Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About KnightsFan

  • Rank
    Frequent member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. A lot of our examples have been soft, vintage, or film. I just watched the 12k sample footage from the other thread and I think that it displays thick colors despite being an ultra sharp digital capture. So I don't think that softening optics or post processing is a necessity.
  2. Yes, I think the glow helps a lot to soften those highlights and make them dreamier rather than sharp and pointy and make it more 3D in this instance where the highlights are in the extreme background (like you said, almost like mist between subject and background). I agree, the relation between the subject and the other colors is critical and you can't really change that with different sensors or color correction. That's why I say it's mainly about what's in the scene. Furthermore, if your objects in frame don't have subtle variation you can't really add that in. The soft diffuse light c
  3. @kyeI don't think those images quite nail it. I gathered a couple pictures that fit thickness in my mind, and in addition to the rich shadows, they all have a real sense of 3D depth due to the lighting and lenses, so I think that is a factor. In the pictures you posted, there are essentially 2 layers, subject and background. Not sure what camera was used, but most digital cameras will struggle in actual low light to make strong colors, or if the camera is designed for low light (e.g., A7s2) then it has weak color filters which makes getting rich saturation essentially impossible. H
  4. @tuppMaybe we're disagreeing on what thickness is, but I'd say about 50% of the ones you linked to are what I think of as thick. The canoe one in particular looked thick, because of the sparse use of highlights and the majority of the frame being rather dark, along with a good amount of saturation. The first link I found to be quite thin, mostly with shots of vast swathes of bright sky with few saturated shadow tones. The kodachrome stills were the same deal. Depending on the content, some were thick and others were thin. If they were all done with the same film stock and process, th
  5. Got some examples? Because I generally don't see those typical home videos as having thick images. They're pretty close, I don't really care if there's dithering or compression adding in-between values. You can clearly see the banding, and my point it that while banding is ugly, it isn't the primary factor in thickness.
  6. I've certainly been enjoying this discussion. I think that image "thickness" is 90% what is in frame and how it's lit. I think @hyalinejimis right talking about shadow saturation, because "thick" images are usually ones that have deep, rich shadows with only a few bright spots that serve to accentuate how deep the shadows are, rather than show highlight detail. Images like the ones above of the gas station, and the faces don't feel thick to me, since they have huge swathes of bright areas, whereas the pictures that @mat33 posted on page 2 have that richness. It's not a matter of reducing expos
  7. I don't know what all the negativity is about, this looks pretty good to me. Worse specs than a Z Cam E2, but you gain Panasonic Brand (brands aren't my thing but brands are worth real money), SDI, timecode without an annoying adapter, and you can use that XLR module if you want. Plus it takes SD cards instead of CFast. If Z Cam didn't exist I'd get this for sure.
  8. I don't have super extensive experience with wireless systems. I've used Sennheiser G3's and Sony UWP's on student films, and they've always been perfectly reliable. The most annoying part is that half of film students don't know that you have to gain stage the transmitter... Earlier this year I bought a Deity Connect system, couldn't transmit a signal 2 feet and I RMA'd it as defective. Real shame as they get great reviews and are a great price. What I can say is their build quality, design, and included accessories are phenomenal. I very nearly just bought another set, but my project ne
  9. I'll amend the statement... "encoders universally do better with more input data." If you keep the output settings the same, every encoder will have better results with a higher fidelity input than a lower fidelity input. Therefore, if YouTube's visual quality drops when uploading a higher quality file, then it is not using the same output settings.
  10. My second fact wasn't about whatever YouTube is doing, I was just stating that encoders almost universally do better with more input data. So if in YouTube's case the quality is lower from the 4K upload, then they must be encoding differently based on input file--which would not be surprising actually. So I have no idea what YouTube is actually doing, I'm just explaining that it's possible @fuzzynormal does see an improvement.
  11. I haven't used YouTube in many years, but here are two facts: 1. YouTube re-encodes everything you upload 2. The more data an encoder is given, the better the results While the 1080p bitrate is the same for the viewer whether you uploaded in 4k or HD, it's possible (but not a given) that any extra information that YouTube's encoder is given makes a better 1080p file. Though my intuition is that the margin there is so small, uploading in 4k will not give any perceptible difference for people streaming in 1080p.
  12. With the handheld footage and moving subjects focus is lost quite a bit. The shot of the orange for example I see no difference between all 3 since the orange is moving in and out of focus. But on that first shot of the plant, which is relatively still, A is the clear winner. B and C are pretty close, but I do think that one shot has C losing ground. I'd suggest shots that are similar to what you actually use since those will be most useful. I'm on a tripod most of the time, which is where you'll see the most difference between 4K and HD especially with IPB compression.
  13. If there's no bottleneck, I personally would save my money haha. I think that for normal editing, your 1080TI probably already outperforms your CPU so adding another would likely give no benefit.
  14. For me A > B > C. C looks the worst to me but mainly because that shot at 1:08 looks digitally sharpened which was visible in a casual viewing. I wouldn't have noticed any other differences without watching closely. I'm not sure how matched your focus was between shots but in the first composition A seems a little clearer than B which is a little clearer than C, could easily be focus being off by just a hair though.
  15. If the CPU is bottlenecking, then money you spend on a new GPU will be wasted until the bottleneck is resolved. Same with the SSD--if that's not working at its max currently, then you can spend all the money in the world and it won't help at all. I bring up the CPU because I had a similar CPU and GPU, and upgrading the CPU made a world of difference. If you're set on upgrading your GPU, you might want to look at the upcoming 3000 series cards before buying another 1080. The 3070 was announced at $499 for a release in October with over twice the CUDA cores as the 1080 at a TDP of 220W, whi
  • Create New...