Jump to content

Axel

Members
  • Content Count

    1,900
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Axel reacted to Adam Eurich in Documentary on Buddhism in America using hacked GH2, AF100, HMC150   
    Hey everyone, just wanted to post a link to my website

    www.seekingheartwood.com

    I've spent the past 21 months on the road shooting this doc with a hacked GH2, AF100, HMC150, and a little Gopro thrown in.

    On the main page you'll see a video for my Kickstarter campaign. I used the AF100 for the main cam with a 50mm old zeiss lens, and the b-cam was the GH2 with vanilla eoshd hack and an old 90mm vivitar series 1 lens.

    [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5ngqj0Rwjk"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5ngqj0Rwjk[/url]

    thanks!
  2. Like
    Axel got a reaction from mastroiani in Mac AVCHD gamma issues - the fix   
    These are not exactly new "problems". Stu Maschwitz describes the limiting of values (that is cutting off blacks and whites) in his [i]DV Rebel[/i], and for DV, hence the name. I didn't understand why, it has to do with broadcast safety or what have you.The "fix" is quite simple: In your NLE (not limited to Premiere or FCP) open the luma waveform monitor. This should have a y-axis from 0 to 100. Lower the highlights until they all are crumbled under the "100"-line (some of them will go to 110 or so) and you'll get better defined whites, raise the shadows to "0", but not higher or you will get fog. Do all this with 32-bit floating point precision.
    [color=#ff0000]Premiere[/color] shows you the quality of any filter as an icon right to the filter's name in the list, it is something like a folder with "32" in the middle. The [i]fast color corrector[/i] i.e. has it. Never use just one effect without the 32bit-icon!
    [color=#ff0000]FCP7[/color] does [i]not[/i] show you if a filter uses 8-bit or 32-bit. There is this [url="http://documentation.apple.com/en/finalcutpro/usermanual/index.html#chapter=65%26section=2%26tasks=true"]list[/url], however, and there you see the little ¹ that indicates 32-bit-filters, the Color-Correctors are among them. As you can see, there are also many, many effects without 32-bit rendering. Don't use them. Let these things be done by Motion (where you change the bit depths in the projects properties, as in After Effects).
    In [color=#ff0000]FCP X[/color] grading is not only completely done with highest precision, it is also no longer an effect, but just the always available [i]info[/i] of the clip - just never, never, never use the secret analyzing, auto-balancing and autocorrecting method FCP X offers you when you import media!

    I tried the different settings of 5D2RGB, I tried ordinary Quicktime (did you know, that there is no gammashift in Quicktime anymore since Lion?), I tried .mov (7D) and .mts (GH2) as originals in Premiere, and I didn't find any permanent damage to the footage with any of the methods - as long as you do the contrast balancing described above manually and don't just hit [i]auto balance[/i].

    5D2RGB is useful though for FCP X, because you may not have Cinema Tools, that allowed you to flag a clip with a different frame rate (within Premiere you right-click >[i]interpret footage[/i] and change the frame rate). During transcoding 5D2RGB can change 60p to 23,98p or whatever

    .EDIT: My friend says, if you work for television, you are not to twiddle with the settings. Broadcast safe values were there for a reason.
  3. Like
    Axel reacted to Chrad in More professional Panasonic GH3 with 80Mbit codec and preview of coming attractions   
    [color=#222222][font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]I'm curious as to why so many people think that an affordable larger sensor RAW camera from BMD or anyone else is just around the corner.
    The BMCC seemed at NAB to be an incredibly disruptive and innovative product. It took BMD a lot longer than they initially anticipated to get the product out the door. Then there's the super 35 sensor Kineraw, which has some of the same limitations as the BMCC (like no overcranking at full resolution, though it does support up to 720p60) but costs twice the price.
    So why do people talk like it's easy to crank one of these things out and the sub $3K RAW camera we've all been waiting for will be out in a matter of months? Sony and Canon have not shown themselves to be nearly that nimble, and I think it will be a number of years before Blackmagic can put out another camera. [/background][/size][/font][/color]
    [font=Helvetica Neue]I'm sure in a few years there'll be a great super 35 RAW camera at an accessible price point, with all the features we've been asking for like higher frame rates, but there comes a point where one has to stop waiting and make the most of what's available now. With the inclusion of DaVinci Resolve and Ultrascopes, I think the BMC offers a value proposition that we won't see bettered for a good while to come.[/font]
  4. Like
    Axel got a reaction from kirk in More professional Panasonic GH3 with 80Mbit codec and preview of coming attractions   
    [quote name='vincegortho' timestamp='1345918601' post='16474']
    So the GH3 is staying micro 4/3 sensor size then?
    I ask because, so many people gave panasonic grief about it's small sensor size.[/quote]

    Because extreme shallow dof was fashionable. I hope that MFT will survive, because it is a very smart compromise:

    • the sensor size allows for lens resolutions as close as they can get to be covered by actual pixels for HD video without line-skipping. Bigger sensors don't.
    • practically all bigger mounts can be adapted, but not vice versa.
    • the mechanics of DSLRs with their clumsy, loud shutter mirror, perishing fast, will soon be realized as hoary relic. EVF and LCDs are getting brighter and sharper with every generation, and they show >focus, >exposure [i]and[/i] >color temperature (which mirrors can't). If you replace the shutter, the camera can be much, much smaller and lighter, provided that the lenses as well are small and light.
    • the fastest lenses for full frame may be f1.2. If they are good, they are very expensive. The famous Noktons are with f.95 one full stop faster. They compensate fully for the 2:1 crop ratio ...
    • ... if [i]extreme[/i] shallow dof is desirable any longer in the first place. You see it everywhere, I feel it starts getting old.
    • The BMCC has an even bigger crop. Who knows? Perhaps MFT also will be adapted to the Blackmagic.
  5. Like
    Axel got a reaction from jhnkng in Heart of Coppola   
    Let me quote those last words:

    [quote name='Coppola']

    [font=Helvetica][size=3]... for once the so-called professionalism about movies will be destroyed forever and it will become an art form.[/size][/font]
    [/quote]

    He is not talking about any technical issue. What he predicted became reality at once. With Super 8 cameras and later home video. There were artists, driven by the need to express themselves, who took these simple, so called 'unprofessional' means without glancing at what 'the industry' did with their millions.

    To an artist, the comparison of consumer cameras to professional cameras is of little interest. [i]Ars gratia artis[/i] (pompous MGM phrase). A real indie doesn't need comparison. If I have to say something, I don't care about if it meets technical specs. If all I want to do is identify myself with the achievements of others, I am pretentious:


    [quote name='Coppola']

    [font=Helvetica][size=3]Nothing is so terrible as a pretentious movie[/size][/font]
    [/quote]

    BTW: Great film, I prefer the original cut. One good argument for the use of true anamorphic lenses:
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078788/technical

    You see the typical lens flares and the funny looking focus transitions very often. What you also see in the specs: Shot in 35 mm, but published in 70 mm. Nobody ever complained about inappropriately low resolution ...
  6. Like
    Axel got a reaction from Ernesto Mantaras in Heart of Coppola   
    Let me quote those last words:

    [quote name='Coppola']

    [font=Helvetica][size=3]... for once the so-called professionalism about movies will be destroyed forever and it will become an art form.[/size][/font]
    [/quote]

    He is not talking about any technical issue. What he predicted became reality at once. With Super 8 cameras and later home video. There were artists, driven by the need to express themselves, who took these simple, so called 'unprofessional' means without glancing at what 'the industry' did with their millions.

    To an artist, the comparison of consumer cameras to professional cameras is of little interest. [i]Ars gratia artis[/i] (pompous MGM phrase). A real indie doesn't need comparison. If I have to say something, I don't care about if it meets technical specs. If all I want to do is identify myself with the achievements of others, I am pretentious:


    [quote name='Coppola']

    [font=Helvetica][size=3]Nothing is so terrible as a pretentious movie[/size][/font]
    [/quote]

    BTW: Great film, I prefer the original cut. One good argument for the use of true anamorphic lenses:
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078788/technical

    You see the typical lens flares and the funny looking focus transitions very often. What you also see in the specs: Shot in 35 mm, but published in 70 mm. Nobody ever complained about inappropriately low resolution ...
  7. Like
    Axel got a reaction from GrantEllis in Sony NEX 5N hack is go - 46Mbit 1080p tested and working   
    [quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1344776311' post='15393']By the way it isn't so much 24p at 24Mbit which is the problem on the FS100 but 60p at 28Mbit, because bitrate is allocated variably per frame. The more frames the more the available data is thinly spread across them.
    [/quote]

    That's not correct. With Mpeg4, practically all redundant data over time are reduced. The lower the frame rates, the more radically the content alters from frame to frame, so you'd have less redundant information and need higher bit rates. For 120 fps, you'd need about 30 mbps. Ever did stop motion animation? You only draw the changes, and what changes between two frames of 48 fps is a fraction of what changes between two frames in 24 fps in the first place. In hand-drawn animation, you'd simply draw a few motion blurred objects connecting the key frames, no matter how many phases the frame rate actually demanded.

    What about camera movement, when [i]every[/i] pixel has changed position in the next frame? That used to be my argument, but the engineers' answer is: If the position changing is predictable, it is a classic motion path, which doesn't even need particularly high bit rates. If it is chaotic ("stressing the codec"), the encoder tends to simplify the details, which by their nature then cannot be recognized as details by the human eyes.

    Noise, though not detail, is not only redundant. We perceive noise subconsciously as a natural phenomenon. Watch the shadows below your desk in the evening. Are they dead?

    That's why too low bit rates are a problem - at any frame rate: They iron out the random noise. With 60p you [i]always[/i] see this effect, with or without interframe. That's because you have more than twice the temporal resolution. 24p is a very effective way of temporal compression. As little as possible, as much as needed.
  8. Like
    Axel got a reaction from tony wilson in Most significant clue so far about Blackmagic Cinema Camera performance   
    [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.
  9. Like
    Axel reacted to tony wilson in Most significant clue so far about Blackmagic Cinema Camera performance   
    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.
  10. Like
    Axel got a reaction from sfrancis928 in Mac AVCHD gamma issues - the fix   
    ⌘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.
  11. Like
    Axel got a reaction from Germy1979 in Christopher Nolan   
    [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]
  12. Like
    Axel reacted to tony wilson in John Brawley posts new Blackmagic Cinema Camera footage   
    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
  13. Like
    Axel got a reaction from kirk in Christopher Nolan   
    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 ...
  14. Like
    Axel got a reaction from nahua in Peter Jackson   
    [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]
  15. Like
    Axel got a reaction from andy lee in Christopher Nolan   
    [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.
×
×
  • Create New...