Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About maxotics

  • Rank
    Gadget Inventor

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Cambridge, MA
  • Interests
    Anything photo and film.

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Recent Profile Visitors

5,221 profile views
  1. From the Sony technical document you claim there is "no mention of pushing and pulling": 3.1 Changing the Sensitivity (Push Process / Pull Process) The most common method is to adjust the MASTER GAIN of the camera as shown in Table 4. The image contrast that appears on camera viewfinders and the on-set displays will remain consistent, hence it is easier to monitor 3.1.2 Push Process Increasing camera gain will improve camera sensitivity but will increase the camera noise floor. When extra dynamic range is required, the exposure value should be defined according to the light meter rea
  2. maxotics

    NX2 rumors

    Maybe all of us who have SOMEHOW lived without a talking refrigerator will now be rewarded I strongly predicted that Samsung would not give up on their cameras. I was wrong, but not completely wrong because they still sell them. And we must keep that in mind. It's still speculation what's going on with their R&D and factory. If Samsung is listening to all the passion for HDR around here,@jonpais I'm talking to you then NX2 is on the way! 6K would greatly improve color texture in 4K HDR!
  3. The dynamic range may be more perceptible but that doesn't mean it gives a higher quality to the filmmaker than the gain in color information, no matter how small. You accept that the trade-off exists above, and then try to argue with me again. I don't get it. It's always up to the filmmaker's subjective decision. I've said that from day one and will keep saying it. I only start arguing again when one say the trade-off doesn't exist. Again, don't know why we're arguing? Small, big, up to the filmmaker. As for @HockeyFan12 second article which is from the beginning of Sony's S-LOG d
  4. Thanks, I think you've finally give me the information for my report, when I finish it! THANKS!!!! LOG makes sense for a 16-bit linear scan in old scanners because the data DOES need to be in a LOG scale to work with displays. That makes total sense to me. However, I believe some people assume that the camera manufacturer don't already pick data into a LOG distribution for cameras. That is, they believe there LOG gives a trick to give more DR that the camera manufacturers didn't "notice" until they put LOG gammas into their shooting profiles. I believe that is totally false. Needed g
  5. Yes, it's better in "10-bit" because it's shooting chroma sampling 422, but calling it "10-bit" well, I'll leave that alone . I don't dispute that I'd rather grade 422 than 420. What I question is whether the 10-bit from the GH5 is the same as the 10-bit ProRes from the BMPCC as @Damphousse Anyway, like you, I don't have any real problems with 8-bit. Will the C-LOG from my Canon C100 look better on an HDR TV--most likely! But there are other reasons for that than dynamic range. The whole 15-stops of DR in 8-bit claims are beyond ignorant to me, but again, I'll say no more. The C100 gives
  6. I'm not going to go that far, Mark. What I said about the limitations of HDR I still believe true. If you believe I have given incorrect information please post it right here. Please quote me verbatim and give technical proof of any technical inaccuracy I have given. I have given technical data above, to show the difficulties inherent in providing increased dynamic range. I am the closest person here to a real engineer as I have worked with RAW data on a very low level. For example, when you tell me you can understand this then let's talk https://bitbucket.org/maxotics/focuspixelfixer/sr
  7. I never said it wouldn't be more pleasing to me. I said I was doubtful it would solve the DR problem inherent in 8-bit equipment. It can be better for a lot of other reasons having nothing to do with DR! I've said this a lot but feel my statements have been taken out of context. If I could do it all over again I wouldn't have said or speculated about anything HDR since it just wasn't appropriate because some people are just getting into HDR and it dilutes the worth of what they're doing (which is the last thing I want to do). For that, I am sorry.
  8. You guys are killing me! You know, I want to be as liked as the next guy. When I first started this stuff years ago I got into a huge fight with someone on the Magic Lantern forum. I insisted each pixel captures a full color. I went on and on and on. Much like you guys are doing to me. I feel shame just thinking about it. In the end, I learned 2 things 1) What a CFA is and what de-mosaicing does and 2) Always consider the possibility I might be not just wrong, but horrendously, embarrassingly wrong. It's what we do after learning our errors that define us (hint, hint @IronFilm). Anyway
  9. Yes, it is. The question is how 10-bits are measured. In RAW, 10-bits would mean 1,024 values of each R,G,B value. That is certain more dynamic range than storing 256 values (8-bit). If we're talking about 10-bit, in the first sense, we need 1,024 x 1,024 x 1,024 = 1,073,741,825 full-color values. What amount of memory do you need to store a pixel's color in that range? I'm attaching a table of data that I suggest studying and thinking about. The truth is, 10-bit is not 10-bit the way you (and I) would like to think about it. The extra 2-bits goes into reducing chroma-subsampling
  10. Sorry, I'm just frustrated. I believe you get everything I'm saying. My guess is you have a reverse blind-spot to Jon. Sorry! You obviously shoot with high-end equipment, so your cameras have fat-pixel sensors and powerful electronics. LOG IS useful to you. But I believe sometimes when you think about LOG you forget that you're thinking about LOG in high-bit depth or cinema-sensor contexts. Many people on this forum have never shot RAW or high bit-depth cameras. All they know/have, is 8-bit. That's always what I'm focused on. Anyway, THANK YOU SO MUCH for your observations. I haven'
  11. Yes! Because c-log has been tuned to give the most amount in increase DR "look" without super-compromising color. It's a beautiful look, but it's also a sensor made for video. Anyway, I shoot LOG, never said anyone shouldn't. All that said, c-log isn't my first choice.
  12. Oh, I could pull my hair out! Those Alexa files (HD) are at around 42 MBS/sec, in other words, pretty close to what you need for a BMPCC or ML RAW. 4K it would be 4x that amount. 10-bit isn't the same for all cameras. That is 10-bit on an Alex isn't the same as 10-bit on a GH5 because the former is, in the case above, doing 444 which is essentially full-color compressed RAW (no chroma-subsampling). It's not a "tiny fraction of the size" in my book. It's more like half the size of RAW, which, don't get me wrong, is nice! No matter how many ways or times I try, some people don't want to r
  13. HDR is a scheme to sell more television sets. They are not artists living off free-love. How much the technology can/will HDR deliver is the question. I NEVER said manufacturers were lying about depth. Please, if you going to put words in my mouth please quote me. I thought I answered all your questions. I don't know exactly what the eye can take in. I only explained my experience. You said it looks fantastic. I said, 'great, I look forward to it'. Yes, you can't see the difference between TRUE 8-bit and 10-bit image data, but that was NOT what we were talking about. We're talking
  14. Am I speaking English? I don't disapprove of HDR or LOG or anything. I only DISAGREE with claims made that LOG can fit more DR range into a fixed data-depth without, essentially, overwriting data. And I'm not making a judgment on you, or anyone else, who believes they can grade 10-bit footage better than 8-bit. This stuff is esoteric and, in the scheme of things, completely pointless. One shoots with what they can afford. Even if I approved, who gives a sh_t? I've gone to great pains to figure some of this arcane stuff out. If you say, I don't care what you say Max, I love my image.
  15. 98% false. You might be enjoying a placebo effect. But I'm not going to beat a dead horse here. In order to display a continuous color gradient, say, each bit must contain a color that will blend in with the next color. If it doesn't we notice banding. I'm just using banding because it is the easiest way to visualize when the bit-depth is great enough to spread a color out evenly through the data space. So let's assume that we never see banding in 5 stops of DR with 256 shades of red (8-bit). If we reduce it to 200 shades, we notice banding (and if we increase it to 512 we don't n
  • Create New...