Jump to content

Towd

Members
  • Content Count

    81
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Towd

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Whenever I read a long thread regarding the merits or shortcomings of the MFT format I'm reminded of a conversation I had with a DP quite a few years ago about Super 35 vs Academy ratio framing. For historical context every VFX heavy movie that was shot on film was typically shot Super 35 with spherical lenses even if its final projected format would be widescreen 2.39. Of the twenty or so films I've worked on that originated from scanned film, only one was shot with Anamorphic lenses even though the vast majority were slated for widescreen delivery. Anyway, the big concern back then was minimizing film grain and had less to do with the depth of field and blurry backgrounds, so you'd typically want to use as much of the negative as possible to reduce the film grain before scanning it. However, in talking with a DP one day, he told me that when a feature wasn't slated for a lot of VFX, they would often just frame the project in Academy Ratio with room on the negative for where the sound strip would go. In this way you would go Negative -> Interpositive -> Internegative -> Print without mixing in an optical pass to reduce the super 35 image into the Academy framing for the projector. The reason for this according to the DP was that the optical pass would introduce additional grain, so shooting S35 was kind of a wash in that you were trading the larger film area of S35 for framing directly for the Academy area on a projector and skipping the optical reduction that introduced more grain than just the steps in making a print. Of course now with cheap film scanning, Digital Intermediates, and of course digital cameras, everyone just shoots using the S35 area. My understanding from the conversation is that if you were shooting something like "Star Wars" that would have a bunch of opticals anyway, you'd shoot S35 even before the days of digital film scanning, but if you were shooting some standard film it was common for the DP to just frame inside the Academy ratio area of the film strip and skip the optical reduction. Is there anyone with more experience than myself with shooting old films that can confirm this? It really has me curious. The reason being is that the Academy Ratio on a projector is defined at 21mm across. While a multi aspect MFT sensor on something like the GH5s is 19.25mm across if you shoot DCI. When you consider projector slop or the overscan on an old TV for the action safe area, the difference in the exposed film or sensor area seen by an audience seems negligible-- and thus the perceived DOF or lack there of between the two formats. Anyway, just wanted to share this, since I have never seen it discussed anywhere. And maybe its just me, but I'm really curious as to whether the vast bulk of films shot from the 1930s and into the 90s were actually using the Academy Ratio area of the negative for framing. Also, hope I'm not derailing the conversation regarding Olympus too much, but as we're discussing the MFT format of Olympus cameras as a possible reason for it's lack of sales, this seemed apropos. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_35
  2. They don't show how to setup Raw, but she does mention ProRes and ProRes Raw at the 45 second mark. Says something to the effect that it "preserves the camera's raw sensor data". So, it sounds to me like it's still on the table. Interesting times. ? Queued up here:
  3. Sony, Nikon, and Canon don't shoot 10 bit internally until you step up to their pro cinema line. The rest is irrelevant.
  4. Every camera has trade offs. Why is it so hard to believe that some people value the autofocus ability of a camera at near the bottom of the list of their priorities if they are comfortable with manual focusing? Maybe some day we'll have an A.I. living in our cameras that takes natural language instructions from a director and always pulls focus correctly and smoothly and can follow the play of a scene in real time better than a any human focus puller. Until that day comes, for many of us the camera's acquisition format and image quality will matter much more. In addition for many of us, it is just fun and satisfying to pull focus manually and capture a scene the way we intend without relying on whatever the camera decides to do. I have a feeling even if some magical A.I. does come along one day, many people will still enjoy using manual focus for the spontaneous creative control it provides.
  5. Towd

    S1 Anyone?

    I'm with you, I find the m43 format to be just outstanding for video work and really enjoy the smaller form factor, so I'd love to see some of the imaging mojo of the S1 compressed into a new m43 product. I just realized the 10-25mm zoom is possibly releasing this month which may be too soon for a GH6 announcement. Maybe we'll hear more this fall. Here's a link to a video where the director of Panasonic's imaging department discusses the possibility of new m43 models. (It's at the 2 minute mark.) He doesn't come out and confirm anything, but he reaffirms Panasonic's commitment to m43 and stats that they are looking into products based on the format. So, I can only assume a GH6 is in the mix... Not to derail an S1 thread though, he does have some interesting thoughts regarding DFD vs phase detect focusing in all panasonic cameras toward the end. From what he says, he seems open to considering other focusing solutions if that will give Panasonic better performance in the future, but he believes contrast AF is the most accurate and that is why it is the system they currently use.
  6. From my own results, I ended up picking the only three samples that were shot in 4k. Based on my test observations, I discarded samples that had line skipping or aliasing artifacts that were either apparent on the floating platform or in the fine hairs on the end of Gunpowder's nose. There were also a few samples that seemed excessively soft. All in all my take is that these camera makers use a fairly rough form of downsampling to achieve HD. At least on the cameras used in this test. From what I've seen on the S1 in other tests, it shots amazing HD. A few of the tests had some pretty muddy looking colors. I wonder if that was due to the variable NDs. Not really sure. The colors presented were a secondary concern in my judgement because I personally feel that as long as there is decent color separation, a final look can be achieved with some quick tweaks in post. I really appreciate the test. And I know they take a lot of time. My own take away though is that the hardware and what format you shoot a camera in to squeeze the best quality out of it does have real impact on the final results.
  7. Towd

    S1 Anyone?

    I'm not sure the GH5 has the hardware to pull all the tricks the S1 can for autofocus, but it would be nice to see at least some of the S1 features trickle down into a GH5 update. Personally, I'm less interested in purchasing a full frame camera, but I think what we're seeing in the S1 may be a good indication of what to expect in a GH6. Would love to see some kind of Varicam color engine with 10 bit color and full V-Log in all of it's shooting modes. Hopefully we'll hear something about it when Panasonic releases the 10-25mm lens into the wild. I know I heard somewhere that Panasonic has begun work on it.
  8. Towd

    S1 Anyone?

    Panasonic bringing the heat with DFD autofocus. Also, why does Pany's 1080p look more detailed than downscaled 4k from the A7III in the second half of the video? Anyone think that's the lenses or sharpness settings? Or is there just some crazy good imaging mojo in the S1?
  9. I think I liked E, I and K the best. But the colors out of E were probably my favorite of those three. Some of the others had nice colors as well, but were soft or had aliasing in them. Maybe I missed another good one, it was a lot of cameras. ? Fun test!
  10. Wow! That is really an impressive diversity of styles. And I bet they never spent any time arguing about 2k vs. 4k or what sensor size they were shooting on.
  11. Oh, it's mostly just a for fun lens and way beyond practical. I currently own a Nikon 75-300mm F/4.5-5.6. It's a total shit lens-- on or off my speedbooster. Tons of chromatic aberration and very soft. I've had it for like 15 years, and it has never impressed. My other telephoto that is much nicer is an Olympus 40-150mm F/4-5.6 that I picked up as my first native m43 lens when I bought my GH5-- on sale for $100 dollars US. This is... no joke, a really decent lens for a plastic-fantastic bargain bin lens. Puts the Nikon to shame, and it fits in a front pocket. It's currently my only autofocus m43 lens, and does a half decent job for its size. So yeah, I'm interested in a nice long tele for my growing micro four thirds passion.
  12. I've been toying with an investment in that lens, the 100-400mm, or the fixed 200mm, so I'd love to hear more about your experience with it long term. The 50-200mm definitely seems the most practical while the fixed 200mm is probably the least. I've generally come to the conclusion that I'll be shooting Panasonic (GH series) and not Olympus long term, and so will probably favor Panasonic glass. And Panasonic seems to include lens stabilization more often than Olympus. Yeah, I was being overly harsh there to reviewers. I think that trolls however love to find holes in a reviewer's conclusions, so the reviewers play it cautious. I do enjoy the whistle clean image aesthetic that seems to be the growing trend in video. With Neat Video or other degrainers however, it's very achievable to get a clean image even up to 3200 on the GH5-- but it will soften the image some, and of course you'll be losing some dynamic range. That said, I love me some grainy 16mm scanned film. Probably one of my favorite looks.
  13. Yeah, people completely blow out of proportion the noise on the GH5. With some minimal work in post it cleans up really nicely-- especially if you are delivering in 2k it's just a non-issue. I think a lot of reviewers just discount it to avoid trolls who might discredit their standards. None of these people I think have ever worked with film or the early generation digital cinema cameras that were noisy as hell.
  14. That's the digital stabilizer that shifts the image on the sensor. Kind of like an in camera version of post stabilization. I prefer to just use the mechanical sensor stabilization and lens stabilization if a lens has it, and add digital stabilization in post. If you need it and don't want to bother with the post work, it adds a little more smoothing to your video. One difference between the mechanical and e-stabilization though is that the regular sensor stabilization will help correct for the motion blur in micro jitters, but e-stabilization will not.
  15. Yeah, I remember reading somewhere that the cost for a full frame chip is only a $100-$150 more than an APSC. Why would Nikon want to split their time catering to that market when they need to stay busy filling out an offering of full frame lenses? If you want to shoot super 35 on a Nikon, just use the crop mode. I think the APSC format was a compromise due to the limitations of the technology of the time. Nikon and Canon are probably happy to leave it behind on their new generation of mounts. I won't be surprised to see full frame Nikons and Canons in the $500-$600 range in a few years. Long term, I kind of see the market shaking out into M43 for those who want small travel cameras with a few more features and options than smartphones. Full frames with crop modes for the mid range, and Medium format for crazies who want to go for a niche look. Hell sometime in the next 10 years I wouldn't be surprised to see an IMAX digital sensor for big budget and special venue projects.
×
×
  • Create New...