Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sudopera

  1. Excellent two videos from cinematographer Steve Yedlin via the link below, where he tries to make a point that quality of pixels in a camera is far more important for the perceived cinematic experience than the race in quantity, now that most high end cameras in his opinion already surpassed the resolution threshold required for image with good clarity and perceived sharpness.
    In the first video he shows the same scenes shot with 6 different cameras (2 analogue) and all of the footage is graded and matched in post. He doesn't reveal what camera was used for particular shot just to prove his point. Second video shows post production.

    This is quite relevant for this topic so just wanted to share.


  2. 3 hours ago, Hans Punk said:

    Shooting 8k is not too much.

    8k and beyond has/will become more and more necessary for movies that involve heavy visual effects. Being able to work with high resolution plates that have the headroom to allow re-positions and the overall detail boost for blue/green screen work is a huge advantage. When 8k live action is inter-cut with CG characters, the 8k footage (often down-scaled considerably) now matches the resolved detail that CG characters and environments can have (because they do not have to be 'captured' photographically). Traditional techniques of lightly degrading/softening the CG image to match the live action plates is becoming less of a thing when shooting higher resolution 'cleaner' live action elements. 8k is also a no-brainier when it comes to being an attractive acquisition format for archive purposes, it will have a longer shelf life in regards to being compatible with ever-evolving displays and projection systems whenever the 'negative' needs to be revisited.

    All of the above has a recent real-world example....Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2

    Back in the day, Vista Vision format was often employed for effects shots that required optical compositing and many passes through the printer would cause generation loss. Once the larger format of Vista Vision optical composite was down-scaled and printed to 35mm, the grain was effectively reduced to a regular size (or smaller) and the generation loss of detail was no longer apparent since the reduction to 35mm was effectively returning full resolution to that smaller format. ILM were the most famous users of this technique and that is why they became the best in the business...providing the best quality optical composites for effects shots in films. 

    Although we no longer have optical compositing generation loss to deal with, shooting larger format at 8k+ still has many of the advantages that these old optical tricks gave. The effect of reduction/downscale alone to a lower resolution gives a massive improvement to perceived sharpness, as well as huge reduction in noise - since any noise artifacts are literally shrunk.

    I remember when people were asking if upgrading to HD cameras was overkill...how quickly we forget. 4K down-scaled for HD/2K delivery works great, since compression and noise artifacts from footage is visually reduced, So 8k down-scaled to 4/2k projection makes particular sense in this regard. Consumer 4k cameras often have so much in-camera compression applied to get to that resolution, that the image suffers until down-scaled to HD anyway, which is why a solid HD camera with good picture and colour, often trumps a 4k camera, in terms of delivering a pleasing image.

    So, shooting cat videos in 8k at home might be too much (unless it is really cute) , but there is an increasing need out there for 8 -16k cameras out there for film production that require visual effect integration...last time I checked, that accounts for most Hollywood releases for the past 25-30 years. 

    I agree that it has value as an acquisition format for big productions, especially because there are some hints that high end camera manufacturers are going "big sensors route" in the future (some are already there). My point was would it be good to finish / deliver in 8K to viewers because it seems like an overkill to my eyes.

    My concern regarding this matter is that manufacturers will very soon push 8K into smaller and cheaper cameras because of marketing and TV sales, and before you know it you will have to deliver a wedding video in 8K because it is such a catchy phraze that number with a "K".

    Now that we have great detail with 4K, I think there are more important ingredients to throw into new cameras.

    BTW, for the video above you couldn't put it better, I felt a "sensory overload" while watching it in 8K :dizzy:



  3. 4 minutes ago, Hanriverprod said:

    I think content like this to be displayed in the television section of the store is fine. What else am I suppose to get out of this besides the image itself?

    I didn't think about content in this video, but more generally how so much detail distracts me from paying attention to content. There is some beautiful scenery in this video but I couldn't watch it more than 30sec because it was simply too much detail for me, it strained my eyes.

  4. I bumped on this video below and just wanted to hear your opinions on the matter.

    Maybe my eyes are not used to this much detail but I don't like it, simply because it's hard to concentrate on content when I'm constantly bombarded with so much small detail that looks almost surreal.

    I really think that 4K-5K is the sweet spot and camera manufacturers should turn their attention to DR, high framerates, efficient codecs and color science, and stop the resolution wars.

    I know you can throw softening filters in the mix but what is the point then to use 8K in the first place.

    I'm not all against it because it will certainly have it's use for some scenarios, but I wouldn't like it to become a norm in the future.


  5. 13 minutes ago, jonpais said:

    It's not just personal preference. In the shots where the buildings and signs have highly saturated teal greens or other colors, I find myself looking at them instead of at the people. In the fire thrower shot, I find myself staring at the orange pipe in the street behind him rather than at the subject. And in the pictures of people crossing the bridge or whatever, instead of looking at the pedestrians, I'm staring at the over-manipulated clouds in the sky.

    Couldn't agree more... I don't think that T&O grading techniques are bad in general, but IMO the magic is in the subtlety, not like in this case where colors and saturation are all over the place.

  6. 4 minutes ago, hijodeibn said:

    I mean color and skintones, yes, Fuji is OK for me too, but i stay with Canon, FF over M43 any day of the week, just personal choice…..

    I get your point completely, I chose a few years ago to buy Nikon D750 instead of GH4 because DR and colors meant more to me than resolution, but I think as years go by competitors are simply offering much more in video features than Canon/Nikon in that lower price range.

  7. 3 minutes ago, hijodeibn said:

    if 5d IV get C-log and a better crop, even with the $500 update, I will be looking my wallet the next year waiting for a discount, extra many from heaven, whatever, to get one of this, and i am sure a lot of people will be doing the same…..

    Well, that was exactly my point, they are probably adding those features because of the pressure from competition, so they can attract some video guys to improve sales.

    Btw, that is your choice, but how many people are there like me who would rather buy 2 GH5s or 2 Fuji XTs for the price of one 5D

    19 minutes ago, hijodeibn said:

    Canon cameras have the best image

    You have to be a little more precise about this, because saying it like this in general, simply it is not true and it varies between different camera models. I believe you meant colors and that can be quite subjective, for my taste Fuji has even better colors and Nikon has very neutral and true to life colors, which I also like just for that.

  8. So potential 5D customers that are more interested in video now matter all of a sudden, maybe the sales are not going so good with the stills crowd.

    It seems to me that Canon relies to much on fanboyism, like old wars Canon vs Nikon, but in my opinion new generations have much less brand loyalty. For me, best example of this was NX1, yes maybe Samsung didn't sell enough units to stay in business, but just look how many forum members here own them and do some great work. All those guys weren't afraid to switch to a new player in camera business because they knew they are getting a very capable camera for a good price, and it can serve them well for a few more years without a problem.
    Now there is Fuji XT2 that shoots 4K video and probably has even better colors (IMO) than Canon straight out of camera, and with those great picture profiles you even have the option to create different moods in camera without much grading, for a fast turnaround. And also lets not forget best looking JPEG stills straight out of camera in the business.

    On the stills side of things, lets say I want to buy FF DSLR in that price range, why would I go for 5D IV, when there is Nikon D810 with still better DR, more than enough resolution and lower price point.

    Also, switching glass is easier than ever these days when you have all those Sigmas now that are even better in some cases than their Canikon counterparts, but are much more affordable.

    I really hope that they are feeling the breath of competitors down their neck, because who wouldn't go back to Canon if they do things right for us video guys in the future.

  9. 1 hour ago, BenEricson said:

    Looks nice, but his style of color grading makes almost every camera he tests look the same.

    I agree, his LUTs are quite stylized and a bit too much mostly for my taste but in this video it works well for me, especially the outdoor scenes.

  10. 3 hours ago, Inazuma said:

    Just had a quick go on some old footage

    Original (shot with Flat with minimum contrast)


    D7000 Flaat11 profile


    D750 Flat profile


    Difference is somewhat subtle as expected but definitely an improvement imo :)

    Yeah, skin tone slightly warmer and better looking, and the green color of the sleeve huge difference.

  11. 6 hours ago, theSUBVERSIVE said:

    No, I didn't forget and at the same time it's not like Panasonic rely on that for their income, even if their were late to fast SD Cards that's still not something that would take so long to solve or anything that would prevent them from adopting the 400Mbps codec, most certainly it's because they haven't finalized the codec yet.

    More importantly, it was said in a couple of GH5 interviews that Panasonic has announced V60 and V90 cards at CES 2017 already.

    I just think that this is a possibility because if I remember correctly, when GH4 came out they advertised beside it their new released SD cards as capable to capture 4K video, but they couldn't guarantee for other manufacturers cards, which happened to be a load of bullshit.

  12. On 1/13/2017 at 7:45 AM, theSUBVERSIVE said:

    Anyway, Black Magic Design is already using some UHS-II cards for their 4K recorder up to around 120MB/s, so indeed there are already cards that could sustain 400Mbps. Panasonic saying it's because there is no V60 cards is just BS, the truth is that THEY don't have the codec ready yet. And as I said, for some reason manufacturers haven't done the tests or I don't know why they don't label the V60 and V90 capable cards with it.

    You forget that Panny makes SD cards also, maybe they are waiting for the release of their new fast cards. I am not saying that this is the case but it is a possibility, especially if you look how they thrown their proprietary P2 cards into Varicam LT instead of widely accepted CFast 2.0.

  13. 16 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

    Yea, 99.9% sure I heard that 10bit 4:2:2 at 4k/60p is available with external.

    That would be great, 60p same quality as 24/25/30p. 8bit is very good but not that close in quality to 10bit, judging by Luke's footage.

  14. On 12/16/2016 at 5:30 PM, Andrew Reid said:

    Sigma have released a range of heavily breathing not quite par-focal cinema lenses.

    Matt Allard had both zooms professionaly tested, 18-35 breathing was minimal but 50-100 showed heavy breathing. For parfocal issue read below.


    Sigma have told us that because the optics for the cine zooms were originally designed for stills cameras, they were never designed to be completely parfocal. For them to be 100% parfocal would require a new optical design. No amount of subsequent tuning of the lens setup will magically make them 100% parfocal. Despite Sigmas claims I had both the 18-35mm T2 and 50-100mm T2 put on a collimator and independently evaluated to see if the lenses truly were parfocal. The lens technician examined both lenses thoroughly and concluded to me that in his professional opinion they were both parfocal. Sigma may well be using the statement “near parfocal” because scientifically it may not be 100% parfocal, but for all intents and purposes it is so close that even an experienced lens technician could not tell the difference – certainly on the copies that we evaluated.


  15. 11 minutes ago, jonpais said:

    I still think the colors are a bit too saturated, the blacks are crushed and the highlights are blown out

    Did you try Classic Chrome, from what I've seen it should be the least saturated/contrasty profile.

    Here is an example


  • Create New...