Jump to content

HockeyFan12

Members
  • Posts

    871
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by HockeyFan12

  1. Right, the over/under charts Arri publishes support this. Early Red cameras were the same way. I talked with an engineer about this and didn't totally understand what he wrote. But why are all these cameras base 800 ISO and don't go any lower than that? I think it's because that is where the minimum gain is applied and then the gamma curve redistributes the dynamic range. As I mentioned, 640 ISO on the S1H V LOG is really (probably) 100 ISO with a gamma curve. Can you just apply less gain and have a sensor be like 5 ISO and start from there? If so, why not do that now that sensors are closer to ISO invariant and just have tons of highlight detail? Why is there a minimum ISO with most cameras and it's usually 100 for dSLRs and 800 for cinema cameras? And, in my experience based on dynamic range distribution, 100 ISO on dSLRs clips at the same point as 800 for cinema cameras? I always figured the issue was full well capacity? Why do the higher res Red cameras seem to clip sooner than the lower res ones? Why did the F3 with its 2.8K sensor have more dynamic range above 18% gray at 800 ISO than the F5 had above 18% gray at 2000 ISO? Anyway this is all over my head but I trust Arri's over/under numbers. But is "full well capacity" dependent on voltage and you can achieve infinite highlight detail with a lower gain? Or is it also a factor? The physical capacity of the photo site before it saturates? I've spoken with engineers and they imply that full well capacity is a factor. http://photonstophotos.net For instance has a maximum dynamic range for an ideal system (oddly, Arri seems to surpass it).
  2. Thanks for the insight, but I'd read that with ISO invariant cameras the limitation was no longer from the noisy A/D converter and instead from full well capacity and photon clipping. (At least for the most part.) It sounds like there is more to this story though. I actually don't know much about this and am curious how they achieved it. Regardless, what Arri has achieved here seems nearly as unique in today's market as the Classic was ten years ago.
  3. I have a very limited understanding of sensor design, but highlight dynamic range should be dictated by full well capacity. Each photosite is like a bucket. It can only fill with so many photons before it overflows. The reason most of these current cameras are 500-800 base ISO is because they need to underexpose and dig into the shadows to distribute DR since the photosites are only so big and can only hold so much light before being saturated. I suspect when the S1H shoots 640 ISO in V Log, the sensor is reading out the same signal as 100 ISO in another picture style. It's just digitally redistributing the dynamic range into the highlights. The Alexa has about half as many pixels per square inch as the C200 (4K S35), S1H (4K in S35), Venice (4K in S35), etc. Its photosites are about half as big. (2880X1620 = 4665600 photosites; 4096*2304 = 9437184 photosites) So they should hold twice as much light (one stop) before overflowing. Unsurprisingly, the Alexa has about a stop more highlight dynamic range than its competitors at base ISO. The Alexa35, however, has pixels that are about the same size as the C200, S1H, Venice, etc. But it has 1.5 stops MORE highlight dynamic range than the Alexa Classic. So that's 2.5 stops more than the competition. Maybe the base ISO of the Alexa35 will be 1600 to account for some of that (it underexposes and pushes an additional stop)? And the sensor design has physical improvements that account for the rest? Regardless, this puts the camera on another level from everything else on the market. But if its base ISO is 1600 that might explain it to an extent. Or maybe I misunderstand this and there are other factors like voltage involved? Regardless, this camera has already far surpassed my expectations.
  4. I've compared most of those cameras but not side by side (worked with almost all of them either in post or in person). LOVE the EVA1's image but the LCD and ergonomics are terrible. I put a little loupe on the LCD as I like a minimal set up but it would be a pain to "rig up" traditionally. I much prefer its image to the S1H actually. The colors are just better. It's not a world apart but it just looks better. Noisier though. C200 has a great image but the noise pattern is ugly and there's CMOS smear. It's just not the image I want. P6K I've only worked with in post but it's a pain in some ways from what I can see but the image looks great too. I think it boils down to ergonomics ultimately (and getting the right IRND filters for the P6K – or just getting the pro model) but both the EVA1 and P6K are capable of beautiful images, right on par with (or just a step down from) the Varicam35 and Alexa, which have quite different looking but really beautiful images too.
  5. I believe the digital definition of ISO (depending on whether you place middle gray at 12.5% or 18% saturation) implies 2.5 or 3 stops of highlight detail. It's "highlight boost" effects like Canon had that would underexpose and then push a stop to improve this. But clearly most video modes (as sensors have gotten ISO invariant) take this even further. Why is 640 the base ISO for the S1 in V Log but not in other picture styles? Because it's really exposing at 100 ISO probably. (Underexposing at 80 ISO then pushing three stops for a total of six stops of highlight detail.) https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm The fp looks like it has a great image. I own an S1 and from what I can tell the fp has a better image. Is there a more elegant way to redistribute dynamic range than underexposing three stops, though?
  6. I know it's cheap used since I just sold mine but I still feel the EVA1 has possibly the best image under $10k new (Komodo might be better but feels like a lot more work). It lacks some of the amenities and durability of its competitors and is just a weird product. But the image is amazing.
  7. In Adobe Suite? Adobe's HEVC implementation seems to be broken and there can be banding but I find the 6K HEVC files super robust if I transcode them in OSX (or Resolve should work) instead. Not sure about 4K. How is the fp's 4K center crop mode btw? Feels weird putting a speed booster on a FF camera but that could fix the aliasing issues I've seen (which, to be fair, are limited to fabrics that might cause even the Alexa to have aliasing, except on the fp it can be crazy bad).
  8. I guess to me the S1 is the ultimate in on set convenience and the Alexa is the ultimate in convenience in post. Increasingly I feel like I should have gone for the middle ground for both (P4K and speed booster XL) and left it at that but the last thing I need is to invest more money and time in another camera system. Were I starting over I think I'd go for a P4K, speed booster XL, and a LOT of old Nikkors. But I'm not sure I'm starting over. So I don't really know.
  9. How do you find the fp vs the S1? To me the S1 seems to have better specs and less aliasing, but the fp has nicer color and a richer (better) look overall? To me convenience seems to win every time – mostly because I don't have as much free time as I once had. Ironically, for a project that's heavy in post work, an Alexa equals the most convenience even if it's more work on set because it's so incredibly easy to work with in post. Lower res, ProRes, great color for which Lumetri is automatically calibrated, etc. Or.... just familiarity I guess. The S1 in the field is convenient but I don't love the image as much nor the post workflow. fp and P6K or P4K make me curious, but these days I don't have much time free for anything. I do think we all take for granted how incredible prosumer cameras are today, the S1(H) and fp included.
  10. Late version of the Minolta 35mm f1.4. I like it as a middle ground between the 35mm f1.4 Nikon AIS and a more "clinical" lens like a Sigma Art lens or Rokinon.
  11. Do you know what the correlation was? Humidity or something else? I have a few I want to keep in good condition and am worried too low humidity might dry the bearings out somehow? I just sold a 28mm f2.0 FD L for I think $99 a year or two ago. 😞
  12. How do the Sony and FD L 85mms compare? Does anyone know what the ideal humidity is for lenses? I have my FD lenses in a humidity locker now but I'm seeing some signs of aging on them and am worried they're too dry.
  13. How's the highlight dynamic range on the Komodo compared with S1H or C200 etc. The Komodo footage looks really really good to me. I like slightly softer footage so I like the 4K crop. I've heard about setting the shutter speed to 1/40th instead of 1/48th and underexposing and then pushing Red footage to get a more "organic" look.
  14. Is there any Komodo raw footage available online? Would love to take a look at it. I've always liked the Alexa's grain pattern but it has obviously issues with rolling shutter the Komodo doesn't. Not so much for the feeling of the motion (except for whip pans) more for camera flashes and the like.
  15. HockeyFan12

    The Aesthetic

    I don't think there's as much difference between what pros and amateurs are doing as you'd think. But upgrading an entire "pro" workflow takes a lot longer and costs a lot more than an owner-op upgrading one computer and camera. The platforms are converging too. I don't think you need that much resolution for cinemas or normal sized tvs – film prints were I think around 720p. For stills you need more resolution, for anything on a computer too with retina displays since it's close to your eyes. On retina screens you need more resolution whether you're on Netflix or YouTube. Where I would go, if I were a manufacturer, is not hybrid but special-purpose cameras. I think the S1 is the best deal on the market because it does everything well. But it doesn't do anything THAT well. Sony seems to be doing the best job of this with the A7 line but I don't think there's enough differentiation even there. Or maybe convenience wins. I dunno. I suspect we'll get more and more and better and better "faux" vintage lenses. And better and better LUTs. Consumer-priced Tribe7-style lenses, I think, might find a market. I think we'll probably just get sharper and sharper images with more and more exaggerated "film look" characteristics everywhere else. I do think if you have a lot of talent and money you can get away with being more subtle. Like Deakins. Or Steve Yedlin. And for long-form content you don't want the image to be distractingly aestheticized anyway imo. But I dunno.
  16. HockeyFan12

    The Aesthetic

    You can download sample Alexa footage here and here in raw and in ProRes: https://www.arri.com/en/learn-help/learn-help-camera-system/camera-sample-footage https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs1dS8pMvRw I can't think of a softer digital camera in use today. I suspect this is because Arri was originally looking to emulate a 2K film scan. Which is pretty soft. But they've since discontinued the film emulation matrix. And added the 3.2k mode, the LF, etc. Each iteration feels less and less like "film." And with each iteration, Canon and Sony and Red (and lately Panasonic and Black Magic) look more and more like Alexa. Everything looks the same now!
  17. HockeyFan12

    The Aesthetic

    Yeah, I think a lot gets lost in translation on the web. There's a lot of brand loyalty and gear loyalty but that ignores how subjective creative choices can be. For instances a lot of the great cinematographers were bleach bypass processing or using diffusion or even weirder stuff – like Janusz Kaminski on Saving Private Ryan – whereas Deakins was and is looking more for technical perfection. Impossible to say which lens or camera is best without knowing what style you're after. Then there are workflow issues too. Fincher has lost me over time with his faux-vintage stuff. I liked Zodiac except for the CG anamorphic lens flares. The faux-anamorphic look in Mindhunter was not for me, but it looked unique. Mank isn't a look I'm really into. But it won an Oscar. On the other hand, I thought the Lighthouse was totally deserving even though others might feel the opposite. So I guess taste is subjective too. 😕 I think, online in particular, the more specific your question, the better the answers you'll get.
  18. HockeyFan12

    The Aesthetic

    Has Arri confirmed it's 4K or "4K+"? I remember the EVA1 is 5.6k or the Alexa is 2.8k because that's around 4K or 2K after debayering. So it could be more. I used to hate on Netflix and their 4K requirement, but I had the chance to work with some footage that I then saw projected in 2K in a theater and the truth is I'm pretty sure you need more resolution for YouTube (maybe because of compression, maybe because you're so close to the screen) than you do for theatrical films (or tv) So I guess I get the Netflix requirement. But yeah I think bigger photo sites means more highlight dynamic range. So Arri will need some new tricks up its sleeve to match the OG Alexa's highlight detail – but I am sure they will. The Alexa also has a "soft" feel to it. Rumor is from the OLPF. Will be interesting to see if they maintain that. I always felt my t2i had the best colors, the C100 was a close second, Alexa third.
  19. I think I prefer the GH5 colors too, but I like the S1's highlight detail. I saw these comparisons, which I think are interesting: Since the "color science" target is presumably set, I think this comparison reveals that the sensors themselves must be quite different. The P4K and P6K I think have somewhat different color, too, which is interesting. In general the Alexa has a very green/warm bias and imo other cameras less so. The EVA1 feels a little greener and warmer than the S1, so that might be why I prefer its color rendering. More Alexa-like. The 150Mbps S1 codec is fine I think but the ALL-I EVA1 codec has a nice noise texture and a bit more noise, more organic. I had to deal with IR pollution and moire with the 4.6K and decided to stay away but the P4K and P6K have images that really impress me for the money. But I suspect you need to figure out the right NDs to use (Hoya Solas I bet) with them etc. I was ready to move to a P4K and speedbooster and sell everything else – I thought the less I owned the more I'd use it. But the S1 is so easy to use and the image is fine if not great that I think I'll stick with that for work and a "b cam." I own some higher end gear for personal use primarily. I rarely shoot professionally anymore or I'd probably own something else.
  20. I've only used the Varicam LT (or 35, I forget) in post but the image is really nice. There's a lot less skew and imo significantly better color than the S1 if I remember right and a better texture to the ProRes files too. It also has a bit more highlight dynamic range, it's really good and has a really good image. Back in the day when it was between that and the F55 for 4K for Netflix or whatever – I preferred the image from the Varicam LT. However the color is not similar to Alexa, it's kind of more its own thing, punchier and more vibrant. Also the skin tones tend more magenta (same issue I have with the S1 I suppose), which can be unflattering on pale caucasian skin. Lately imo Sony has caught up – never used an A7S3 but worked a bit with Venice footage and it's fantastic. I do think the Varicam's image is better than the S1 – the EVA1 occupies a middle ground for me (I prefer the EVA1 color and noise texture to the S1 and S1H for sure) and I have had mixed experience with Black Magic cameras in terms of reliability and IR pollution and moire etc. Great images for the money but less robust in some respects. All of these differences in image quality pale in comparison with ergonomic and workflow differences, which sadly imo probably matter much more. I bought too much and am selling stuff soon. I'm hoping I use more if I own less.
  21. I agree. I like a little more grain but clients might not.
  22. I don't mean soft in a bad way, I actually like the look. Fwiw Arri has sample footage from the LF on their website.
  23. Interesting point. I think the 30-something directors getting into the industry today are still into the vintage/film look. But younger directors might not be. You're not the first person I've talked with who goes with a longer shutter angle to get a smoother cadence. However 1/24th is too smooth for my taste. I've seen around 1/40th or 1/36th? Although beware flicker then from 60hz sources (street lights, some fluorescents). Also, I'm surprised that Alexa looks sharp on the big screen but kind of soft on my laptop? Sometimes I think there's more need for 4K on YouTube than there is in theaters. As we move even more to streaming (already with Netflix), will that push cameras to more and more Ks?
  24. I'm inclined to agree. But I have a vested interest both in "vintage" gear and lower res, softer footage. Vintage lenses I suspect are now so popular in part because of how sharp digital feels compared with film. Maybe sharp digital projection is a factor here too. I suspect for art design and vfx lower res helps too because the softer image and grain help cover up the artifice. Curious if gaffers light differently for film and for digital. I suspect they do. I also notice that the Alexa has a softer, grainier image than most other digital cameras do. I prefer the grainy Red Dragon image to newer Red cameras (to some extent), I like the Alexa image enough to wonder if I'll prefer it to the next generation Alexa, and I preferred the C300's image to the C300 Mk 2's and F3 to F5 – at least from what I have seen online. On the other hand, the Wachowskis did such a fun job embracing the digital/fake look with Speed Racer (in terms of cinematography, vfx, and set design alike) that I want to give Resurrections the benefit of the doubt (Still haven't seen it but really looking forward to it.) But whether the look is intentional or not (I'm fairly sure it is), that doesn't mean it looks good.... Lord of the Rings (and Gemini Man) did not have great receptions for HFR. I suspect the new Avatar movies, if they are HFR, will buck this trend, and am look forward to seeing those, too.
  25. I don't know for sure if it's gone but I think it is. It was an issue in the earliest tests too. You can see the horizontal strip from where the brightest patch is. The EOS R had a similar issue I remember but they fixed it. https://www.canonrumors.com/firmware-v1-2-0-seems-to-have-solved-a-banding-issue-that-was-present-in-the-canon-eos-r/
×
×
  • Create New...