Jump to content

Sekhar

Members
  • Content Count

    389
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Sekhar got a reaction from maxotics in Web Delivery or: How I Hate YouTube   
    Vimeo is as bad or worse than YouTube in my experience, so I don't agree with the "you get what you pay for, and YouTube is worse than Vimeo because it is free and Vimeo is not." I have the PRO account on Vimeo, and EVERY ONE of the videos I uploaded to Vimeo turned out to be similar to or worse than on YouTube, so I just don't get what you guys are talking about. To be sure, there are other benefits (no ads, can replace video, have custom links, etc.), but WRT to picture quality I don't see any benefit.
    If you guys can show a single example of the exact SAME FILE uploaded to YouTube and Vimeo, with Vimeo generating better PQ, I'd love to see it.
  2. Like
    Sekhar got a reaction from KrisAK in Web Delivery or: How I Hate YouTube   
    Vimeo is as bad or worse than YouTube in my experience, so I don't agree with the "you get what you pay for, and YouTube is worse than Vimeo because it is free and Vimeo is not." I have the PRO account on Vimeo, and EVERY ONE of the videos I uploaded to Vimeo turned out to be similar to or worse than on YouTube, so I just don't get what you guys are talking about. To be sure, there are other benefits (no ads, can replace video, have custom links, etc.), but WRT to picture quality I don't see any benefit.
    If you guys can show a single example of the exact SAME FILE uploaded to YouTube and Vimeo, with Vimeo generating better PQ, I'd love to see it.
  3. Like
    Sekhar got a reaction from studiodc in What "style" of edit is this ?   
    Oh no, Xavier, by story I meant any coherent message that the images speak as a whole, the subtext, the underlying message that talks to us as humans at a higher, intellectual level rather than at a purely sensory (visual/auditory) level. E.g., many interpreted even the little pizza rat clip as an underdog "story." A more obvious example is of the buffalo that saved its calf from lions that clearly has a "story" I'm talking about (a beginning, middle, and end, to use the cliche).
    If there was such a message in Watchtower of Turkey, I didn't get it. It seemed to me like a juxtaposition/collage of beautiful images, much like a Victoria's Secret fashion show. E.g., frenetic cuts like that can indicate a frenzy of wild activity, but I don't believe that's what this filmmaker intended for the tourist viewers. What then was the purpose of this kind of cut other than to look cool and generate discussions like this?
    Anyway, I sense clear disdain and disapproval of my comments here (talking of subtext, I can easily read "what the heck do you know?"). But guys, rather than immediately push back, please consider what I said and discuss because we're all trying to be better filmmakers, and I for myself might be missing an important point here.
  4. Like
    Sekhar got a reaction from kidzrevil in 1080 vs. 4K: What is REALLY necessary?   
    Absolutely, because higher res automatically means low bit rate, low DR, bad RS stuff shot with a consumer stills camera (and by an amateur, I presume). The sad part is I don't think you realize how patronizing your put-downs sound. Hard to have a polite and intelligent exchange here.
  5. Like
    Sekhar got a reaction from Marco Tecno in 1080 vs. 4K: What is REALLY necessary?   
    Discussions like this really frustrate me because they're academic and digress into specs and possibilities. Every time there's a tech advance, the first reaction of many is to say they aren't impressed, as if that puts them on a higher pedestal than the mortals who are easily pleased. 4K? It's really about DR. High DR? It's about color. Great color? For pros, it's ergonomics. Everything? Camera doesn't matter. Full equipment? It's not about gear. Etc. Heck, I've seen people ridiculing the excitement over the first Internet browser Netscape (remember that?).
    Going back to the OP, if you read my first response, I mentioned Cronenweth on the video talking about the advantages of 4K that I mentioned. I didn't make that up: it's from the same video. It may not fit the narrative on this forum, but it was actually said. 4K is NOT about higher res folks, even when you deliver in HD. It's about giving you choices in post WRT stabilization, framing, camera moves, etc.
    I just put a video on another thread that has video from NX500 (a very low end 4K camera) cropped to be HD. NO extra res there, just HD, but you see a tight crop and framing that would have been impossible using a HD camera without additional lenses. And I was specifically comparing it (and NX1) with an actual HD camera BMMCC, not engaging in an academic discussion. My point is that today you can buy a 4K at comparable prices and get the advantages I mentioned, which directly addresses the OP. May be BMMCC's claimed 13 stops DR and RAW do shine, but I don't see evidence of that (not that it doesn't exist). Specs matter squat if the result is garbage.
  6. Like
    Sekhar got a reaction from Marco Tecno in 1080 vs. 4K: What is REALLY necessary?   
    Agreed, but I just don't see evidence of that, which is why I asked for specific examples comparing the two (either directly or indirectly). The videos I saw on YouTube show neither a better DR (in fact some videos are just awful) nor better colors (it's not easy to judge that however given all the grading that happens in post). NX1 actually produces some great colors as well, it's not just about resolution. Bottom line, specs are one thing and results are something else altogether, so it's not enough to just say BMMCC has great colors and DR and end the discussion.
  7. Like
    Sekhar got a reaction from Marco Tecno in 1080 vs. 4K: What is REALLY necessary?   
    Show me how HD produced with BMMCC is better than HD from 4K shot by NX1 (which I presume is what you're implying here), and I'll agree. I've seen some real crappy video from BMMCC that looks like mush compared to video from NX1, but may be I just saw the wrong video. There is a technical case to be made for shooting in RAW that will save you in post for some extreme exposures, but again this seems more like an academic issue than something that you have use for regularly in real life. Certainly not with controlled lighting. Again, please show specific and real life examples of how BMMCC is better than NX1, and I'll change my opinion. I mean this sincerely, not being sarcastic.
  8. Like
    Sekhar got a reaction from Marco Tecno in 1080 vs. 4K: What is REALLY necessary?   
    I guess it depends on the price range you had in mind, but the reason we're even discussing 4K vs HD is precisely because we get such high quality 4K for so little these days. I shoot regularly with NX1 and NX500; both produce fantastic 4K and neither cost me a pretty penny. I actually bought the NX500 for some $350 for crying out loud.
  9. Like
    Sekhar reacted to fuzzynormal in 1080 vs. 4K: What is REALLY necessary?   
    Don't disagree, but I'll add that re-scaling is certainly useful when shooting a documentary.  Run'nGun shooting is all about circumstances and compromise.  I can be happy with 95% of my shots, but if I can make a shot better with a bit of judicious cropping I'll do it.  I ain't proud.  Give me a technique I can exploit, I'll exploit it.
    I'm not shooting with a 4K camera because I want to re-frame all my documentary shots, I'm shooting 4K because it offers options if need be.  --And then there's this whole thing, as if this thread needs to go more sideways:  http://www.eoshd.com/2014/02/discovery-4k-8bit-420-panasonic-gh4-converts-1080p-10bit-444/
  10. Like
    Sekhar reacted to Zak Forsman in 1080 vs. 4K: What is REALLY necessary?   
    I'm in the color and dynamic range camp myself, but will say that when it comes to televisions sets, 1080p on my 4K set looks a little better than it did on my 1080p set. it tends to smooth out jagged diagonal lines.

    http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-resolution/4k-ultra-hd-uhd-vs-1080p-full-hd-tvs-and-upscaling-compared
     
  11. Like
    Sekhar got a reaction from markr041 in 1080 vs. 4K: What is REALLY necessary?   
    Discussions like this really frustrate me because they're academic and digress into specs and possibilities. Every time there's a tech advance, the first reaction of many is to say they aren't impressed, as if that puts them on a higher pedestal than the mortals who are easily pleased. 4K? It's really about DR. High DR? It's about color. Great color? For pros, it's ergonomics. Everything? Camera doesn't matter. Full equipment? It's not about gear. Etc. Heck, I've seen people ridiculing the excitement over the first Internet browser Netscape (remember that?).
    Going back to the OP, if you read my first response, I mentioned Cronenweth on the video talking about the advantages of 4K that I mentioned. I didn't make that up: it's from the same video. It may not fit the narrative on this forum, but it was actually said. 4K is NOT about higher res folks, even when you deliver in HD. It's about giving you choices in post WRT stabilization, framing, camera moves, etc.
    I just put a video on another thread that has video from NX500 (a very low end 4K camera) cropped to be HD. NO extra res there, just HD, but you see a tight crop and framing that would have been impossible using a HD camera without additional lenses. And I was specifically comparing it (and NX1) with an actual HD camera BMMCC, not engaging in an academic discussion. My point is that today you can buy a 4K at comparable prices and get the advantages I mentioned, which directly addresses the OP. May be BMMCC's claimed 13 stops DR and RAW do shine, but I don't see evidence of that (not that it doesn't exist). Specs matter squat if the result is garbage.
  12. Like
    Sekhar got a reaction from IronFilm in 1080 vs. 4K: What is REALLY necessary?   
    Discussions like this really frustrate me because they're academic and digress into specs and possibilities. Every time there's a tech advance, the first reaction of many is to say they aren't impressed, as if that puts them on a higher pedestal than the mortals who are easily pleased. 4K? It's really about DR. High DR? It's about color. Great color? For pros, it's ergonomics. Everything? Camera doesn't matter. Full equipment? It's not about gear. Etc. Heck, I've seen people ridiculing the excitement over the first Internet browser Netscape (remember that?).
    Going back to the OP, if you read my first response, I mentioned Cronenweth on the video talking about the advantages of 4K that I mentioned. I didn't make that up: it's from the same video. It may not fit the narrative on this forum, but it was actually said. 4K is NOT about higher res folks, even when you deliver in HD. It's about giving you choices in post WRT stabilization, framing, camera moves, etc.
    I just put a video on another thread that has video from NX500 (a very low end 4K camera) cropped to be HD. NO extra res there, just HD, but you see a tight crop and framing that would have been impossible using a HD camera without additional lenses. And I was specifically comparing it (and NX1) with an actual HD camera BMMCC, not engaging in an academic discussion. My point is that today you can buy a 4K at comparable prices and get the advantages I mentioned, which directly addresses the OP. May be BMMCC's claimed 13 stops DR and RAW do shine, but I don't see evidence of that (not that it doesn't exist). Specs matter squat if the result is garbage.
  13. Like
    Sekhar got a reaction from IronFilm in 1080 vs. 4K: What is REALLY necessary?   
    I guess it depends on the price range you had in mind, but the reason we're even discussing 4K vs HD is precisely because we get such high quality 4K for so little these days. I shoot regularly with NX1 and NX500; both produce fantastic 4K and neither cost me a pretty penny. I actually bought the NX500 for some $350 for crying out loud.
  14. Like
    Sekhar got a reaction from Zach Goodwin in 1080 vs. 4K: What is REALLY necessary?   
    Discussions like this really frustrate me because they're academic and digress into specs and possibilities. Every time there's a tech advance, the first reaction of many is to say they aren't impressed, as if that puts them on a higher pedestal than the mortals who are easily pleased. 4K? It's really about DR. High DR? It's about color. Great color? For pros, it's ergonomics. Everything? Camera doesn't matter. Full equipment? It's not about gear. Etc. Heck, I've seen people ridiculing the excitement over the first Internet browser Netscape (remember that?).
    Going back to the OP, if you read my first response, I mentioned Cronenweth on the video talking about the advantages of 4K that I mentioned. I didn't make that up: it's from the same video. It may not fit the narrative on this forum, but it was actually said. 4K is NOT about higher res folks, even when you deliver in HD. It's about giving you choices in post WRT stabilization, framing, camera moves, etc.
    I just put a video on another thread that has video from NX500 (a very low end 4K camera) cropped to be HD. NO extra res there, just HD, but you see a tight crop and framing that would have been impossible using a HD camera without additional lenses. And I was specifically comparing it (and NX1) with an actual HD camera BMMCC, not engaging in an academic discussion. My point is that today you can buy a 4K at comparable prices and get the advantages I mentioned, which directly addresses the OP. May be BMMCC's claimed 13 stops DR and RAW do shine, but I don't see evidence of that (not that it doesn't exist). Specs matter squat if the result is garbage.
  15. Like
    Sekhar got a reaction from iamoui in Travel shot with NX500 and Sirui 025X   
    We were on our way to Grand Canyon North Rim recently when we spotted a herd of bisons. Lying among them was a lamb that I initially thought was sick or dying...turns out it wasn't. As we planned to hike I had my tiny Sirui 025X carbon tripod, and I was able to capture the lamb on my NX500 and Canon 70-200 f4/L. Turned out the zoom and NX500 crop factor were too much for the tripod in the heavy wind, soI had to stabilize in After Effects, but the end result was reasonably steady. Thought I'd post the clip to show that we CAN get steady footage even with small tripods like this with big zooms while traveling. Thoughts welcome.
     
     
  16. Like
    Sekhar reacted to kgv5 in Does anyone here use Fly/Glidecams anymore?   
    Or this
     
  17. Like
    Sekhar reacted to Viet Bach Bui in My 2016 Filmmaking Reel   
    There was a bit too much of that 3D VFX space ship thingy but other than that, impressive stuff!
  18. Like
    Sekhar reacted to Cinegain in My 2016 Filmmaking Reel   
    I would perhaps even cut it by 30 secs or a minute and leave some of the shots that are more of the same or not as powerful as some as the others out. There's some really cool stuff in there.
  19. Like
    Sekhar reacted to Micah Mahaffey in My 2016 Filmmaking Reel   
    Let me know what you think of my reel. Thank you! Cameras used are the Canon T3i, and Samsung NX1. Everything shot in Oregon. 
  20. Like
    Sekhar reacted to kgv5 in Does anyone here use Fly/Glidecams anymore?   
    This is great comparison. I am using glidecam almost every day (couple years now) - the best tool in my toolbag I can imitate tripod, dolly, slider, jib, if i had to take just one thing with me beside the camera i would take the glidecam. No firmwares, no batteries, easy to handle, can take it as carry on baggage, can take it to the mountains for a hike, can use it in the rain (DGS version with improved gimbal), most people doesnt pay attention to it, it is quite stealthy, can go through the crowd with it. It requires a lot of training but it pays of.
     
  21. Like
    Sekhar reacted to hmcindie in New Canon 1DX Mkii Footage   
    Filmic for members of this board = shadows up, highlights down. Whala. Instafilm. Also add some grain.
  22. Like
    Sekhar reacted to Jimmy in New Canon 1DX Mkii Footage   
    btw... is filming someone welding/cutting metal the high end equivalent of making a "cat in the garden" demo video?
  23. Like
    Sekhar reacted to richg101 in New Canon 1DX Mkii Footage   
    give the crew a $60k budget to shoot, and a $20k budget to pay for the edit/post for a promo video for the nex5n and the results would be just as awe inspiring.  The level of production value on this video makes it impossible to judge the camera because in real instances with these budgets they'd just add another $2k for the rental of an Alexa Mini for the couple of days of shooting.     $80k for 8bit acquisition and a lens mount incapable of using real cinema lenses, or $82k for arriraw acquisition and the ability to use cooke s4's..  
    Nothing more annoying than consumer advertising techniques selling a dream to people that they'll be using a dslr to shoot these types of projects.
  24. Like
    Sekhar got a reaction from Fredrik Lyhne in 4K video for event/PJ photography   
    Canon was talking way back of using the 1Dc 4K video for event (like wedding) stills, but I haven't seen much talk of photogs regularly using 4K video for photos. I had a chance to cover an AbilityFirst fundraiser walk today and for the first time covered the entire event with just video using NX1. I believe this kind of video-for-stills approach really opens up the possibility to capture moments with more life, making it ideal for events/photojournalism photography.
    Anyway, check out my photos if you're interested at AbilityFirst Walk. All the video was with the 16-50 S, DR gamma (-10 sharpness), and 1/125 or 1/250 shutter speed. Would love to hear about your experiences/thoughts on using video for stills with 4K.
  25. Like
    Sekhar got a reaction from kidzrevil in Nx1: 16-235 vs 0-255   
    Yes, we know both capture the same info (nothing gets dropped at the top or bottom), the difference is in how they get ENCODED. I.e., which part (lows, mids, highs) gets preference in terms of space on the 8 bits. See comments on the page for the difference and effect on banding.
    Here's my summary and recommendation:
    0-255. Works for most situations, especially recommended when mids are more important than lows and highs. Uses the entire 8 bit range, so it's the best you're going to get for mids and overall image. Not good if you aren't planning post work. 16-235. Necessary when delivering out of the camera without post work. Also good on high contrast scenes where you want to preserve details in lows and highs at the cost of mids. 16-255. Good when you have critical info in the lows and can't lift the overall exposure because it will blow the highs.
×
×
  • Create New...