Michael1

I didn't think I had to be this explicit when I said, "When was the last time you saw...", but I was wrong.  The point is "rarity", not the ability to search Google. 

And again I was wrong thinking I could have a discussion on skin tones on a film site discussion on grading, without some idiot pulling out the race card.  That's really unbelievable.  I actually have to laugh at that, it's so absurd.

Yeah. The original one doesnt have a flash or a reflector attached to her face.

 

She is from Bahia, and she got famous because she had a peculiar exotic look, and that includes her "jambo" skin tone.

 

Are you defending your thesis that people with blue eyes can only have fair skin? Are you a racist or something? Or are you just VERY ignorant? Maybe a member of the SS?

 

And please, dont even bother to answer that. Lets not fill this topic with a horrible discussion like that.

 

And let me apologize, IN YOUR NAME, to those people that have darker skin tones and blue eyes.

This must be a different Adriana Lima.

Yes on the dynamic range.  I'll add to this. 

*  Blurry as hell in low light.

*  Reverts to B/W in low light.

*  Image shadowed with backlighting.

*  Bad color temperature, especially indoors.

Example camcorder video, and, no, its NOT mine.

Get this girl out of the tanning bed before you kill her!  :)  When have you guys ever seen a girl with light blue eyes with anything other than fair skin?

Michael

The camera manufacturers have tried to move Heaven and Earth to get full-frame image quality out of APS-C and MFT sensors.  They haven't been able to do it.  The difference isn't just in people's "heads"  That's why Sony came out with full-frame mirrorless.  Of course, full-frame has its own drawbacks (large mirrors, lenses and the difficulty of creating a video frame from spread out pixels).  Anyway, when I compared my NIkon d600 vs a Panny G5, like you, I found the colors more real from the full-frame sensor, but "cleaner", due to the closeness of the pixels from the G5.  Of course, shallow DOF is better with larger sensors too.

 

 

I agree.  You can't change physics.  There are more full frame DSLR/mirrorless cameras than ever.  Sony even has a full frame camcorder now.

Michael

I understand where Andrew was coming from, although his "DSLR Dead" points probably should have been in a different blog post.  The D5300 camera is more capable than many for video.  It has a nice image.  It's just a bit clumsy for controls, and is stuck with low data rates.  Nikon and the other camera manufacturers, like many big companies, are slow respond to changing trends.  Cell phone cameras are killing the P&S market, AND the camcorder market.  People want both stills and video in one camera, because they have seen it can be done on a cell phone.  If they spend the money for a separate camera and another item to carry around, they want superior quality and functionality for both stills and video, not just stills.  Other than Panasonic, the camera companies for the most part are still are stuck on stills, and dragging their feet on video, meaning they are 5 years behind the times.  That's an eternity when it comes to technology now.  Entire markets dry up in that amount of time.

I think the amazing thing is, you can get this same video quality in the D3300, which is priced at $650 complete with kit lens!  Can you imagine shooting a film with a $650 camera, and actually having it look good?

Michael

I suggest you check out the video examples at filmconvert.com. That should give you an idea of the power of post processing. I can certainly agree that  you may find a camera that has better "out of the box" presets, or that can possibly be tweaked better in camera to suit your idea, than others. It certainly helps with minimizing work if you find something  you can use as is - hopefully not at the cost of other useful video features though.

Thanks!  I took a look at it.  I thought the techniques they were using were educational.

Michael

*  Non-blown out highlights

*  Good shadow detail

*  Low frame rates

*  Scenes with low depth of field

*  Colors not oversaturated, and corrected to colors reproducible with film

*  Smooth gamma

*  Smooth camera motion

*  Good focus without mid-shot focus adjustments

*  Less obvious - picture grain

*  Images without over-sharpening

*  Wide shots without excessive lens distortion

*  Low on the "spoilers" such as moirés and aliasing

There is certainly subtlety to all this, though, and it has been an interest of mine why some digital cameras subjectively do better at the film look than others out of the box.

Having said this, I think 4K video may change the public's perception of what looks good.  They may see very sharp 4K footage as preferable over the somewhat softer "filmic look" shown today.  They may also like somewhat more saturated colors over time.

I was in a TV store recently with two identical model TVs, one over the other on the wall, and a woman pointed to one of the TVs, and said, "What's wrong with that one?".  The salesman replied, "It was calibrated."

Michael

I can see getting from 4K 4:2:0 to 1080 4:4:4, but I don't see how it can get from 8 bit to 10 bit without interpolation, which will introduce noise.

Michael

Hi, I'm not really going to defend Nikon on the way they design the D5300, yes controls are real shit.

 

But over all I'm going to point out that image quality is really nice and you can shot a feature with it if you want to. SHIT I'M SHOOTING MY LAST FILM ON  A D7100 AND D5200!!!

 

Here I share a TEASER of it (IM SORRY IT STILL DON'T HAVE ENGLISH SUBS), its still private, the password is: teaser.

 

Enjoy  ;)

Wow!  Nice job.  This was all done on a D7100 and a D5200?

Michael

I think that the main problem is the way that the "pros" grade the footage. They always grade the videos with a soft look, a lot of glow and washed out colors. It looks like they like to recreate that old damaged-film look.

 

I dont know, maybe thats because im young, but I dont like things that look old. Whats the point of buying a high end camera if all of your videos will look like that? I understand doing that once in a while, to create a "look", but every time? And when you are "reviewing" a camera, you need to show its potential, and the videos posted by those guys are not the best way to do that.

 

Here is an example. This first image was graded by James Miller. Most people wouldnt buy a camera that creates that kind of look.

 

 

And here is the same video graded by me. Why cant they post videos with natural looking colors and sharp details?

 

I don't think this is a great example of what the video should look like.  She looks like she has a spray on tan, and a bad dye job.

I know what you are trying to get at with the dingy colors these days, but this goes a bit too far.

Michael

Video Review: Blackmagic Production Camera 4K vs. $12,000 Canon 1DC

First tests on vimeo.Low light performance rather dissappointing

 

>

 

Why don't you post a question about his complete settings (framerate, shutter-speed, manual focus or auto (guessing manual unless af on that camera is really slow/set to a slow setting), wb, auto exposure or not, lens(es) used, and how he graded it afterwards.

 

I don't see anything that can't be accomplished on any dslr/mirrorless that has decent video-features.

These are all good questions.  I don't have a Vimeo account, but maybe I should open one.

I have a feeling there is more to this than specifications and settings.  I'm thinking along the lines of the transfer function from light to codec.  I suspect some cameras mimic film more than others due the sensor's response, and what happens in the data pipe, just as some cameras have greats specs but really don't look great subjectively.  There is some art to camera design still.

Michael

Loosely related to this topic, Dave Etchells of Imaging Resource had an interview with Yamamoto-san of Nikon. 

 

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/02/14/nikon-qa-head-of-development-sees-interchangeable-lens-slowdown-as-an-aberr

 

Partially rather usual and predictable, but there were a couple of interesting little tidbits in there, too. It's a long-ish interview, and the video talks are in the middle part. They talk about the 5300, the 1 series and a little bit of 4K, too.

It seemed like the interviewer was steering the conversation when the subject of 4K came up.  Both parties reinforced each other that 4K will be too expensive for consumers.  Neither apparently have been keeping up with 4K TV prices.  4K TVs are just out of the blocks, and the prices are dropping like a rock.  Vizio just announced their 70" 4K TV at CES for under $2700 (not much more than the HD unit was selling for a year ago), and a 4K 50" for under $1000.  The slowest piece of the 4K puzzle will be broadcast.  Online distribution is already here, though.

They are also missing the fact that HD content is usually below HD standards for resolution, unless you are viewing Blu-ray.  Most HD cameras don't even put out full HD.  4K content may not end up being 4K either, but it will be far and above HD, so even viewers with HD TV will finally get what they paid for.

The camera companies have not transitioned into technology companies.  That's what killed Kodak.

Michael

I was searching the internet for hand held footage for the D600, because I wanted to see how well the image stabilization worked.  I came across this video done by an amateur, hand held, no scene setup, and no special lighting at all, yet I was surprised how film like much of it looked.

Andrew, totally agree, the D600 has a lot going against it compared to the GH3, and I've seen the faults, moire, aliasing, etc.  I guess I just love the large sensor look and nice optics, and associate it with the filmic look.  The D600 also seems to do well with shadows.

Now if we can only talk Panasonic into doing a full frame sensor camera, or Nikon do "a Panasonic" on their FF line... :)

I'm an amateur on the market for a new camera for shooting videos (and preferably some stills with the same camera).  I've looked at a lot of online sample videos from various cameras, especially the Panasonic GH3 and Nikon D600.  One thing I have noticed is some camera models seem to have more videos with a distinct "film look".  Some people here call it "organic" (vs. camcorder look).  I've tried to mentally isolate what might create the film look, but I am coming up short.  Perhaps it is a combination of factors, such as limited depth of field, high dynamic range, a degree of softness, and maybe even the characteristic of the noise.  I'm just not sure.

My left brain says Andrew rates the GH3 as a much better video camera (and he mentions a lot of good reasons), but, damn, my right brain loves the film look that people seem to so easily get out of the "lesser" Nikon D600/610 (and is starting to override my left brain).

Can anyone shed some light what creates a "film look" with video, and why some cameras seem better at this than others?

Michael