Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Chrad

  1. 21 hours ago, independent said:

    So much wrong with this. First of all, "this" IS happening. We are all witnessing a major shift on social media platforms from photography to video. Why? Simple: storytelling. 

    Second, "waiting for the right technology" is missing the point. Human beings will mess around with things to create (See: 2001: A Space Odyssey). Apple is putting these filmmaking tools that nobody asked for into their iPhones and people WILL start using them. 

    ...to make TikTok videos. 

    21 hours ago, independent said:

    And you're mistaken about the democratization of filmmaking tech. First of all, traditional filmmaking is far, far still prohibitive for most people. You're still spending thousands - at least tens of thousands of dollars to make even a watchable short film. And by you, I mean you, trust fund kid who wants to make movies but have shit stories that doesn't resonate with any normal people.

    This is still going to be true when everyone has an iPhone with fake rack focusing on it. You'll still need to spend time and money to stand out. You're still going to need a crew if you want a certain standard of lighting and sound, especially one worthy of Apple TV. The competitive advantage of having a budget is arguably going to be even more important for traditional filmmaking if smart phone camera advancements lead to a flood of people producing content with a higher apparent baseline of quality.

    21 hours ago, independent said:

    And it's not just about the camera. It's about technologies (both hard and soft) that will reduce the need for gear and crew and any other prohibitive costs that have otherwise prevented billions of people on this planet from making their own movies, telling their own stories. Not cat videos, TikTok clips, or dick pics. But stories. That hasn't happened yet. But it will.

    The obvious trajectory of this evolution is for ONE PERSON to tell a STORY, as we have always done for thousands of years. Except this time, millions will be gathered around the fire to hear the best ones.

    At the end of the day I don't see this technological shift as being so seismic as to so dramatically alter the course of society as you envision. In general, but especially among the younger generations, people are consuming less film content. They watch more TikTok, short clips, Twitch streams. Video is everywhere but 'fIlm' in the traditional sense is becoming less central to the culture. If the incredible advancements in affordable video technology we've already seen have lead us to the centrality of TikTok, then to me that's a sign that people just aren't itching to make 'films'. 

  2. 9 hours ago, independent said:

    Pros certainly won't use iPhones (not yet). But everybody else—in the near future. Apple is putting tremendous effort into laying the groundwork to crowdsource quality content. Offering these features that nobody asked for in the hands of millions? We are going to start seeing iPhone-generated narrative/reality/doc content (not TikTok videos) to hit the mainstream. Very soon.


    Mark my words: this won't happen. People aren't making TikToks instead of traditional film content because they were waiting for the right technology to roll around to decide it's worth doing. If the incredible democratization of filmmaking technology we've seen over the past couple of decades wasn't enough to get them involved already, they lacked the time, energy, or interest. The truth is we who are interested in traditional filmmaking are part of a shrinking demographic.

  3. 7 hours ago, stephen said:

    Here is my understanding:

    1. Noise is digital destroys information and integrity of the picture. Grain in film just gives a flavor to the picture
    2. Noise in digital often has a pattern as digital sensor have such a pattern, grain in film is random.
    3. Noise in digital is not pleasant to the eye, grain in film is. Maybe because we are conditioned by watching film for many years.

    That's why noise is undesirable, grain often is. If you watch the video that published above, you'll see how information is actually recovered after denoise.

    That's why in post typically you denoise first, then add grain. If of course, you want to simulate some of film characteristics.

    Also worth to note that when grain is too big or too much it also can affect the picture quality negatively. For years landscape photographers used Velvia emulsion, because of it's fine grain. In landscape photography you want all fine details to be well visible and defined. So we can't put a blanket statement that grain is always good. It depends on it's quality and quantity. Same for digital noise. Some small amount of digital noise is tolerable for me and most people.

    It is also my observation that some of pro colorists and DP, try to emulate if not all at least some of the characteristics of film while using digital material. Film is with us for more than 100 years, we learnt quite a lot about images and did quite many studies and improvements in this area.

    I honestly think it just comes down to technology and conditioning. If filmmakers of the past had the ability to DNR the hell out of grainy filmstock, a subset of them would have done just that. They had no such luxury, so they sought out the finest grained stock they could access and/or embraced it as an aesthetic quality of the image. With digital, we developed the technology to scrub the image of noise before people the textures of digital filmmaking had stopped seeming alien, let alone started to be romanticized for its limitations and quirks.

    I don't really think it's true that noise destroys resolution, and grain only adds flavour. Large grained filmstock is considered to hold less resolution relative to finer grained stock. Outside of extreme examples of visible FPN in the image, I also don't think the pattern vs random aspect makes much difference to the viewer. In practice, digital noise is perceived as random. 

    The appearance of noise varies from camera to camera, but I think it's the kind of imperfection that can prevent images from looking sterile and inhuman. I look at it as the surface of the medium becoming visible. The philosophy that denoising should always be applied to digitally sourced images seems like one that's opposed to to the inherent characteristics of digital, and ironically it's one that ends up creating images even further removed from the world of film. To me it's more interesting to be open to the new. Noise can be ugly, but it can also in the right hands have a soulful texture to it.

  4. Matt Frazer from Panasonic said something interesting in the stream after the GH6 was announced. When dismissing rumours that they were exiting M43, he said it's their 'testbed for new features' which later filter up. In light of that and the recent rumours I think  they'll introduce DPAF with GH6 and later it will come to L-mount bodies.

  5. 3 minutes ago, TomTheDP said:

    I think the issue is film generally reacts nicer to over and under exposure so noise is more acceptable. 

    Right, but having a blanket approach of shot on digital = we have to denoise that, every time, suggests a lack of tolerance for even naturally occuring, finely controlled noise, and possibly a love for plastic textures.

  6. 23 hours ago, stephen said:

    When using RAW footage and high ISO you'll have to denoise in post production. Result will be even better than in camera denoise but unfortunately requires powerful GPU and will take a lot more time for the final rendering. Actually one colorist said that you have to denoise always when using digital camera. 🙂

    Silly. Film is a lot grainier and we accept that as part of the aesthetic, so I don't know why we need to treat video differently and expect total cleanness to the point of sterility. 

  7. 5 hours ago, sanveer said:

    The issue with AF, apart from accuracy is the lack of instructions on who/what, and how to follow (speed, stationary or motion, transition style etc). I believe cinema cameras will solve this and autofocus for cinema cameras soon. And it's going to be Arri.

    Why would Arri, a very traditionalist cinema company, lead the pack on autofocus? They just released a new set of manual primes and zooms.

  8. I can't stand Potato Jet because it's shameless consumerist hype, but I don't mind Gerald Undone. I don't expect him to be an artist - what he does well is putting together videos with extensive detail and testing regarding tech specs. There is some value to that in evaluating these tools, and he does it better than most others on YouTube.

  9. Something I find interesting is how many have commented on the distractingly shallow depth of field, but I haven't seen anyone comment on another characteristic of this F0.95 wide-open shooting...the softness, which was to me very noticeable in wide shots. 

    Goes to show that we gear-nerds and pixel peepers get way too hung up on technical perfection. I suppose it's different if you're doing product shots or ads that are trying to project a clinically cutting-edge image, but the majority of the time, no one cares that much as long as the image registers. See also on Netflix the grain storm of the 4K scanned 16mm for the new Master of None show. It blows my mind when people call images with some small, gently buzzing noise in the shadows 'unusable'.

  10. The Canon dream lenses did give the film an interesting and unique look. It's the first time I've seen a major production embracing the quirks and 'character' of an exotic vintage photographic lens. Couple that with the overuse of shooting wide open and it's like a strange hybrid of studio and DSLR filmmaking.

    I can understand wanting to make the characteristics that only appear at F0.95 a major part of the aesthetic, but it was still misguided to shoot everything wide open. It creates the impression that a lot of the real sets are CGI, and generally it looks a lot better in close-ups than mids and wides.

    But, at least its unique.

  11. According to Nokishita via 43 Rumors.


    Very interesting. I wonder how it will stack up against the Pocket 4K's Braw, with the sensor output now freed from the GH5s heavy internal processing.

    Also makes me think that the pandemic must have done a number on their ability to produce a GH6. With this, another update to G9 and the GH5mkII, it looks like they're trying to squeeze as much life as possible out of the old models.

  12. 1 minute ago, eleison said:


    Tell that to the millions of people buried in the ground... or who's fathers who got shipped of to Siberia never to see their sons again; fun times...  Like I said, what we have now, could be worse.  "Orange man bad" theology comes from a very evil place, but thankfully there is enough people with the power to oppose and to stop that kindling from starting a conflagration. 

    You think believing the Kavanaugh accusers is wrong because it's based on feelings rather than evidence, but then chose to believe that they are lying, based on your own gut feelings. And somehow this has something to do with Pol Pot and Stalin?

  13. 15 minutes ago, eleison said:

    The oldest reason in the world:  ideology 

    Why do you think millions of people died in the killing fields????  Not all of them were against the regime, were they?  Why do you think million of people perished in the gulags of the soviet union?  Were they all american spies?  Or, the preventable famines in China??? Were all those rice farmers stupid and the central government far away from those rice field, these government bureaucrats knows best - at least that's what the officials said?  etc. etc..

    ideology allows people to accept the unknown, the unclear, the speculative as TRUTH.  So far, as things go, it hasn't been too bad.  A guy got his reputation smeared, a president may or may not lose his job a few months before a election, etc. etc..  It's sad and hopeful in a way.  It's sad that people still accept speculation has proof.. it's hopeful because there hasn't been any mass death... yet... yeah, a few antifa brown coats, but that's a lot better than the organized brown coat of yesterdays.

    Sounds a lot like feelings unsupported by evidence to me.

  14. 1 hour ago, Mokara said:

    Sanders has been saying the same thing for years, so what? It still pushes the right buttons with a certain demographic just like Trump does with his certain demographic. To follow people like that you have to abandon objectivity and pragmatism, and instead follow a cult of personality. No other view is acceptable, only theirs.

    You are wrong to equate them. Bernie Sanders held to the same beliefs for years, even though it made him politically unpopular. It took decades for enough of a critical mass to come around to his way of thinking that it became feasible for him to run for president. The evidence is that he is a man who has held true to his beliefs and fought for them all his life.

    Trump on the other hand is a populist demagogue who made a late pivot into politics out of his business/entertainment career. Not that long ago he was considered to be a friend of the Clintons. 

  15. 1 hour ago, Jonesy Jones said:

    Trump does not, has not, and will not EVER receive any credit or praise from the Liberal media, regardless of what he says or does. He could denounce Christianity, embrace the climate crisis fully, and replace Pence with with a gay trans black woman and he’d still be mocked as a bafoon orange orangutan. In his mind he has to overcome this incredibly clear bias. I don’t necessarily agree with his methods, but I get it.

    This is bullshit. The left hates Trump for what he says. For his race baiting, for his sexism, for his climate change denial, etc. If he believed and acted in accordance with their beliefs, they'd speak well of him. It would require a drastic turn around to reverse the negative perceptions of him, but that's what your hypothetical is suggesting. It's a useless assertion anyway, since it's impossible to prove or even provide evidence for.


    As for your end justifies the means argument for Trump support, no matter how ignoble his conduct - have some goddamn integrity. It's true that many on tbe left mindlessly follow 'their guy', but there are also people out there with integrity, who are ready to criticise the deatructive policies of Obama or Hillary and the damage they've done to the world. 

    Suppoting Trump on the other hand is excusing a lot of shitty human behaviour for the sake of 'your guys' holding power. Be careful of what you're undermimining and what you're going to lose.

  16. 4 hours ago, Mmmbeats said:

    I am aware that features have been made with all sorts of cameras, including phones.   But huge compromises have to be made.  I shot on a GH4 for years - absolutely love the camera.  But the DR alone would have me pulling out my teeth if I had to shoot a feature with it. 

    It's really documentary where the crazy high DR becomes a major feature, no? In the early days of cinema feature filmmakers were lighting to film that held significantly less DR than any recent hybrid.

  • Create New...