Jump to content

HockeyFan12

Members
  • Content count

    512
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

HockeyFan12 last won the day on April 12 2018

HockeyFan12 had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About HockeyFan12

  • Rank
    Frequent member

Profile Information

  • My cameras and kit
    Arriflex 765

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. HockeyFan12

    C200 vs C100 MKII

    I don't think the grade or how the footage is shot represent either camera well, but the technical aspects in terms of sharpness seem about right, although I think those clips are from .mp4 files, which are not as sharp as raw. I find this video more representative, though: But I don't like the +5 sharpening here, either. Anything above 0 looks "digital" to me. Regardless, both cameras are plenty sharp. Super sharp 1080p (sharper than the Alexa's 1080p) vs average 4k. But the difference between the two isn't great. The C100 oversamples in a way that achieves nearly 100 mtf. Bayer's mtf as sampled in the C200 drops to zero at around 70% linear resolution I believe. So at best the C200 has "twice" as much resolution in UHD as the the C100 has at 1080p, not four times as you'd expect by counting pixels. If the C200 had an 8k sensor, that would be another story. There are other differences, however: I prefer the C100's color and its noise pattern, and significantly. But the C200 has much less skew and much better dynamic range. There are major workflow and ergonomic differences. And if your client is demanding 4k footage acquired in 4k, well, only one of the two delivers on that.
  2. HockeyFan12

    Black Pro-Mist Filter 1/4 to unsharp nx1 footage

    It depends on the camera and camera settings (and what look you like) but imo diffusion filters are a key missing ingredient toward a more "organic" look, if that's what you're after. They add an extra layer beyond even using vintage lenses, and imo it's worth combining the two if you want a "cinematic" look rather than a technical one. I think @Zach Goodwin2 proselytized extensively about them, and while I think he was using stronger grades perhaps than I settled on (don't really remember), I agree they have great value. That said, most on this forum seem inclined toward sharpening video and generally going for a sharper image than I prefer personally. So it is a matter of taste. I like the Alexa, which is quite soft, and I really like the look of 16mm and late-90s films shot by Richardson and Kaminski, which make heavy use of promist, classic soft, and nets. I think JFK is a beautiful movie. (And the Alexa is a weird camera. I'm convinced it has an optical diffusion filter in front of the OLPF similar to Tiffen digital diffusion but that the pipeline also applies a slight wide-radius unsharp mask. Which isn't crazy. Film's modulation transfer function curve can exceed 100% mtf and then it drops off to extinction more slowly than digital; so this approach could emulate that. And give the "3d" look people talk about while still making skin smooth. But this is conjecture.) The issue with black promist (also with classic softs and Hollywood black magic) is that you can see "speckles" in the bokeh, which may or may not be desirable, and at very deep stops sometimes the black dots that mitigate the promist's natural halation come into focus. (Also you need a matte box if you want to use a 4x4 filter, so screw on filters might make more sense depending on if you want to keep your rig small... but 1/4 BPM has a good look. Surprisingly strong, though.) I find these tests interesting: Particularly the latter. It's amazing how close the C300 with 1/4 to 1/2 digital diffusion looks to the Alexa. Imo it's a big improvement, however subtle.
  3. HockeyFan12

    My quick EVA1 mini review

    .
  4. HockeyFan12

    Lenses

    I've never used the 28mm Canon. I have a Nikon set so I kept it all Nikon just for consistency, maybe so they all focus the same direction. The 35mm f1.4 and 50mm f1.2, both of which I've owned but neither of which I own now, are fantastic if you like that soft wide open but sharp stopped down character of the 24mm. The 50mm f1.2 is really really great. I don't care for that focal length, either, at least in the context of video. On the C700 FF or something, I think that might end up being my favorite lens, though. The difference in depth of field and light gathering is really major between f2 and f1.2 and it has great rendering and is perhaps the sharpest Nikon 50mm stopped down. I sort of wish I went 24 f2, 35 f1.4, 50 f1.2, 85 f1.4, 135 f2, but it doesn't really matter that much. I think camera placement matters more than shot scale, or it should be thought of first, but I don't necessarily think that means you need to rely entirely on one lens. Maybe you need a binocular POV and then what do you do if you only have a 28mm? But that's interesting, still. If you can get away with it, it seems like a cool idea, just not right for every project. I think Polanski also had a wider lens just in case he needed to show more on screen, but I remember reading he relied almost entirely on one focal length for some of his films. I think camera placement and blocking are underrated skills, and he certainly put care into that.
  5. HockeyFan12

    Lenses

    Yeah, messy can be good but then it's subjective. Cooke S3s must be the messiest lenses I've used, also probably the nicest "look." They have a lot of vignetting, flare, distortion, soft corners, soap bubble bokeh, cat's eye bokeh, etc. But they look amazing and are sharp in the center. I think 4k cameras and sharp 1080p cameras benefit from that. A 5D might not. I think in ten years, more and more cameras will be full frame, and the f2 and faster Nikkors will be a good set to have. They were used a lot for vistavision photography, they hold their own and look good but lack fast wide angle options for Super35. I was surprised to find that while the STM Canon zooms feel a bit flat by comparison to the Nikkors, despite better technical performance, Sigma's 18-35mm is both modern and really nice. If you're shooting crop and not looking for a vintage look, it's a great deal. The 85mm f2 is a very good lens. The 85mm f1.8 has more character, but the single coated version flares perhaps too much. The 105mm is super sharp, really great, and then the 135mm is great, sharp at landscape distances but softer at portrait distances without any real "weirdness" anywhere. The 50mm f1.2 is also highly regarded, extremely sharp stopped down with a similar quality to the 24mm f2 wide open. I bet it looks incredible on FF. The 24mm and 28mm are a bit redundant. I only have both because I have a crop sensor camera. I like 28mm more as a focal length and think it's a sharper lens, but I want something wider sometimes. If you have a FF camera, I don't think you'd necessarily want both, but you might.
  6. HockeyFan12

    Lenses

    I have both... somehow managed to get three or four copies of the 24mm f2 and two 28mm f2s. But sold all but one of each. 😕 The 28mm is probably better. I think most people would prefer it, at least. I prefer the FOV, too. The 28mm has much higher contrast wide open, while the 24mm has a LOT of spherical aberration wide open. By f2.8 it's pretty similar. The 24mm is similar to the 35mm f1.4 wide open, where it has good resolution but a lot of spherical aberration and coma. Sort of a soft focus effect with little blips around light sources at the edges. The Super Speeds also have this effect wide open, but a lot more coma and a lot less spherical aberration. I far prefer those. I believe the 24mm f2 also has a bit more "nisen bokeh," like an S2 or S3 but not nearly as much or as nice. And it's about as soft as the 24mm f1.4 Rokinon, except the Nikon has character that I like and I much much prefer it, and it's much softer than the 24mm f1.4 Canon. For a "vintage" look it's nice, because it's not so messed up that it looks bad or is out of control or has gross flares like the Red Pro Primes, but it still has some character. The 28mm is already under control at f2, though. Both the 24mm and 28mm Nikkors are far far outperformed technically by the 18-35mm f1.8 Sigma, which is a fantastic lens if you want a modern look. There's something really amazing about it.
  7. HockeyFan12

    My quick EVA1 mini review

    I'm sure they're both great, I just love the colors in this shootout on the Panasonic: https://www.zacuto.com/canon-c200-vs-panasonic-eva1-camera-shootout-2018 Ironically, the Panasonci's resemble C300 colors and the C200 looks like a more sterile magenta-tinted Alexa to me? Fwiw I too am surprised to learn the EVA1 has more dynamic range, but maybe that's not counting RAW. The C200's dynamic range is outstanding. It doesn't have the great "look" of the earlier Canon cameras, though, and you need more talent as a colorist IMO. I think he just wrote not appropriate for broadcast, which is a fair criticism, if you're shooting tv. Then you're 95% of the time using an Alexa anyway. The flip side is, what's cooler than a C100-style body that shoots 60fps 4k raw internally with autofocus and that no longer needs to be built out (the XLRs and onboard mic are on the body and the EVF is useable, no need for the LCD) and that gains up to 102k ISO and has great battery life? For web videos or weddings that's pretty cool. Imagine trying to get that from an Alexa Mini, which eats batteries like crazy, needs a big EVF, lacks AF, can't gain up past 3200 ISO, doesn't shoot 4k, etc. etc. I mean you can use a C200 without any rig at all and it fits fine on a Ronin M with pancake lenses that AF great with it. The heavier body balances lenses better handheld, and it's really not much bigger than a C100 in the first place, so that's super cool. I like the Amira more than the Mini (ergonomically) but even that needs an assistant to operate properly. So "not appropriate for broadcast" seems like an arbitrary distinction to me. For super low end reality tv or maybe just someone who wants a really small documentary-style camera, I get the complaint, though; an FS7 or C300 Mk II would be way more appropriate there. I think Vice uses a lot of those, but that's mostly web anyway. But "not appropriate for enthusiasts" I think is the more accurate description of most cameras that are appropriate for broadcast. Even if you can afford an Alexa or F65, who has the money to hire a camera crew every time they want to shoot something? So I just think if you know your needs you know your needs, and the C200 should meet or exceed them. I do love the EVA1's colors, though....
  8. HockeyFan12

    My quick EVA1 mini review

    Poor monitoring options (can't monitor in Canon Log 2, can't output HDMI and SDI at the same time), lack of timecode sync, unwieldy codec (that's debatable–it's no bigger than 3.2k XQ). But that's silly, no one is buying a $7k camera for narrative tv. They're renting Alexas, maybe the occasional F55 or Epic for 4k. So it's a bizarre and arbitrary criterion to go by whether something is commonly used in tv, at least without getting into more detail, unless your goal is renting to tv productions. Though it's not a big deal for a colorist, I think I like the colors from the EVA1 more, but I haven't even worked with EVA1 footage yet. The c200 has a magenta bias in the skin tones and overall magenta tint and reverses some of the "magic" from the C300 or 1DC in favor of accuracy and a fake Alexa look, whereas the EVA1 seems to go for richer colors. 😕
  9. HockeyFan12

    Color Science Means Nothing With Raw... Really?

    I bet you're right it's at least 95% MX. Where did you get the editorial information from? Was it really cut with Vegas? I guess it doesn't matter but that's an unusual NLE. The grade was done by Dave Hussey at C03, one of the best colorists working at imo the best color grading company, and I discussed it for a while with a senior colorist at another post house (who'd graded an Oscar winning feature but is generally more freelance/indie) as one of the grades he was most impressed by, and it won some awards the year it came out I think. It should be good: I think an hour there is something like $5000. What's interesting to me is it's a really good "film look," with the reds really rich and saturated and darker than they would be on video, but it does seem pretty digital nonetheless. The Zapruder film part (which is kind of tasteless, but whatever) looks a lot like film to me, though. I legit can't tell if it's video or film there. But the video as a whole represents an artist's attempt to make digital look like film, and maybe I'm just a snob, but I swear it still has hints of Red MX there. Looks awesome nonetheless, really bold work. Maybe now with more advanced profiling and software it's easier to make one camera look like another. That piece Yedlin shot looks pretty much just like film to me: http://www.yedlin.net/OnColorScience/ Of course the Alexa always looked pretty good to me...
  10. HockeyFan12

    Color Science Means Nothing With Raw... Really?

    Yeah, that's a fair point. I think saying something is "bs" without saying why it's bs isn't always helpful. I'm mostly just curious about whether the thickness of the CFA matters and in what ways. Arri points out that most sensors can see the whole visible spectrum, but that doesn't mean they can differentiate them all cleanly. I found this thread, which I'm going to read when I get the chance lol: http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19894
  11. HockeyFan12

    My quick EVA1 mini review

    Looks nice. I love how foliage looks with this camera and greens and blues (and yellow) in general. How did you find it compared with the C200? Most sample footage I've seen from the EVA1 looks nicer, even if technical performance seems similar. Seems like they really have something good going here.
  12. HockeyFan12

    Color Science Means Nothing With Raw... Really?

    Fair enough. I shouldn't speak for the experts on the forum, just taking a guess at what they mean. And now we're getting into semantics anyway.
  13. HockeyFan12

    Color Science Means Nothing With Raw... Really?

    I think it's mostly the age-old canard (meme?) about using the word science when it's really about engineering. Anyhow, this stuff is above my head, too, and I think we should leave it to the experts. That is to say, the engineers. (Not scientists. Or marketing departments.) There's a lot of contradictory information online: Sony claims the F65 and F55 have the widest color gamut of any sensor; Canon's cinema gamut is far wider than that, though; and Arri claims that sensors don't have inherent gamuts because they can all "see" any visible color, which makes sense to me. But this is all marketing so it's difficult to get to the truth. So I'd just defer to @Mako Sports and @Mokara here. But it makes sense that they're right (and so is Arri)–any bayer color sensor in use today can see the entire visible spectrum, which is a vastly larger gamut than anything is mastered as. I'm still hoping someone can clarify whether metamerism error at the sensor level matters or not or to what extent it matters and where it comes from and how it can be addressed. It seems in theory you could make an extremely thin CFA that's barely red or green or blue at all and improve noise performance dramatically. In theory the Phase One Trichromatic back is totally bunk, and I'm wondering if I'm a total sucker for wanting one. Engineers I've spoken with claim even the thinnest CFAs we see today are still really excellent, but why are the dyes as thick or thin as they are? If they could be virtually infinitely thin so long as they still have some color, why aren't they? Thinner CFAs would, if anything, see a wider gamut, but I'm guessing would differentiate hues worse? I'm really curious about that still and it would be nice if someone with an engineering background could explain it to us. The Venice footage I've seen so far looks a lot better to me than C700 footage. And I really liked the F35, even the F3. Something about SLOG2 and the way color channels clipped just looked very "video" to me. But I might just be crazy or biased against those cameras-I didn't particularly like the F55 raw footage I worked with, and yet it's supposed to have the same CFA as the F65, which produces really nice images. Who knows... it was still pretty good! I'm not wild about the new Canons, I preferred the original C300's colors. Blues, greens, and skin tones were darker, the look was closer to color negative film, whereas the new ones seem very accurate to me, but they have more of a "video" feel but with a weird magenta tint. I think it's an engineering/market choice to try to emulate the Alexa better, but the old one had charm and wasn't just a "poor man's Alexa that has a strange magenta cast." I think we forget how primitive most colorists are (myself included). I loved the C100 because the look was great out of the box. Same with the Alexa. Loved the 5D Mark II. I'm not claiming one can't get a much better look from plenty of other technically superior cameras (than the C100, at least), and the F55 raw trounces most of those cameras. I'm just saying 99% of colorists can't get that super flat image to look as good as settings that look good out of the box. I include in that some of the top post houses, even. I think people here forget how incredibly skilled they are compared with the general public and even journeyman professional colorists. For most people, out of camera look matters; I'm no engineer and I'm not a great colorist. Neither are most consumers. My big issue is that the hue vs luminance curve introduces a lot of noise into the image and so trying to use that to turn a video look into more of a color negative look is difficult. But I know there are those who can do it. Still, I think this piece was graded expertly by Company 3: And you can see some parts that are clearly video trying to look like film. At 1:51 the grass and picnic blanket have the color and saturation of film, but the luma values still look more like an additive model than a subtractive model and the grass still looks more green than blue, partly as a result. Art Adams wrote about how the DXL darkened saturated green values and stretched the colors between yellow/green and blue/green out to get rid of the "Red look" and to me there are some scenes here that still have the "Red look." The American flag during the Zapruder video portion looks more like a subtractive model to me, though, the red there really pops. I've been told parts of this are shot on film and parts on video, but I lack the eye to differentiate all of it. It's probably all video lol. I bet it's 99% Red MX.
  14. HockeyFan12

    Color Science Means Nothing With Raw... Really?

    I think this is basically the idea behind ACES. But it still doesn't account for metamerism error, which I believe increases as the spectral response curves of a given dye become thinner and as the sensor's inherent gamut becomes smaller. So that's where I think it's not BS. The Phase One Trichromatic back I suspect does render better color than the standard Phase One back, even in sRGB images, even though both sensors cover more than rec709, just as Velvia 50 renders better color than faster slide films. But there's a lot of debate about it and the promotional videos for that back is full of demonstrable half truths and lies and marketing talk. Do you think it makes a difference? Unfortunately I'm not very technical, so I leave it to the experts like you and @Mako Sports for the final word. I agree most raw files of decent quality can be transformed to match if you have the software. I just think it's more true for stills than it is for video because ACR exists for stills but not for most video raw formats. I haven't compared Canon and Sony side-by-side in ACR myself, but DPreview's test charts I suspect are mostly processed through ACR (does anyone know otherwise?) and the color rendering between systems seems nearly identical. But I do suspect there are some subtle differences that show up more in faces and foliage than they do in color charts, but in theory are measurable in both. That might just be me being a sucker for marketing, though. What I'm curious about, and what I wonder if either of you could help me understand, is this: The F5 and F55 have different CFA arrays, one covers an exceptionally wide gamut, the other is designed for rec709. Assuming a rec709 deliverable, is there any difference in color between the two? I'm guessing there isn't unless the colorist wants to bring colors outside the rec709 gamut into it for the graded image–but for most work, there's none. Does a camera that covers rec709 inherently have low enough metamerism error that it can be transformed losslessly to match any other such camera? Does the sensor's gamut encompass all color values that can be derived without substantial error or simply all color values that can be derived at all (with some error or without)? This is where I'm still confused. It's my understanding that metamerism error is a significant problem in terms of fine hue differentiation (and the reason thinner CFAs can be problematic), which is difficult to see in color charts but easier to see in fine skin and foliage details, but I could be tripping up on advertising terminology. As I mentioned, I'm not very technical and do get drawn into ad speak. I also have read that even if it's a problem, it's very overrated. The only sensors with material metamerism problems are Foveon sensors. Someone here did some simple math to derive the chromasticities of the Red sensor in different development settings and found that they all cover >rec709/sRGB, but that the green chromasticity is pushed toward red, possibly accounting for the ruddy "red look." I can tell from the URL that you probably think this is BS, but it seems like their methodology makes sense: https://web.archive.org/web/20160310022131/http://colour-science.org/posts/red-colourspaces-derivation/ An author cited that article when he later claimed that the DXL largely solves this problem with its custom software, but that the DXL doesn't fully provide color that looks as good as the Alexa, for instance: https://www.provideocoalition.com/panavision-millenium-dxl-light-iron-red-create-winning-new-look-large-format-cinematography/ Was he monitoring in rec2020 (or another wide gamut) or is it possible that part of the "red look" is inherent to its sensor? Maybe some of those values we like in certain memory colors come from outside the rec709 gamut? It is VERY VERY lacking in greens relative to human vision, after all. I'd like to understand more about this because the F55, F65, C300 Mk II, etc. all have incredibly wide gamut sensors. Does this matter for rec709 viewing? I suppose one could map out of gamut colors to rec709, which though mathematically wrong might be scientifically pleasing, and only certain sensors would have gamuts wide enough for that... but in real world use is there any difference or not? Any insight would be much appreciated, I've long been confused about this but was ashamed it was a dumb question. I'll just embrace being dumb and ask it.
  15. HockeyFan12

    Color Science Means Nothing With Raw... Really?

    I assume because so long as the chromaticities defined by a given sensor's filter array encompass at least rec709 or sRGB (same chromasticities/gamut, different decoding gammas), then transforms exists to map an image acquired with that sensor to an image acquired with a different sensor that also covers sRGB (assuming the final output is sRGB or rec709). And all color sensors should cover at least sRGB. This is sort of the idea behind ACES if I'm not mistaken. The flilpside of the above argument would be that things like dynamic range, noise performance, and metamerism error can result in an image clipping, being overly noisy, or having poor tonality or colors that bleed into each other or simply false or indistinct colors. And those are inherent to the raw file. And metamerism error cannot be accounted for in software so far as I know. As I wrote above, Phase One's trichromatic back and their standard backs should both more than cover rec709, and yet the images taken with one appear more saturated and with better looking (imo) color than those taken with the other, even on an sRGB monitor. And, for instance, Red's too-close red and green chromasticities make it more difficult to get punchy green foliage in post (though the DXL proves it's possible to and I've also seen work from Company 3 that looks amazing with the Red). So for an expert colorist, I could see making the argument that raw files might as well all be the same... to a point. With raster, however, each company is baking things in quite differently and I think that really does matter, just maybe not where one expects. And that's where Red applies their "color science" label, in the debayer process. So personally I don't think it's entirely BS, even if I think it's mostly a marketing term. (No offense to @Mako Sports, I don't mean to speak for him or disagree with someone more experienced, just hoping to contribute to the discussion even though I'm a real neophyte with this kind of thing. I suspect you have better reasons for claiming it's entirely BS than I do for thinking it's somewhere in-between BS and material.) Also, a lot of raw isn't really really. Canon Raw Light has a lot baked in. I suspect ARRIRAW does, too. As regards color being more important in raster than raw, a friend worked with Stephen Sonnenfeld (founder of Company 3) on a project he cut and even he wasn't able to fully account for chroma clipping on cheaper cameras, though I'm sure what he did still looked absolutely amazing. But it's specific bugaboos like chroma clipping that ended up being the hardest things to address, and with raw that's not so much an issue. Again, this is just my uninformed opinion and I don't mean to speak for anyone or insult their abilities. I'm just a fan of Sonnenfeld's work so that's my bias, to agree with what he says, but it's totally possible someone more technical has figured this out better than he could. Back when I was shooting with the F5 I couldn't grade out clipping color channels in SLOG2, then I worked with it again with a a different LUT (Sony now has Arri-emulating and Kodak-emulating LUTs) that addressed that and the image was much easier to work with. So I think for raster images the pipeline makes a big difference, but I'm not much of a colorist.
×