Axel

[quote name='tony wilson' timestamp='1344313338' post='15036']
4.who can dance the macarena better captain kirk or the french scum bald captain prickhard.[/quote]

I think maybe Kirk. He is more the physical type, Picard and Riker have more sense of dignity.
[img]http://bilder.hifi-forum.de/medium/336986/double-facepalm_56304.png[/img]


[quote name='David Dominguez' timestamp='1344315619' post='15038']
I wonder if the noise in the shadows would be less if it was shot using RAW instead ProRes?[/quote]

ProRes doesn't cause noise. The noise is clearly caused by the camera. We have to watch this further. The images are great. Best demo so far. There are a lot of shots with almost the DR of the Zacuto test, and looking natural. Very impressed.

EDIT: In two years, we will have become familiar with the better tonal range and the better colors. We will detect shots of the BMCC by the iso noise. All current DSLR stuff will be aesthetically unendurable for us ambitious twerps. Reminds me of a song by Aimee Mann: It's not going to stop 'til you wise up.

captains log star date july into august 2012.
for a while now some of the crew been distracted by mindless moronic sports events.
the federation love promoting sports they think it keeps the scum from riot,rape and my favourite murder.
i william tiberius shatner kirk have bigger fish to fry.
1.does spock still love me is the relationship getting stale.
2.is he still turned on by my 20 pack abs
3. is scottie really scottish
4.who can dance the macarena better captain kirk or the french scum bald captain prickhard.
i get a sense a feeling in my tight nylon space pants that we are getting close to another big war.
question for the log.
what will come first ww3 or bmc giving the prototype to another tester.

⌘7 opens the videoscopes window. In the dropdown menu choose the >Waveform >Luma (this could be your standard videoscope, FCP always displays your latest choice on next start). This shows you a "scientific" representation of what's there. The legal parts live between 0 and 100, what is called broadcast range. Being the uppity DSLR freshmen we are, we dismiss this shit, and "bring the values into the range". You should not believe in any 8% rule, this is just changing one ancestral wisdom for the next. You should color correct using the exposure window and the balls for highlights and shadows whilst watching the lines in the waveforms.

What I guess from the questions about any ominous workflow, there seems to be some insecurity of what acutally should be done.

Don't be too scientific. You do this for a better looking image, so please trust your eyes!

What is suspected by the lovers of 5D2RGB is that Quicktime cuts of values because it misinterprets the ranges. With 5D2RGB you can manually override the broadcast flags and choose full range for any footage.

FCP X can edit all your footage natively. Of course, you really should have Lion (wait a few weeks before upgrading to 10.8, Mountain Lion, there seem to be sum bugs still) to complete the AV-Foundation framework. There you can easily judge for yourself, if a file from your own camera is treated better with 5D2RGB (download the lite-version, it's free) than as original or transcoded by FCP X to optimized media (ProRes as well). With material from 7D and GH2 I found there was nothing lost (judged by the waveform) with any of the methods.

If you feel better then, buy the batch-ability of 5D2RGB and check [i]full range[/i] before you hit [i]convert. [/i]Note, that the values now do not fit into 0-100 in the other direction: The lowest values don't touch zero, the highest (even if clearly flatline-clipped) don't touch one hundred. Left to my own devices, I would interpret this as an actually [i]narrowed[/i] range, as baked-in false values.

[quote name='galenb' timestamp='1343596437' post='14709']I happen to be very impressed with GH2 footage I've seen. In fact, the GH2 is the camera that made me think, "Okay, now I have no more excuses for not making my own films." But the GH2 certainly doesn't compete with film. But I don't really see that as the point though.
[/quote]

That's what I think as well. The point is not, that Coppola, should he decide to shoot [i]Apocalypse Again[/i], would say, friends, we are going to the jungle, leave your cumbersome old film cameras at home, we put on a Lumix each and be done for. And whether Christopher Nolan should go on using film despite the high quality of our amateur equipment - is that our business?

Where our views diverge is in your transition we can't compete now [color=#ff0000]but[/color] soon:
[quote name='galenb' timestamp='1343551432' post='14696']Com'on people! :-D I really hope no one actually thinks film is going to be replaced by a $800 micro 4/3 camera? Okay so film kills GH2 but what about RED and Alexa? And really, we may not have the technology to make a movie that looks better then film right now [color=#ff0000]but just wait. In a few years...[/color]
[color=#222222][font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]

[/quote]

This is the excuse ("Okay, now I have no more excuses for not making my own films.") not to express ourselves using what we have. Hollywood is like an army with helicopters, napalm, predator drones and everything, all aimed at our hearts, and we have only smartphones. What is the smart thing to do? Use our phones as clubs against the enemy cause that's the appropriate answer?

Do I actually think that film is going to be replaced by an $800 Lumix? No, but my conclusion is not, give up, but stop caring about things you can't influence.

What Hollywood is not particularly good at, is expressing my, Axels, views.

I know how video looks on big screens. Neither do I dream of competing with [i]The Dark Knight[/i] aesthetically, nor do I care about Gotham.

Today all talk regarding poor video quality really is lamenting on a high comfort level. Never before were the means to deliver [i]sufficient[/i] quality for cinema so affordable. Don't look at the aesthetics too close.[/background][/size][/font][/color]

eyes loves girlies but godamit dis girlie is not a pool shark and aint no actris
eye still wants her telefon number but der test is iratatin sexist not sexxy


today in the post modern world we have nasa technology but intellectually,spiritually and aesthetically
we are going back to the stone age.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OKQdp6iGUk[/media]


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwSQxlwMzr8&feature=endscreen&NR=1

The images of video cameras affordable for the common people have always been improved. S-VHS was better than VHS, Hi8 and DV were better, HDV was better. Many said about the HVX 200 (below 1k resolution with pixel shift), now the era of indie filmmakers was just around the corner. And it was. Timeless principle.

The con- and prosumers are too stupid to realize that they can't win the race if they accept the industry's rules. 4k? Haven't you heard (read andy lees posting above), that these resolution tags are buzzwords to fool the consumers? If your display was 4k and you watched your own 4k stuff on it, you didn't move closer, because the video lacked the true resolution in the second place. And it looked terrible in the first place, because it neither had color resolution nor color depth suitable for a BIG image.

You think all this will change with the BM? It will, but in incremental steps (including the fact that you have to monitor the better quality, did you think about that?). At the time every hobby dad has 4k raw, the aestethic standards of cinema will be higher again.

All this without mentioning makeup, constumes, good acting, good sets, good lighting, good sound design, music ...

[quote name='MOONGOAT' timestamp='1343282620' post='14535']
Reserve judgement.
[/quote]

Yes.
Within a greenscreen hell, everything looks depressingly technical and clean.

A good friend of mine is a production designer. She worked as draughtsperson for David Cronenbergs [i]A Dangerous Method.[/i] The studio filming was done on a big soundstage in Cologne. I often gave her a ride and saw the sets. Nothing spectacular, if you see the final film, but I still have a plank from the gangway Freud and Jung passed to embark their ship to New York. Not wood, painted plaster. But looking more convincing than any real wood ever could. This is something I find very fascinating.

Cinema is about the meaning of things, or, to say with Freud, it's NOT about the cigar! Things that don't resonate in your soul don't make it to the final frame. This has nothing to do with reality, and it has nothing to do with pixel counting or frames-per-second-counting (although the different look of motion over time may have an influence on how we perceive fiction, we'll see).

There is a beautiful behind-the-scenes clip of [i]You The Living[/i]. It demonstrates how film is "only" make believe:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GK661yswOF4[/media]

[quote name='jonjak2' timestamp='1343134939' post='14417']
Can you point me to an example of something you've done that is digitally shot and looks like film? Very curious because this all comes down to what 'film' looks like to you.
[/quote]

How would you compare it? Youtube?

Positive examples for digital in it's own right and dignity are the latest films of David Fincher.

The photography in Stanley Kubricks latest film, [i]Eyes Wide Shut[/i], is a good example of how the tissue of the canvas and the brushwork shine through. A good example, because Kubrick certainly tried to get the imagery as clean as possible, despite the extreme low light concept. Note, how the high speed graininess increases the depth of field! I am sure, if Kubrick lived, he would have been an early adopter of digital cameras.

I liked the look of Jesse James, but I am not sure how much of it is purely analog and how much digital post. I like the films of Christopher Nolan, but I think his insistence of analog recording is a luxury that's still affordable. This will change. Film is dying. Wave goodbye.