Mark Romero 2

@jonpais

Thanks for the sample. Which lens are you using in the above clip?

The concern for me would be the focus breathing.

Do the lenses breathe much when racking focus???

And since I like a LOT of butter on my pancakes...

1 hour ago, elgabogomez said:

I saw movies on dvd that were poorly encoded and for several reasons had all of those problems (blown highlights, horrible roll off, oversharpened, compressed skin tones), it detracted from them but still were “cinematic “

minority report had all of those problems for artistic reasons and still looked good... don’t believe me? Watch it again 

Ok, but what was it that made it "cinematic" for you? (And I wholeheartedly believe that cinematic means different things to different people.)

@jonpais

Getting back to the original question you asked about DR, and to sort of add to the point of being "cinematic" in general...

I think it really boils down to, "not looking like video."

Think of all the BAD qualities of broadcast video and of early video cameras.

Surely limited DR was part of that, but there were other technical (and artistic) things that scream "VIDEO." I think as the video format became the option for lower budget content creaters, there is just a sort of mental connection that low-budget-looking productions are video, and more polished productions are cinematic.

One way to look at this is to ask yourself "What ISN'T cinematic???"

To me, cinematic ISN'T:

- blown highlights / horrible rolloff
- oversharpened
- compressed skin tones

Add on to that artistic features that were amateurish.

19 hours ago, jonpais said:

?. God, I’d kill for some fish and chips now. Not a thing here in Vietnam, I guess.

Yeah, back when I lived in Thailand in the 90s for 4 years, I would have killed someone for tacos.

Firstly, the short video clip you posted looks good, @jonpais

The sticker for me is what is meant by "cinematic," since it is a word bandied about so often.

Firstly, I don't think it is specifically dynamic range of a camera per se that is the main concern. (As someone pointed out, some of the more popular film stocks had limited dynamic range).

I would say that - in terms of brightness and darkness - cinematic in part to me means "controlled lighting" or maybe something more like "well managed lighting."

But that is just one part of the recipe for cinematic for me.

And "well managed lighting" could be everything from using a cheap foam board reflector to using fill lights to shooting in open shade to shooting at the right time of day to using a camera with more stops of DR.

So in essence, I think we might be barking up the wrong tree if we look at it as just "how many stops of DR are needed."

Getting back to the nice sample footage you posted. As someone pointed out above, not a whole lot of DR in those shots.

What would have made it look more cinematic???

Maybe some of these MIGHT make it look more cinematic (maybe or maybe not - I am not implying at all that you SHOULD do these things, just saying that some people might feel your footage is more cinematic if you were to do these things, although others might not):

- gelling your key light

- shallower depth of field

- epic sounding background music

- using a diffusion filter

- more base makeup on the talent

- stronger grading of the footage

- adding film grain

- adding audio from the environment.

~~~~~~~

Man, I ramble on a lot. I guess it boils down to - in terms of dynamic range - managing your lighting, which you did well in the clips you posted.

Well, I know it isn't part of a side-by-side comparison, but I really do like the 'look" of the dancer video shot on the bolex that was posted.

As for low light rolling shutter vs global shutter performance, I think the thing was (and don't quote me on this) global shutters tended to be CCD sensors and rolling shutter sensors seem to be CMOS, and tends to perform better in low light. (Obviously, no one is going to confuse me with an engineer with that statement.)

@hilema

If you mount your camera on your drone, how will you monitor it?

A light and cheap 1080p camera is the Sony a5100 (I bought one used for about $150). An a6000 is also good although a bit heavier than the a5100 (my a6000 cost $300 used).

I think that Panasonic makes some nice (relatively) inexpensive GX series cameras that work well for both 1080p and 4K. Don't know the exact models and prices.

Maybe I am wrong, but just as there are "cat people" and there are "dog people" in the world, there are Sony People and there are Panasonic People. Never the twain shall meet...

And now for something completely different...

I am pretty sure you could import RAW files (DNG format) into Resolve and apply luts, or use the wonderful grading tools in resolve (I loves me some saturation vs luminance curves).

@brianwahl

Thanks so much for posting your opinions and for posting the sample videos. It is nice work you've done there.

The footage of the Haw River looks nice. the 60fps 1080p coming out of my a6500 doesn't look nearly as nice as that. Far more... "wonky" I guess (sorry I can't think of a better technical term).

@Don Kotlos

Thanks again!!!

@Don Kotlos

Thanks for the explanation.

You mentioned getting good results using slog with a slightly reduced color space and boosting saturation. Should the boost in saturation be done IN CAMERA??? Or in post??? Or both????

14 hours ago, Don Kotlos said:

With linear encoding like in RAW files, the bit depth determines the upper limit of dynamic range.  jpeg or log use non linear encoding which can map higher dynamic range in a limited bit depth. Thats how jpegs can typically have ~11 stops of dynamic range and log profiles >12. 

The problem is that the more you compress the dynamic range of an image into limited bit death, the more you under-sample the color space and the more limited tonalities & increased banding you get. 

Bitrate has nothing to do with dynamic range. 

OK, I can understand that. Although it brings up a question.

The (soft) 1080p of the D750 has a boatload of dynamic range at base ISO 100, and there doesn't seem to be many complaints about the color or the D750 footage (even though it is less than 50mbs and it is 8-bit 4:2:0), nor complaints about banding.

So how does the D750 pull off the high DR without ending up with colors that look like slog? (I honestly don't know.)

Is it because the lack of sharpness leaves "room" in the codec for more DR and for better colors? (Meaning, if it were 4K and had lots more "information" would the DR and the colors all take a hit???)

Is it just a matter of 8-bit, 4:2:0 being enough for 1080p but not enough for 4K?

Just Curios:

In RAW, according to DPreview, the a7 III is supposed to be (more-or-less) ISO-less, meaning shooting underexposed ISO 100 and pushing one stop in post doesn't give you a noise penalty when compared to shooting at ISO 200.

I wonder if this holds true for the movie codec as well?

I know there is probably a flaw with this thinking. Why have slog when you could just underexpose using a more linear gamma and push it in post since the noise will equal out?

Probably something to do with the dual gain circuits... Or the movie codec just doesn't act like RAW in this way.

Insurance. Don't forget to get insurance for the event. Someone slips on a spilled soft drink and next thing you know, you are paying for somebody's hip replacement. (most likely the venue won't even think about you renting it out until you come up with insurance that indemnifies the venue owners.)

Find local retailers to try and sponsor your festival as well by giving away gift certificates or swag bags or whatever they can donate to promote themselves and generate buzz for the festival.

@mercer

Filmjects??? Reject Fest??? Reject Quest??? Loserpalooza???

I think I would agree with Geoff CB above.

The D750 is a really nice stills camera. A lot to like about it. I moved from the D750 over to the APS-C size Sony a6500 for a couple of reasons (mostly because the a6500shoots 4K, works well on a single-handle gimbal, and the fact that I can adjust settings with one hand on the a6500 while in my left hand I am generally holding a flash gun, light stand, or flash remote triggers. Plus I like the quick AF of the a6500 in movie mode, whereas the AF of the D750 in movie mode is really, really bad).

The 1080p output of the D750 is pretty soft. I haven't really figured out a way to sharpen it up nicely without it breaking apart (I am sure there is a way to do it and that smarter people than myself have achieved it; just I am not that sharp of a person - bad pun intended).

So maybe you need to ask yourself:

1) Do you need 4K? If not, then maybe some of the M43 Panasonic cameras would do since they have good 1080p. Of course, then there is the whole focal length issues...

2) If you don't need 4K and would like convenience, can you live with the softish 1080p of the D750?

3) If you need 4K and high megapixels, maybe Two used Sony a7R II bodies and an adapter for your nikon lenses? I don't think you would have working AF for AF-C but maybe the comlite adapter would give you usable AF for AF-S???

Starting at 7:06 he talks about the comlite adapter with Nikon lenses on sony bodies.

Since no one seems to have mentioned the G9 yet...

On 3/12/2018 at 8:50 PM, dbp said:

Just got the Yongnuo 560 IV. Gonna get another and the TX to do remote off camera flash soon. It's amazing for the very low price.

In fact, that's one fun thing about photography. You get WAY more powerful lighting sources for a fraction of the price and size. 

Are you in the US???

If so, and if it were possible, I would return the yongnuo flash guns and instead buy Godox flash guns through Adorama, which are listed under their flashpoint brand name.

Firstly, i have used (and abused) both yongnuo and Godox / Flashpoint flashguns, and the Godox / Flashpoint brand is FAR MORE durable and dependable than the yongnuo brands.

Secondly, if you buy godox flashguns through adorama (under the flashpoint brand name), you get a one-year warranty. If you buy yongnuo flash guns, you generally only get 30-days. 

Thirdly, if you ever want to use your flash guns in conjunction with bigger strobes, the Godox / flashpoint system has several flavors of bigger strobe lights that are compatible with the same radio transmitter system as their smaller flash guns. I don't believe at this time that yongnuo has larger strobes (i haven't checked in a while), so if you wanted to use yongnuo flash guns in conjunction with larger strobes, you would need to use two different radio systems, which can be a hassle (and a half) to work together.

And finally, you can buy the Godox / Flashpoint flash guns with a lithium battery that lasts MUCH longer than AA NiMH batteries. They are so much more convenient that dealing with a bunch of Double A batteries.

Yes, the godox / flashpoint flash guns are more expensive than yongnuo, but I really recommend that they are worth the difference.

5 hours ago, no_connection said:

The results are in:

"Done. And the results are pretty good: 24.3 ms in 4k FF 25fps, and 8.7ms in 1080p FF 25fps."

Still waiting for s35

Where is this original quote from?

3 hours ago, hmcindie said:

Regarding the two first videos, one tell tale difference is that the second video (which is more amateur) lets the highlights be at 100. The first video has all the levels of the highlights brought down way under 100 with a custom curve. Use S-LOG 2, it will help you keep those higlights with the a6500.

Same with the shadows. First video avoids clear 0 blacks. Second video doesn't. Get those gamma curves with a more pleasing look, it also applies when grading stills.

Thanks for the input. Yeah, I am sure that I was often blowing my highlights. When you say the first video they were way down under 100 IRE, about how far down do you think their highlights were? I have heard for cine 1 keep them at 95 (or below) even though Cine 1 is supposed to go to 109 IRE.
 

2 hours ago, gethin said:

real estate video shooting is my day job.  They have got crap loads of direct sunlight coming into that room. No lights needed!  I did a stills shoot the other day for a property the total opposite of this: no windows other than the one the view was through, no direct sun coming into the room from anywhere.  Total nightmare to shoot, ended up bouncing some light in with big reflectors. No way on earth a video camera of any flavour could handle it.  To combat the sun you'd need a huge light. Even in stills a big room will swallow a 300W strobe. You'd need HMIs, but totally impractical for a real estate shoot.  

When faced with videoing places like this it's really OK to say to the client "there's no way to get the view and interior". You can shoot the view with something in the foreground to get a sense that it is a view from the house. This can work well with longer lenses on a track or gimbal.  you can set the camera to auto and move from the dark room to the view.  Or you can shoot a raw timelapse if the dyanamic range is within the range of your gear.   

one ritzy place I shot I set up 2.4x1.2 metre poly silver boards, but even with an assistant and sandbags they kept blowing over lol.  I've never bothered again.  Would be quicker to go back at dawn or dusk and get the light streaming into the room.   Sometimes you can just chuck a silver reflector on the floor if there is sunlight coming into the room, that will bounce a fair amount of light back up, off a white ceiling.  

Thanks for chiming in. I will have to try the silver reflector on the floor idea.

When it is really bright outside, I can see using something in the foreground as a silhouette; maybe the tops of some chairs or some wine glasses on a dining room table...???

Yeah, setting up ply silver boards seems like a nightmare... heck, just putting them into my car seems like a nightmare (and I have a BIG car).

On 3/7/2018 at 10:56 AM, Aussie Ash said:

What is the real estate guys commission on selling a 2 million dollar home !!

It's a lot!

But it is all about VALUE for the agents. I see some agents selling $5 Million or more homes using photos they took on their iphones. They can't be bothered to spend $100 on cheap run-and-gun HDR photos, let alone $200 for well-light photos.

On 3/7/2018 at 6:58 AM, kidzrevil said:

I recently changed my workflow from using luts to a 32bit floating point color space like ACES and davinci resolve color management and the difference in image quality is night and day from using those hard coded luts that do weird things to an 8 bit image.

When you say you changed your workflow, do you literally mean just go into preferences in Resolve and change, change color science to ACES, go to lookup tables, then pick the corresponding IDT and ODT (rec.709 for broadcast, sRGB for web)?

Is there a difference between ACES and Resolve Color Management?

I see there is an IDT for Slog but does one need a different IDT if using one of the Sony Cine gammas?

50 minutes ago, buggz said:

And then there is this...

https://tilta.com/shop/armor-man-arm-t01/

Check out the video.

Way too complex for me... Just going to tape a GoPro to the head of a chicken and be done with it.

49 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Unless its 10 bit money of course

And Sony money sometimes has a magenta tint to it, sometimes yellow...

4 hours ago, Matthew Hartman said:

I attach my Z Crane v1 gimbal to a shock-absorbed boom arm mounted to a vest. Two things happen here. The fourth axis is shock-absorbed, where these 3-axis gimbals totally fall apart the most, and I'm also not wearing out my arms holding up a metal pistol grip all day. Spent muscles are shaky muscles. 

Is there any way you could post a video / photo of this in use???

1 hour ago, Dan Wake said:

is it possible to develop a fourth axis thas is electronic? that have an electronic brain as the other 3 axis of the gimbals do?  because they may easly put the fourth axis in the handle of the gimbals if so..... and I do not understand why they stopped at 3 axis.... is it a techincal reason or just people do not ask for a butter smooter movements?

One thing I have done which SEEMS to help is inclining the gimbal forward about 25-degrees or so (certainly less than 45). This seems to help mitigate the up-and-down motion that is not otherwise controlled with a 3-axis gimbal.

3 hours ago, AaronChicago said:

They're just using a ton of fill for the inside. You could blast a few HMI or Daylight LEDs into a bleached muslin sheet on the opposing wall. Then if you still have a decent amount of light to play with use more diffusion 4 ft from the wall.

Well... that is kind of what I thought at first, too. I thought they had to be either bouncing light off the ceiling or bounce off a wall or through a scrim.

But looking at it closely I don't see ANY reflections for either bounced light or shoot through light.

I can see reflections or practical lighting in the ample glass and chrome, but I don't see any telltale signs of bounced / shoot through lighting. There is a ton of glass in the shots (windows, shower doors, mirrors, pictures in glass) and using bounced or scrimmed lighting you would expect to see either direct reflections of the light itself, or reflections of the wall, or the shadow of the camera person.

2 hours ago, mercer said:

I think Mark is saying he has like a half an hour to get in and out, so extra lighting will have to be minimal. I think he does the photos and video... so he basically has enough time for a walkthrough.

 

Yeah, that is basically my fate. Had to photograph a house once where they gave me 20 minutes and I had to shoot while the owner / wife  was having a mental breakdown (she was being forced to sell the house due to a divorce settlement) AND they had five maids (cleaning crew, technically) cleaning the house while I was in there trying to shoot.

So ideally I would like to keep lighting to a minimum.