is RAW. As author of the test states bellow the video: All clips from the E2 were shot in 10bit 4:2:0 H.265 ZLog. The GH5s was shot in 10 bit 4:2:2 H.264 VLog. The BMPCC 4K was shot in both 12 bit Cinema DNG RAW 3:1 and 10 bit ProRes HQ (which means 4:2:2 color) So this video test proves nothing in terms of RAW video simply because only one of the cameras in some of the clips shot RAW. Cameras use different processors and electronics, different codecs so differences in final image are normal, expected even in cases when the sensor is the same. Even if those camera shot RAW it's reasonable to expect final video NOT to look identical. If the goal was to color match them, the easiest and correct way would be to use color chart. Am sure after color correction with color chart the image will be pretty close if not identical. A reference point (color chart) is needed when matching is the goal as more or less this guaranties you have correct colors in post no matter what lens, codec, camera or sensors are used. Did some test for RAW photo and with color chart can match almost perfectly images from different cameras in different lighting conditions. Am sure nobody can tell which camera was used for each image. Anyone can easily do this test and repeat the results. In photo when using RAW so called color science of the camera really means nothing. That's a proven point for me. Video cameras shooting RAW don't quite use RAW. There is always some alteration of the data (image). Like applying LOG gamma curve, using a particular codec, color space etc. We discussed this in the other topic around the Tony Northrup tests. So IMHO whatever you call it color science or not it's logical to expect cameras using the same sensor to yield slightly different images. And cameras using different sensors, processors, codecs, etc to give different images. Difference is additionally complicated by the fact that color correction for video is more difficult and complex due to different codecs, color spaces, LOG gamma etc. Not many people outside the professional editors and colorists learn and put the effort to master the process. Additionally differences in dynamic range and other parameters of the sensors also play a role to the perception of the image. But with some more efforts and skills it can be done same way as in photo. Using color charts using correct color space transformations, etc. And matching could be extended even for cameras that don't use RAW codecs but much more limiting h264 8 or 10 bit 4:2:2 ones. Did some initial tests and plan to do more. Am confident it can be done and there are plenty of clues around. - Zacuto did a test years ago and on big screen highly skilled cinema and video professionals in a blind test were not able to tell the difference between Panasonic GH2 with 1080p and x264 8 bit 4:2:0 codec and Arri Alexa 2.5K RAW - in the movie Man from U.N.C.L.E various cameras were used. Here is the full list: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1638355/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec Among them Canon 5D Mark II and Go Pro 3. Can you guess which scenes were shot with Canon 5D Mark II or even Canon EOS C500 ? I can't. Go Pro 3 yes, using logic where such a camera will be used but for the rest am clueless. Look at this guy test. - Arri alexa vs Canon T3i. Yes there is difference in colors but they can be made quite similar, quite close So bottom line is, it all boils down to how easy and with less effort we are able to get the colors we like. And how much we can afford to pay. Our preferences to a camera and certain "color science" are purely subjective. Which kind of contradicts the science part
  6. MLV App works on Mac OS and allows to export in any format including ProRes. Application supports lossless compression. New features are constantly added and is well supported: https://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=20025.0
  7. stephen

    Color science

    Fully agree with TheRenaissanceMan and you. We are on the same page here. How easy or difficult it is to get the color we want makes huge difference. My comments about RAW were mostly for photo. Tony's test is mostly for the photo side of hybrid cameras. Adding video in the bag is not correct, because: a. as you point out most DSLR mirrorless cameras shoot 8bit 4:2:0 which is quite different and limited compared to RAW and even JPG. Getting the colors we want may be quite difficult and time consuming. b. RAW video is not = to RAW photo. Most if not all cameras shoot RAW video but in log format. Which means some kind of additional processing related to colors is applied in camera. It is not the RAW image as it comes from the sensor. And cameras from different companies have different log formats, even the sensor is the same. For example Panasonic GH5S and Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K. Same sensor, different log formats. In both cases there is some form of in camera color processing/manipulation. We still have the problem measuring those colors in RAW, we still have to go with the development process before any measurement is possible. But it would be correct to say there is in camera color science and is logical to expect that it will affect the end results. Tony's argument that people will not notice and object slight variation in color and sometimes even big color shifts also is not correct for video. We still want to get the colors we want and even we ignore this we still have to color match different sequences under different lighting condition in one movie/clip.
  8. stephen

    Color science

    IMHO the strength of the RGB CFA's over the photo sites is related more to the exposure than to color. Stronger filter = less photons reaching the photo sites. But still one pixel (photo site) = one basic color (R, G or B). The other two still need to be generated/interpolated in software in order pixel to have all RGB values. There is no need to theorize in that much details. Everyone can do simple test. Take a photo of an object with one single color (in RAW). Let say a blue ball. Import the picture in photo editing program. Camera doesn't matter. If color of the object was BLUE can make it GREEN or RED or any other color. That’s why said RAW has no color.
  9. stephen

    Color science

    OK maybe this statement (RAW has no color) is not that accurate. The point is that RAW has to be developed before you have the color of every pixel. You have the values for each pixel from the bayer sensor but they are one of the 3 basic colors only - Green, Red, Blue. With different intensity. Before the debayering / development you don't have "real" colors - RGB values for each pixel, only one of this values - R or G or B. The other two are interpolated, "made" by the software. So before developing the image you can't measure anything related to color. This process has 3 variables (actually more): 1- the sensor and other electronics around it. Let's call it hardware. 2- the software that do the debayering/interpolation. 3 - the human deciding which parameter to use for the development. For color there are many parameters that can be changed in the software. So how you are going to measure for accurate color the developed image coming from RAW (because RAW can't be measured), when it is dependent of so many parameters and most of them are not related to the camera ? Yes watched the video and totally agree with Tony that for RAW there is no point to measure color accuracy of the camera or cameras color science. As color depends on too many variables and parameters outside of the camera. You can literally get any color you want in the program. Now Mattias and many other people argue that every camera (sensor and electronics in the camera) has specific signature and they affects the RAW image and as result the final/developed image. This is true. It that sens not all RAW are equal. Yes indeed it's one of the variable (some of the variables) in the process and for sure has an impact for the final image. Dynamic range of the sensor for example definitely affects the final image. But for colors specifically my argument is that all those differences in the sensor are easily obliterated by the software. Remember 2/3 of the color information is made by the software. It is the software (algorithm) and human behind it, who has the final saying what color a pixel and whole picture will have. So for me when people says different sensors / hardware give me differences in colors they mostly mean: different sensors/cameras gives me different colors in MY workflow. :) You can perfectly color match photos from different cameras/sensors. Same for video. So we agree to disagree here
  10. stephen

    Color science

    There are no colors yet in RAW. What to test then ? The color science of the developing programs or the skills of the person working with it ? For photography everybody is using RAW for serious work but yet argue about BETTER color science which affect only JPG and is different for different profiles and is subjective at the end. Better doesn't mean accurate. Better is very subjective. In this part he's right IMHO. For video however it's different. For those mirroless / DSLR cameras we don't have the choice of using RAW video. We still can tweak the colors but are much more limited, white balance is backed in. Tweaking the colors the way we like them is not that easy in video as to take a RAW file and fix the white balance. Getting the colors close to the final edit straight off the camera for video may save tons of time and effort. So don't agree with him when he throws video in the argument but does only test photo.
  11. stephen

    Color science

    He mentions that color science apply to JPG photo and video. RAW allows you to change colors as you like when developing. Test was for JPG photos. He also says that there were indoor scenes and outdoor scenes, so in my understanding it's not only the photo he's showing in the video. There were several photos/scenes but he’s showing only one as an example. He says nothing about the creative style / picture profile used. So assume standard was used for all cameras. Dave Dugdale has a video comparing all Sony A7 III creative styles. With picture profiles off, standard creative style seems to be the best for skin tones in video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6VyspXsS5I Tested it in other scenes and scenarios. Surprisingly it works well and am quite pleased with the results in most of those scenes. Dynamic range is not the best but not all scenes need it. Use standard for video quite often. So this is one more confirmation Sony colors in last generation cameras (A7 III, A7R III) seems to be accurate in Standard style.
  12. stephen

    Color science

    Sony cameras improved and slightly changed from generation to generation. And the last generation scientifically seems to have the most accurate colors. Both tests agree. Which is kind of interesting having in mind one of the main points of Tony's video was to prove color perception is subjective. After all it looks there is some objectivity and correlation with science 😉 In Tony's tests and the other test it's not clear what creative style was used. Because JPG colors change with different styles (in Sony Land) and different picture profiles for other cameras. Same for video. Guess standard was used but nobody is saying it. For me the most interesting and revealing part of the test is how tolerant we are to color variations and how difficult is to make the difference.
  13. stephen

    Color science

    And yes agree with Andrew there is quite difference between photo and video on those cameras. Photo has RAW, so we can adjust white balance in post. Video has white balance baked in. Tony's example of fixing white balance is valid only for photo. And the whole test/survey is for photo. He throws in the bag video as well, but it is different and has to be treated and commented differently. So he’s wrong on this account too.
  14. stephen

    Color science

    IMHO Tony actually did a very good test/survey. Blind tests are rare. Certain parts may be questionable but general conclusions are valid IMHO and quite revealing: 1. Color perception and preferences are subjective. Both for professionals and nonprofessional viewers. 2. Brand loyalty skew personal opinions even more. 3. Slight variations of colors usually gets unnoticed by the general public(viewers) and even by professionals. We start to see the differences when we compare different cameras / images. Quite true IMHO. While there is definitely science in colors, personal preferences rules at the end. There is nothing scientific in personal preferences. So saying that camera A has better color science than camera B is somewhat wrong, when we discover that BETTER is subjective. Better color does not mean scientifically correct colors it just means colors we personally like and prefer. A blind test just prove how off those personal preferences may be. So it's correct to say better colors FOR ME. Does it means we do not need LUTs or adjusting colors or use Andrew's EOS Pro Colors settings? Are color adjustments really just one click of the button away? Of course not. Getting the colors we want or like may be quite time consuming in both photo and video. If we like the colors of our videos strait off the camera and want to leave them like this, then fine. If we prefer the colors of camera A better than camera B, and have camera A then lucky us. But if we don’t like the colors straight off the camera or want some special colors and/or vision then we have to tweak them. In video this can be quite laborious and time consuming. Color correction and grading is a well payed profession. If somebody already have presets that tweak, adjust the colors the way we like it, well bring them on. He did the laborious part and those presets will save us quite a lot of time and work in post. So Tony is right about the subjectivity but wrong when saying one click and white balance will do it for most of us. Unfortunately not that easy and simple. IMHO he gave the example of white balance adjustment to show that all cameras have good RAW images to start with and differences are not that big.
  15. LukiLink is dead on arrival. It's a nice concept but now we have some cheap 5'' IPS monitors at ~ the same price. They have 1080p resolution, are relatively light and have all the controls needed for video. Like Feelworld F570 5.7
×
×
  • Create New...