KarimNassar

yeah well if they could get into a dynamic range and color depth war that would be great thanks.
can't wait to get my compressed 8k 4:2:0 8 bit image. so exciting.

yeah well if they could get into a dynamic range and color depth war that would be great thanks.
can't wait to get my compressed 8k 4:2:0 8 bit image. so exciting.

yeah well if they could get into a dynamic range and color depth war that would be great thanks.
can't wait to get my compressed 8k 4:2:0 8 bit image. so exciting.

yeah well if they could get into a dynamic range and color depth war that would be great thanks.
can't wait to get my compressed 8k 4:2:0 8 bit image. so exciting.

yeah well if they could get into a dynamic range and color depth war that would be great thanks.
can't wait to get my compressed 8k 4:2:0 8 bit image. so exciting.

yeah well if they could get into a dynamic range and color depth war that would be great thanks.
can't wait to get my compressed 8k 4:2:0 8 bit image. so exciting.

Hello everyone,
 
Here is a making of and photoshop breakdown of my latest advertising campaign:
 

 
It's a photo campaign, but I'm sure most of you either work in, or enjoy photography as well so hopefully you will find this of interest.
 
thanks for watching

Hello there (Sorry for my bad English)

I'm the director of the film embedded above. To clarify many question talked about in this forum. I would have to explain how we shoot this.

For the equipment, we had 3 5D Mark III with 1.2.3 Magic Lantern firmware installed with 3 Canon Cine Prime Lenses (28, 50 and 85mm.) few L lenses (50 F1.2, 24-70mm F2.8, 28-300 F3.5-5.6 and 70-200 F2.8) and Samyang (Rokinon) Cine 35mm.

In term of optical quality most lenses have pretty good sharpness (to the point that most of the audience will not notice the different unless you are working in this field) as long as you keep the F/T above 4 (and less than 11). If you want to work on 2.8 or 3.5 (less than that are totally not recommended by any chance even you sharpen it up in post. If you want the soft look, it's better to use Black Pro-Mist filter or Fog instead of using lower F/T Stop) then you'll probably see a some different between each lenses. At 1.2-2.0, it'll probably be used only in certain situation and I never recommend anyone using this T/F range as it always hard to focus and the overall sharpness is bad.)

for color rendition, Samyang and Canon Cine are on par with the color representation. We found that 70-200 and 28-300 have less saturation and luminance than the rest. But it's still manageable in Post-Production to get the color to match the rest. I prefer trying best to use the primes one rather than the zoom unless it's for the sake of fast background movement or really soft background.

The good thing about Canon Cine comes to the 300 Degree focus ring which helps a lot in such a complicated shots (like 10-15 focus shift in one shot while dolly back and forth and do a 360 camera turn) Even that (with F3.5), My Focus puller cursed a lot (in Thai) !!

For those who look for a cheaper alternative to Canon, I would suggest you to get Samyang (Rokinon) as it has a full range of lens (with 50mm coming up soon). For my point of view, Canon Cine Prime are mostly for rental companies to own and rent it out (in cheaper price than Ultra Prime/ Cooke i5 or Master Prime) and still give a good optical quality for lower budget type of film.

this should help answering all the question about lenses.

For 5D Mark III with magic lantern. How we lit the scene is that we trying best to lit it in the camera's histogram range. Most of the people I knew of normally didn't do a proper testing to see how far the camera can go in terms of dynamic range and color the sensor can recorded. Everything you see in the frame is designed to take the full advantage of the camera CMOS sensor (blood color, skin mock up, on set smoke to tame the contrast down and bring the dark part up and at the same time lower the highlight down, cloth and set color etc etc.)

Most of the DPs wouldn't go that far to workout with the rest of the crew to bring the best out of camera and therefore don't get what they deserved to after long hard working day shooting it.

and last the Post-Production Workflow. We work on CinemaDNG all the way from the onset DIT to the lab. Using MLRawviewer to check each and every footage after we change the CF card (Sandisk Extreme Pro 128GB, we have 2 of them). Then break the MLV down into CinemaDNG and send it to Davinci at the lab (which required a fast set hardware to work on it at 2K DCI)

We did tried blow it up to 4K and the result is stunning as it still contain all the sharpness. I asked some dude from Canon Thailand to come and see this footage (in 4K) at the lab on the big screen and they were stun of how there little old camera are capable of. I'm pretty happy with the result though (as long as you put a lot of hard work in it to make sure you squeezed every bit of their capabilities out of the camera)

Oh .... we shot our film in Thailand .... it's pretty humid and it's 37-42 degree Celsius most of the time. The camera got heated up to the point that we were worry that we might cooked it for our next meal break, but it didn't get any damage though.


Hope all this information help : )



 

 

 

 
 
Hopefully I can post more of the stuff soon. Still 2 more days to go til I finish the film. After the lab work, I'll probably come up with the trailer that I can post once more to see the end result.

Génial! It's so obvious but I had no idea light could roll off that gradually.

Merci beaucoup.

in the full body shots the background is so even because it has been extended in post see form this raw grab:
 

 
All other shots the backgrounds are real, a big soft light from above lit it evenly.
 
If you want an even lit background you can start by placing your light as further away from it as possible.
The closer you get the more you will see the gradation in the light fall off and you will create a visible gradient.
 
Found this image that demonstrates it clearly:
 

 
as you can see the light intensity changes rapidly between the 22 and 5.6 mark, so you will see a gradient.
If you place it further away, starting at the 5.6 mark and around the 4 mark you will have less of a gradient (although you will have a 1 stop difference as demonstrated in the pic)

I watched 5D3 RAW upscaled to 4K vs. ARRI Alexa, Red Dragon 6K, GH4 4K, and Canon 1DC 4K, on a ~20' screen with a Christie 4K projector (Hot Rod Cameras GH4 event at Blacklist Studios in Hollywood): 5D3 RAW looked excellent. The other cameras were sharper, however the 5D3 RAW could easily be cut between them.
 
I recently picked up the GH4 and it compares very well to 5D3 RAW and provides even better resolution than the Sony FS700 (haven't compared slomo resolution yet), which provides higher resolution than 5D3 RAW. The GH4 is more detailed, however the 5D3 14-bit RAW color is comparatively amazing, especially if processed in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR). If you're shooting for the big screen, the extra work for 5D3 RAW will be worth it. It is the best value for getting Alexa-like imagery for low cost. You already have a 5D3, it's just the time to download and install ML to test for yourself. The GH4 will require really fast lenses to get the same FOV and DOF vs. the 5D3 (I picked up the Voigtlander 25mm F.95 to get the 50mm F1.9 5D3 equivalent. They also make a 35 and 85mm F1.9 full frame equivalent (17.5 and 42.5mm F.95): each are >$1k and full manual (not a big deal for video).
 
Upscaled 5D3 2K to 4K won't look any different than 2K 5D3 RAW projected/shown at 2K. Thus GH4 4K will always be sharper and more detailed. However, the color processing capabilities of 5D3 14-bit RAW are far beyond what is possible with the GH4 4K. The GH4 4K can produce amazing footage straight from camera with little or no post-processing, which saves (a lot of) time and disk space vs. RAW.
 
If you want to get the most color and detail from 5D3 RAW, use Adobe ACR. Resolve is a close second and if using sharp lenses and shooting outdoors, the results are very impressive:

I've been out in Dubai for commercial work, and in my spare time I used the 5dmkIII + raw to shoot a travelogue.  Tried to capture some of the lesser-known parts of Dubai and the surrounding region.  Enjoy!
 

my favorite camera is THE ARRI LT..
 
but for (video) digital work ..red one mx is a beast…and (5dm3 nice with raw)  

The colors are mindblowing...I miss my Red One!

You're definitely on the right track, now. When you say the "crop sensor without speedbooster receives less total light as the full frame sensor", you are correct in that the area of light that falls outside the sensor is cut off. Technically, that is light that wasn't received. But the confusion here comes from the idea that this somehow effects the part of the image that IS being exposed in the middle. 
In the original diagram, those two beams of light that hit the full frame and crop are the same intensity. Those pixels will be exposed the same amount, assuming the sensor tech are similar enough. It just won't see what is beyond the borders of the frame, as it is cropped out. 
 
The ISO and Aperture did not change. The entire image got cropped instead. 
 
But, the focal reducer condenses the light into a smaller point, thus making it more dense and intensifying it. Here's a diagram I threw together:


Note that as the beams spread out away from the lens, they get larger and less intense because the photons scatter. And in the second example, the resulting image is just a cut out of the full frame one above it. The intensity of light that is hitting the sensor in the middle is the same intensity of light that is hitting the middle of the full frame one. The exposure is the same, the FOV is same, but now we are only seeing part of the image as the rest was discarded outside the viewable area.

The problem is, if I want to see the entire subject (a camera in this case), I need to back up now. And by backing up, I am changing the distance between me and the subject, which changes the DOF calculation as well. But it has not changed the aperture of the lens, it has only changed how I might intend to use it. The DOF caculation is the same math as it always was (aperture size and distance to subject = DOF), saying that the aperture has now changed will really mess with the calculation of DOF as well as exposure. It is wrong IMO to say that. If someone bought a crop sensor and wondered why their DOF appears to be different, they never really understood DOF in the first place.
 
But note the bottom example, the focal reducer aims the beams of light together towards a smaller point of light. As they do that, they are less scattered and more dense, and thereby more intense. The resulting image that hits those photosites is therefore brighter as a result. The resulting image is therefore the same framing and DOF as the original on a full frame, however now it has the added side effect of being at least a stop brighter as well!
 
To all those saying the math in the video appears to be correct:
It may appear to have worked in his example, but its like saying that 2 * 2 = 4, therefore * means addition. Yes, in that case, the answer is correct (2+2=4), but not for the correct reasons. When you try to apply the same math to 3 * 3, your answer won't be what you expected it to be (according to the incorrect assumption, you might say 3 * 3 = 6, however those that understand that * really means multiplication will be expecting the correct answer of 9). His math may appear to work, but his explanation is patently wrong for it!

I do not see how it is possible for a full frame lens to provide the same amount of light to a crop sensor as it would to a full frame.
Unless you are using a speedbooster.
 
Now we are talking amount of light only, not sensor sensitivity.
 
Saying a f4 full frame lens becomes an f2.8 with speedbooster on a crop sensor is in my opinion false.
 
We all know for fact that speedboosters increase the amount of light on the sensor.
 
But how?
 
I say : you lose light on crop sensors to begin with and speedbooster makes up for the loss by focusing the lost light back on the crop sensor.
 
 f4 full frame = f4 on crop with speedbooter
 
You say : there is no loss to begin with, and speedbooster increase the light on the sensor compared to full frame.
 
f4 full frame = f2.8 on crop. I don't see how that works, please demonstrate via graphic how that works
 
This is how I understand it, please do correct this if it is wrong:
 

 
 
 
 
 

I disagree and I believe it to be true, this is what I mean visually by what I said, there is the same amount of light let through by the lens on all 3 examples:
 
now if I am still wrong then I have completely misunderstood speedboosters from the start.
 
let me know

* edited upon request:
 
This video has led to a debate between members questioning the accuracy and validity of the claims made in this video.
It has been reviewed as incorrect and confusing so be aware of that before watching.
 

Hello everyone,
 
Here is my latest video work, an ad I shot with the red one mx:
 

 
hope you like it, let me know what you think
 
I also started a facebook page for my photo/video works: http://www.fb.com/karimnassarofficial
 
If you follow me there please pm me with your page so I can follow you back!
 
looking forward to hearing your thoughts

Galaxy S5 phone. 

the issue causing confusing with relation to dof and fov with different sized sensors is that people make the assumption that a bigger sensor gives you shallower depth of field.  This is actually incorrect.  The depth of field of a lens never changes with sensor size, but rather the field of view changes with the depth of field remaining the same.  
 
The effect is a wider field of view with the same depth of field.  As a result, on a bigger sensor you can use a longer lens and get the same fov, and thus create shallower dof for the given same field of view.
 
 
rather than removing crop factor, the focal reducer is simply changing a lens for a bigger format into a lens for a smaller one.  
 
on a typical speed booster of 0.7x your 50mm f1.4 full frame lens turns into a 35mm f1.2 apsc lens.
on this 'special' m4/3 focal reducer it'll change your 50mm f1.4 lens into around a 28mm f0.95 m4/3 lens 

this thread was a very interesting read, thanks to all who participated to the discussion

this thread was a very interesting read, thanks to all who participated to the discussion

I hightly recomend the SIGMA 30MM f1.4 it is insanely sharp , superb bokeh
I use this lens alot , it is a fantastic work horse lens
and cheap on ebay
 
 
BTW Sigma make some stunning lenses do not be put off , I have alot of Sigmas and they are just as good as Canon
no issues there

boils down to 2 choices imo
 
- want cinema housing on your lens, better suited for video, at the expense of losing autofocus for photography : samyang 35mm cine lens
 
- want excellent price/performance, no cinema housing, with autofocus for your canon camera when taking pictures: sigma 35mm 1.4