Jump to content

tupp

Members
  • Content Count

    959
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tupp

  1. LOL! Well, I think that some of the images that I linked were actually shot on Ektachrome and Kodacolor, but I mostly gave Kodachrome examples, as it is the "extreme" of the color emulsions. Also, I said early in the thread that color depth was probably the key variable for digital "thickness," so I agree that "dense" digital images can be (and have been) achieved with digital cameras. Both trailers look good, but the Red footage looks thin/brittle compared to that of the Alexa footage. Of course, much of these looks could result from the grade.
  2. Yes. Anything that narrows the field of view increases "telephoto" compression. So, cropping into a frame increases telephoto compression.
  3. Ha, ha! Great performances! What is the "12-step program" for B-roll addicts?
  4. If the goal is to convert batches of images from raw to jpeg, there are many free, open-source apps that do so. Darktable, RawTherapee and and Photivo are powerful raw image developing applications. Digikam is a less powerful photo management program, but it can do batch conversions. ImageMagick batch converts raw to jpeg. It has a GUI, but most use it on the command line for speed. If you are not trying to do anything fancy in your batch conversions, a simple ImageMagick terminal command is probably the quickest and easiest way to go.
  5. It doesn't look "thicker" to me -- just wetter, causing different colors and, in this case, more contrast. If you shot either scene (dry or wet) on Kodachrome, it would look significantly thicker. Also, the difference in the pattern of dappled light skews the comparison. One can't help but wonder how this test would appear with an overcast sky. That's some exceedingly coarse grain in the images of those charts. Huge grain like that significantly reduces color depth, which affects the look of the charts and throws-off the comparison a little.
  6. Yes, but it is less light on a proportionally smaller area. So, cropping-in on an image circle doesn't change the exposure.
  7. Although we disagree on the "less than 8-bit" images, I have been waiting for someone to mention that we are viewing film emulsion images through 8-bit files. To the eye, the color depth of Kodachrome is considerably more vast than what is shown in these 8-bit images. Kodachrome was one of the rare film processes that added dye to the emulsion during processing, which gave it such deep colors (and which is also more archival). Some of that splendor is captured in these 8-bit scans, so, theoretically, there should be a way to duplicate those captured colors shooting digitally and
  8. To me, the "thickness" of a film image is revealed by a rich, complex color(s). That color is not necessarily saturated nor dark. That "thickness" of film emulsion has nothing to do with lighting nor with what is showing in the image. Certainly, for the thickness to be revealed, there has to be some object in the frame that reflects a complex color. An image of a white wall will not fully utilize the color depth of an imaging system. However, a small, single color swatch within a mostly neutral image can certainly demonstrate "thickness." I don't think that's how
  9. Of course, a lot of home weren't properly exposed and showed scenes with huge contrast range that the emulsion couldn't handle. However, I did find some examples that have decent exposure and aren't too faded. Here's one from the 1940's showing showing a fairly deep blue, red and yellow, and then showing a rich color on a car. Thick greens here, and later a brief moment showing solid reds, and some rich cyan and indigo. Unfortunately, someone added a fake gate with a big hair. A lot of contrast in these shots, but the substantial warm greens and warm skin
  10. Well, when I listed the film "thickness" property of "lower saturation in the brighter areas," naturally, that means that the lower values have more saturation. I think that one of those linked articles mentioned the tendency that film emulsions generally have more saturation at and below middle values. Thanks for posting the comparisons! Then what explains the strong "thickness" of terribly framed and badly lit home movies that were shot on Kodachrome 64? Unfortunately, @kye's images are significantly flawed, and they
  11. Thank you for posting these Trueclor tests, but these images are not relevant to the fact that the "4.5-bit" image that you posted earlier is flawed and is in no way conclusive proof that "4.5-bit" images can closely approximate 8-bit images. On the other hand, after examining your 2-bit Truecolor test, it indicates that there is a problem in your rounding code and/or your imaging pipeline. 2-bit RGB can produce 64 colors, including black, white and two evenly spaced neutral grays. There seem to be significantly fewer than 64 colors. Furthermore, some of the adjacent
  12. Not all additive color mixing works the same. Likewise, not all subtractive color mixing works the same. However, you might be correct generally in regards to film vs. digital. One has to allow for the boosted levels in each emulsion layer that counter the subtractive effects. I don't think the scopes are mistaken, but your single trace histogram makes it difficult to discern what exactly is happening (although close examination of your histogram reveals a lot of pixels where they shouldn't be) . It's best to use a histogram with a colu
  13. From the first linked article: So, the first linked article echoed what I said (except I left out that the print itself is also "subtractive" when projected). Is that except from the article (and what I said) what you mean when you refer to "additive" and "subtractive" color? Also from the first linked article: I'm not so sure about this. I think that this notion could contribute to the film look, but a lot of other things go into that look, such as progressive scan, no rolling shutter, grain actually forming the image, color depth, compressed hi
  14. I am not sure what you mean. Are you referring to the concept color emulsion layers subtracting from each other during the printing stage while a digital monitor "adds" adjacent pixels? Keep in mind that there is nothing inherently "subtractive" with "subtractive colors." Likewise, there is nothing inherently "additive" with "additive colors." Please explain what you mean. Yes, but the histograms are not drawing the expected lines for the "4.5-bit" image nor for the "5-bit" image. Those images are full 8-bit images. On the
  15. If you are referring to "additive" and "subtractive" colors in the typical imaging sense, I don't think that it applies here. There are many different types of dithering. "Noise" dithering (or "random" dithering) is probably the worst type. One would think that a grain overlay that yields dithering would be random, but I am not sure that is what your grain filter is actually doing. Regardless, the introducing the variable of grain/dithering is unnecessary for the comparison, and, likely, it is what skewed the results. Small film formats
  16. I think that the "thickness" comes primarily from emulsion's color depth and partially from the highlight compression that you mentioned in another thread, from the forgiving latitude of negative film and from film's texture (grain). Keep in mind that overlaying "grain" screen on a digital image is not the same as the grain that is integral to forming an image on film emulsion. Grain actually provides the detail and contrast and much of the color depth of an film image. Home movies shot on Super8 film often have "thick" looking images, if they haven't faded.
  17. Most of us who shot film were working with a capture range of 7 1/2 to 8 stops, and that range was for normal stock with normal processing. If one "pulls" the processing (underdevelops) and overexposes the film, a significantly wider range of tones can be captured. Overexposing and under-developing also reduces grain and decreases color saturation. This practice was more common in still photography than in filmmaking, because a lot of light was already needed to just to properly expose normal film stocks. Conversely, if one "pushes" the processing (overdevelops) whil
  18. I have watched some things captured on 16mm film, and I have shot one or two projects with the Eclair NPR. Additionally, I own an EOSM. The reasons why the EOSM is comparable to the NPR is because: some of the ML crop modes for the EOSM allow the use of 16mm and S16 optics; the ML crop modes enable raw recording at a higher resolution and higher bit-depth. By the way, there have been a few relevant threads on the EOSM. Here is thread based on an EOSHD article about shooting 5k raw on the EOSM using one of the 16mm crop modes.
  19. The name of this S16 digital camera is the Ikonoskop A-cam dII. Of course the BMPCC and the BMMCC would also be comparable to the NPR. Well, since the NPR is a film camera, of course one had to be way more deliberate and prepared compared to today's digital cameras. If you had already loaded a film stock with the appropriate ISO and color temperature and if you had already taken your light meter readings and set your aperture, then you could start manually focusing and shooting. Like many 16mm and S16 cameras of it's size , the NPR could not shoot more than
  20. I shot with the NPR, and I would say that the EOSM with an ML crop mode and/or the Digital Bolex would be the obvious cameras to compare. I think Aaton (begot from Eclair) had a S16 digital camera worth comparing, and there is also that shoulder mount digital camera with the ergonomic thumb hold of which I can never remember the name.
  21. Most of the results of your Google search echo the common misconception that bit depth is color depth, but resolutions' effect on color depth is easily demonstrated (I have already given one example above).
  22. Nope. That is the basic equation for digital color depth.
  23. Yeah. All of those photos by Richard Avedon, Irving Penn and Victor Skrebneskiphotos were terrible! "Color sensitivity" applied to digital imaging just sounds like a misnomer for bit depth. Bit depth is not color depth I have heard "color sensitivity" used in regards to human vision and perception, but I have never heard that term used in imaging. After a quick scan of DXO's explanation, it seems that they have factored-in noise -- apparently, they are using the term "color sensitivity" as a term for the number of bit depth increments that live above
  24. As others have suggested, the term "density" has a specific meaning in regards to film emulsions. I think that the property of "thickness" that you seek is mostly derived from color depth (not bit depth). Color depth in digital imaging is a product of resolution and bit depth (COLOR DEPTH = RESOLUTION x BIT DEPTH). The fact that resolution affects color depth in digital images becomes apparent when one considers chroma subsampling. Chroma subsampling (4:2:2, 4:2:0, etc.) reduces the color resolution and makes the images look "thinner" and "brittle," as you described.
  25. No need for ignorant bigotry. The notion that camera people got work in the 1980s by owning cameras couldn't be further from the truth. "Hiring for gear" didn't happen in a big way until digital cameras appeared, especially the over-hyped ones -- a lot of newbie kids got work from owning an early RED or Alexa. To this day, clueless producers still demand RED. Back in 1980's (and prior), the camera gear was almost always rented if it was a 16mm or 35mm shoot. Sure, there were a few who owned a Bolex or a CP-16 or 16S, or even an NPR with decent glass, but it was not c
×
×
  • Create New...