Jump to content

Matthew Hartman

Members
  • Content Count

    494
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by Matthew Hartman


  1. 15 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

    "The sensor readout of this raw Bayer frame is provided as uncompressed, 12 bit log ARRIRAW data" From Alexa website.

    I think that Is the secret of Arri, Red, a Blackmagic camera is 12 bit, 14 bit Raw plain and simple. Look how good a ML 5D mk III is. It is the Raw, and at a higher bit rate to boot. And it is not sensor size either, look how good a BMPCC looks. When we get 12,14 bit Raw in one of these 3000 dollar or less DSLR's or Mirrorless cameras than I guess we really may have a mini Alexa for cheap. Now for Color Science in one, well you know and I know that is baked in each manufacturers camera, but with Raw we have a bit more latitude to alter it. And yes we do have cheap Raw, ProRes BM cameras, but not a Sony, or a Panny, or even this Fuji.

    None of the above cameras, at least to me, are Razor sharp, they have smooth roll offs and soft edges in a good way, and somewhat muted colors. More Pastel than Kodachrome like.

    Now Technicolor was over the top movie film wise. But a little bit of that went a long ways to me. I was more of a B&W movie guy to be honest.

    I think you've come a lot closer to unpacking it in words than me. Great breakdown, much appreciated. 

    Quote

    None of the above cameras, at least to me, are Razor sharp, they have smooth roll offs and soft edges in a good way, and somewhat muted colors. More Pastel than Kodachrome like.

    I do some 3D modeling, rendering, animation, etc. There's a parallel to what you just described in rendering as well. When you're going for hyper realism, you employ things like ambient occlusion, global lighting, soft raytraced shadows, etc. These properties give the model a more atmospheric/muted look and feel, smooth gradients, smooth rolloffs, etc. In fact, you often have to crank up your specular highlights for reflective/refractive surfaces with AO.  

    Top render is without AO/ Bottom with:

     

    5468fb58950fb402e6748f4630e3ab9e.png


  2. 12 hours ago, Anders Bixbe said:

    This camera is ideal for prosumer or amateur videographers." Point and shoot" with continuous autofocus (CAF), gamma DR all parameters at zero, dual antishake (OIS+DIS) and P mode. This video was shot handheld with the EVF and the 16-50mm S lens. The resolution is superior to anything I have seen ( 70mm film in a Cinerama or Imax theater not counted). You guys might say it´s "oversharpened" but I bet in that case you don´t have the up to date display which is an oled or VA panel FALD UHD TV. Yesterday I shot a video with the 50-150mm S lens and it is on YouTube also.

    You have some really DEEEEEEP focus there, were you stopped down? The footage is looking really nice on my 2k 10bit BenQ. But man, that insane detail is both a blessing and a curse. 


  3. 6 minutes ago, anonim said:

    Now I don't know what to think... two authorities which I equally deeply respect suggest me different attitude... Emanuel: "Imagery is not real, it is always fake!" ... Matthew Hartman: "Trust your eye"... And it seems there's no Mattias to resolutely resolve this dilema... Moreover sage Webrunner is still mute about that question, which is significant sign. There's no even good sober Jon Pais with his dancers from American in Vietnam movie to help... Damn!

    All in all, I feel myself little bit confused and desperate... Last time I remember similar filling was when Krishna explained to me something about reality at the field of Kurukshetra, but I was too stupid to understand.

    Awe...The great paradoxes of life as it were. :)


  4. 16 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

    Brought the shadows up in Premiere and remapped to 16-235 (Fast Color Corrector)

    Those results are really stunning. But help me understand the workflow here. So if I set my NX1 to the 16-235 setting in camera, I do or don't use the additional technique with fast color corrector in Premiere? Slightly confused here. 


  5. 5 minutes ago, anonim said:

    I am forced to care once upon a time when I had to match Leica R and Zeiss Contax footage. Let's say I had an average skills and enough time... I know someone maybe doesn't pay attention to end of my effort, but I knew that I didn't manage to make these footages completely identical. I don't no why - but milky yellow cast of Leica was never the same as pale yellow of Zeiss, even if the waveform monitor or RGB parade showed they I near the same...

    I guess I don't really mix and match brands. If I ever shoot with multiple cameras I make sure they're the same brand. Davinci has really good color grading tools, particularly the qualifiers are really powerful. I would never try to color match footage in something like Premiere/Lumetri. 

    Also, believe it or not scopes are sometimes misleading, or a certain conflicting color in the frame is playing an optical illusion with a color that may in fact be technically accurate. Trust your eye. 


  6. Am I off in saying I really don't care about a camera's particular color cast? I always grade my footage, always have. I started my career some 25 years ago in print as a graphic designer. I'm used to playing with color and I know color theory like the back of my hand. I just take care of it in post.

    Isn't that what you all do as well? 

    3 minutes ago, anonim said:

    but I think we don't see world as vibrant as Fuji tries to suggest...

    THIS one I know the technical reason why we don't perceive vibrant colors as some cameras resolve. Atmosphere. Atmosphere diffuses how our eyes see protons, i.e. light, i.e color. 

    I'm ready for my gold star now. 


  7. 1 hour ago, hmcindie said:

    That's because the NX1 has a lot of sharpening artifacts. Those cinema cameras do not add sharpening to the shots. It's like using unsharp mask in photoshop. Works great, but it is not a natural look and if it goes too far, it will look weird. A lot of low budget cams do that, phones have HUGE amounts of unsharp masking going on.

    I generally agree, I have my sharpness in my NX1 set to -10 AND I use some Tiffen softening filters, which helps to a degree. Nothing bothers me worse than seeing over sharp edges and smudgy fill because of noise reduction. It's as if I blew up an image is PS past it's native resolution and then applied unsharp mask at 500%. It's just an over processed image. I agree with this. 

    But I think the issue is far more than just the sharpening algorithm in these cameras. Something in the quality of the motion. It's subtle, but there. Andrew Reid alluded to it earlier, I think it's difficult to put in words. I'd probably would have had to built the image sensor to be able to but that's way past my pay grade. I almost see a slight "flickering" (and no I'm not referring to LED/shutter speed) with these sub-$3000 cameras, regardless of brand. 

    Also, images tend to look very "thin" or almost graphical and 2D/flat. There's a quality of depth/dimension in cameras like Ari, RED, BMD, etc. (even the pocket cinema camera) that these sub-$3000 cams just do not resolve most of the time. This has nothing to do with sharpness.

    I want the God of knowledge and words to strike me right now! 


  8. 3 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

    Well I think it was just Samsung's way of showing the world that they COULD make a killer camera right out of the box, and yeah it sold pretty well but they must have been spooked by Sony going balls to the wall at the time with new camera after new camera. They knew Canon, Nikon was no threat on Mirrorless. Who the hell knows.

    The money part of it had to amount to a pimple on a dogs ass for them at the time.

    But during that time Sony's offering couldn't even do internal 4k. I'm not sure what Samsung was exactly spooked about? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just didn't personally see Sony's offering as much as a threat in terms of specs. But, of course, you have to factor in brand recognition, and certainly Sony had it in spades over Samsung. 


  9. 31 minutes ago, anonim said:

    Please, can you clarify this more - how camera alone could know where sharp detail is needed, where not?

    I'm going to be honest, I actually can't explain it in technical terms. I just know it when I see it. 

    Take a face for example. With my NX1, every freaking clogged pore, wrinkle and hair stubble is very detailed and pronounced along with of course the eye area. (Which is excellent) 

    But when I see footage from an Alexa, RED, BMD, Canon (cinema) only the eyes are in crisp detail, everything else is somehow smoother or more "weighted". Skin looks thicker and there's generally a sense of more dimension in what the camera resolves. I also notice edges don't suffer from chromatic aberration, or edge fringing. 

    Now, I'm not saying this isn't possible with a $3,000 camera. It is. I already know that through my own experiences. And obviously certain lens' have different characteristics, I just personally see more footage in this bracket [$3,000] where it looks "too sharp" or what some here have been calling "thin", 'video-y" "digital", etc.  

    One of these days I'll be able to put it in better technical terms. Maybe someone here can help with that? 

    @anomin

    "wow-emulation beautiness" 

    I'm stealing this! :grin:


  10. 11 minutes ago, jonpais said:

    @Matthew Hartman That’s just one of the reasons I went ahead and ordered X-mounts for my Veydras - to see if I can’t use the X-T2 for narrative and documentary. Shooting with the $13,000 Cabrio 20-120mm on the set of TCSTV’s Collateral is like using a sledgehammer to hang a picture on the wall. Not very impressed at all with Veydra the company however - I paid $85.00 for shipping alone, it’s nearing a week already and as far as I know, the mounts haven’t even shipped yet. $85 should be overnight delivery. It is the New Year holiday here though, so they probably won’t arrive before the end of the month anyhow. When shooting the Mini Primes with the GH5, I usually just take along two lenses and use ETC mode, essentially getting four focal lengths in an extremely compact form factor. 

    Yeah, I have more affection for mini primes too. Do you not have a local rental house? I know you're not in the states so I don't know the logistics of your area. 

    Those mounts not shipped yet would make me OCD. I'd be on the horn every day until they ship. $85 is not chump change. 


  11. I was thinking about this marketing move from Samsung and trying to place myself in some of the comments made here. 

    But to be honest, Samsung said as much when they left the market. The official statement is that there is no money in mirrorless systems and the impetus was to instead focus on smartphones. 

    Well...isn't that exactly what they're doing here? They are making the claim here that the NX line was the "old" venture, to be replaced by the new. This is exactly the narrative being portayed in this marketing video, at least that's what I'm reading.

    I'm sure in Samsung's perspective, 120 FPS in UHD 4K is better than 30 FPS in UHD 4K. They tend to make assertions about quality based on the spec sheet, and they are proud of their stuff. 

    I think what they, Samsung fail to understand, or have no dedication to, is the veiwpoint of the prosumer here. Than again, the consumer trumps the prosumer in terms of profits by miles and miles.

    I have this running commentary in my head (I take medication) complete with British accents, that the NX1 was never meant to be a prosumer camera, at least where it concerns upper management. I think the more professional features were "snuck in" by the workshop elves as it where and management in passing and on the way to prison just said, "right, cheers".

    Oh, I don't freaking know. 


  12. 3 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

    VFX/360º in  porn, Yikes!  :grimace:

    You guys do know that this is currently the biggest 360/VR market right? I've worked with several grips, (hehehe) both guys and gals that have side gigs filming porn for this medium. It's just another form of escapism, not to mention quite lucrative. 

    Given current political world affairs, I can't say I blame people for wanting to wank their chains a little. Better to squeeze a nut than a trigger. 


  13. 4 hours ago, Papiskokuji said:

    As I watch all those Fuji videos everybody posts, I keep wondering how do you guys get such good results with these cameras. I have a great deal of experience shooting with Sony, Canon, etc. cameras but I can’t seem to get decent or consistent results with my X-T20 in video mode.

    1.) Rent a very expensive cine lens the size of a small canon, probably on a PL mount.

    The lens gives the image a personality or character. You are actually mostly looking for imperfection here.

    2.) Good diffused lighting, staying away from extreme contrast ratios and harsh shadows with short falloffs, especially if you're shooting in 8/10 bit in camera. 

    3.) Camera settings. Go flat if you can't shoot RAW. Turn down or off internal sharpness and reduce contrast. Saturation can be left at default. 

    4.) Set a custom white balance using a white or 50% grey card. This will help you greatly in post get an accurate color balance. You should fair well with your Fuji. 

    5.) Subtle grading. Most ppl want to fill up their entire waveform chart and have deep contrast, but I think the sweet spot in emulating film is sitting 10-15% below 100 and 5-10% above zero. This is obviously subjective and contextual, and rightfully should be. Learn about qualifiers. 

    6.) Tiffen Pro Mist 1/4 (or silimar) helps reduce digital sharpness. Industry even uses them on $60k cameras. 

    7.) Aviod handheld with cameras that have bad rolling shutter and jitter. If you need that look add it in post with tracked camera shake presets. You'll spend much less time not having to fuss with warp stabilizer, which in practical terms is no magic pill. 

    8.) Movement/Composition/Line/Texture/Contrast ratios/Lighting/Visual Narrative/Sound/Musicality. Study up on these subjects. They will boost your production value x10 even on a Dora the Explorer Fisher Price camera. Swiper, no god damn swiping!

     

    1 hour ago, jonpais said:

    As an X-T2 owner, I just don’t see a compelling reason to upgrade to the X--H1. Both cameras share the same sensor and color science: footage could be intercut seamlessly with no one being the wiser. The Camera Store could just as easily have shot their Collateral clip with the X-T2. The $1,540.00 it cost me last year would already start to look lke a bargain if I actually shot with it. When the X-T20  appeared, it was tempting to try that one out too, but its charm is also its downfall - the charm lying in its size, the downside being that it would be grossly unbalanced with lenses like the 90mm f/2, the 16-55mm f/2.8 and 50-140mm f/2.8. The excellent 23, 35 and 50mm f/2 lenses would be much more suitable. I guess the intention of Fuji here is to sell the X-H1 as a big production camera - definitely not for bloggers or vloggers. Which is why I find some of their nostalgiac promotional videos of lovely actresses toting around the diminutive Fuji cameras of yesteryear a bit ironic - videos that would be more appropriate showcasing the X-T20, not the stepchild of the GFX. Of course the videos are pure fantasy, but to me they demonstrate just how much easier their film cameras were to use.

    Looking at your details and plight, I honestly don't see a strong case for you to upgrade either. You would be gaining minimal improvements over your current setup. I would instead invest any extra cash on other gear. 

    I hate how these manufacturers make people feel like they MUST have the latest and greatest. If we thought of these cameras in terms of say a cresent wrench, would we "upgrade" so often? 

    I have a question for everyone. How do you purchase your gear? Cash? Credit? If it's credit, is the upgrade honestly worth going into debt over? 

    I spent considerable money on my current gear in the last couple years. Now that the spending frenzy is over I'm looking at all this gear and I'm in disbelief. The odd thing is I knew I was on a spending high at the time and I did it anyway. Spending money is a high and one can get addicted to it, even going into considerable dept.

    What's the saying, "The eyes are bigger than the stomach"? 


  14. 12 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

    A lot of Instagrammers are going back to actual cameras.

    Samsung should do an Instagram Special version of the NX1 with 4K 120fps ;)

    There's a feature slated to be shot on the NX1 that's going to hit several festivals, with the hope and actual intent to bring some positive attention to the camera. 

    Here's the guy's rig. I wish him well. 

     

    IMG_16051.jpg

     

    IMG_11721.jpg

    On 2/16/2018 at 9:55 AM, Marco Tecno said:

    Incredibile. They should feel guilty after what they did...they probably think that ppl are stupid enough to think that a tiny sensor can match a real camera.

    Feel guilty? Corporations don't have feelings, and I seriously doubt the Samsung family does much emoting. 


  15. 9 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

    As for dynamic range...

    4K H265 from the NX1 on standard certainly has more information in the blacks than 4K H264 on the Fuji X-Pro 2 / X-T2 (set to Classic Chrome)

    Again this is big area of change since NX1's release... If you set it to 235 from 255 you can recover a ton of stuff in the highlights and with the higher-bitrate codec hack it holds onto more in the shadows as well. Original v1.0 firmware and H.265 support on the computer side killed dynamic range, tons of clipping!

    NX1 (240Mbit):

    Screen Shot 2018-02-17 at 18.27.46.png

    X-Pro 2 (100Mbit):

    Screen Shot 2018-02-17 at 18.27.45.png

    Andrew is 100% correct here, I know this because I've done my own comparisons that match his assertion. You can clearly see more gradient values in the NX1 image.

    Although I dont think the NX1 pulls in 13-stops like Samsung claims, I think it certain conditions it comes close. Pragmatically I would say 10-12, which isnt necessarily "bad". You just have to really watch those highlights. 

    That being said, what cripples these sub $3k cameras is that the way they look and capture motion just does'nt look very filmic. Which is not an issue if you're not after that. And obviously if you're a photographer you care less. 

    Sometimes, under the right conditions footage from these systems can look filmic, especially if you know professional lighting, but it takes considerably more work to massage the image, whereas you flip on a BMD or RED and even shooting a cup of coffee looks like a filmic and dramatic affair. Am I off base here? 

    There's "something" in the motion, it looks smoother or creamier, subjects look more "weighted". It's more than 24fps, color grading, shallow DOF and cine bars. My eyes have become acclimated/sensitive to spotting it right away. The Fugji's motion looks like Samsung, Panasonic, Sony, Olympus, Canon, Nikon, etc., in the same class. The differences are very small. Color and resolution (NX1 incrediably sharp) seems to be the biggest seperator here. Although, I would say I think Sony has a tiny tad bit less of this look. 

    When someone can deliver that filmic experience under $3k out of the box, then I personally feel we have something magical on our hands. I feel like everything going forward is going to be "meh" until (or if) that happens for me.

    After watching some more examples of Kinefinity 4k and 6k footage it looks video-ish to me as well. Not that far from what my NX1 could capture to be completely candid. 

    One property I notice with cinema cameras is they only resolve sharp detail where its needed, giving a nice eq balance to the image. Because they have more DR they capture more and smoother graduated "ambient occlusion". 

    Sorry, I use 3D rendering terms to explain it for lack of a better way. If you do any 3D rendering, you know exactly what I'm talking about. 

    Have I finally cracked? 


  16. 16 hours ago, anonim said:

    Thanks for clarification - but as I already confessed, I'm, in fact and sadly, a boiled frog - but I know that there are around also strong human characters with resisting anti-frog capability :)

    Haha. Well according to statistics most of us are in that same pot on a slow boil with you. 🐸

    19 hours ago, Prandi said:

    @jonpais
    You're pretty annoying ;-)

    Dude, that was pretty mean spirited.

    Jonpais is very partial to facts and has been known to go to great lengths to back up his assertions. He throws them out there but if that doesn't interest you just disregard it. No need to get insulting. He's a real person with real thoughts and opinions. 

    That being said, Jonpais, I think you should lay off of Mattiaus a little, he's a good guy with a big heart and contributes a lot to the online photographic and video community.

    This topic got out of hand a little. It's just a camera. Lets not lose our good sense over differences of opinion. 


  17. Like Ironfilm said already it may not be ground breaking compared to the competition, but within Fuji you cannot denie that it is a groundbreaking step forward for Fuji. What it signals is that Fuji is to some degree listening to it's consumers and trust me, when any large tech company does that it's a huge achievement in and of itself as political as it is. 

    This may not be the exact model for you, or me, or it may be. But try to see the bigger bird's eye view. More competition=lower prices and better products. (Theoretically) Who wins here? Always root for the small guy whether their product is A+ or not. It's a long game strategy. We drive the market with our wallets. 

    1 hour ago, Yurolov said:

    The second issue I have is with the image quality. Don't get me wrong the colours are great - it's the other factors that have me miffed. Firstly, there appears to be a great degree of digital sharpness that makes the images look videoy. I note the diffusion they used in the professional japanese production to limit this effect. Moreover, the motion cadence is just off and it may have to do, like Andrew said, with the omission of the ALL-I codec. It doesn't look natural to me like for instance a canon or gh5.

    I couldn't agree with you more on these factors. Although I wouldn't exactly call the GH5 much better in this area, nor my beloved NX1. A lot of JVC's images come to mind here as well. I'm wondering if the digital sharpening can be turned down or off in camera? It is downscaling from a 5k sensor, so it may be actual resolution and not post sharpening at all. What I see is edge fringing and that can have the appearance of edge sharpening.  

    But I want to be clear and state I realize not everyone is after a filmic look. For video production, where the format calls for that video-type look, it's perfect. Good colors, crisp image. 200mbit h.264 seems like a crippled codec however, I think if they were going to go 8bit they should increase the data rate or go HEVC. But for those looking for an out-of-the-box experience/color I'm sure it delivers just fine. It's not an awful image, just not my cup of tea. 


  18. 40 minutes ago, Marco Tecno said:

    Incredibile. They should feel guilty after what they did...they probably think that ppl are stupid enough to think that a tiny sensor can match a real camera.

    I fully expect it will one day. At least, manufacturers seem to pour a lot of resources into trying. 

     

    7 hours ago, Juxx989 said:

    Its like your x-girlfriend sending you an invitation to her wedding.   :expressionless:  

    I always knew the NX1 was a slut. 😆

×
×
  • Create New...