Jump to content

Image thickness / density - help me figure out what it is


kye
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 10/23/2020 at 6:07 PM, KnightsFan said:

I think that simply adding water, thereby increasing specularity, contrast, and color saturation makes a drastic increase in thickness.

It doesn't look "thicker" to me -- just wetter, causing different colors and, in this case, more contrast.  If you shot either scene (dry or wet) on Kodachrome, it would look significantly thicker.

 

Also, the difference in the pattern of dappled light skews the comparison.  One can't help but wonder how this test would appear with an overcast sky.

 

 

On 10/24/2020 at 2:23 AM, hyalinejim said:

You can see that effect clearly here. This is Fuji 400H exposed at box speed:

[snip]

And this is the same chart exposed at -2 but scanned to bring up the midtones.

That's some exceedingly coarse grain in the images of those charts.  Huge grain like that significantly reduces color depth, which affects the look of the charts and throws-off the comparison a little.

 

 

On 10/24/2020 at 2:23 AM, hyalinejim said:

Note how the shadows are lifted, because the shadow areas of the chart are now very close to the base fog of the emulsion, and are hardly registering at all

That's one way to describe it.  Another way put it is that, due to the initial underexposure, more of the values from dark-tones to mid-tones are compressed together at the bottom end (along with the base fog).  So, when the exposure is boosted to restore the mid-tones to their normal value, the dark tones become brighter than usual, because they remain compressed close to the mid-tones.

 

 

On 10/24/2020 at 2:23 AM, hyalinejim said:

Yes, it's a less saturated image than the correctly exposed one. But if you took a digital shot of the same chart at the same exposure level, applied a curve to match the contrast and altered saturation so that the midtones match.... I think you'd still see the same pattern of more saturation in the shadows for film, and less in the highlights.

I am not sure what this exposure comparison adds to the idea that the brighter tones in film emulsions generally are less saturated (with the darker tones being relatively more saturated, by default).

 

 

On 10/24/2020 at 2:23 AM, hyalinejim said:

Digital images look thin because of the way they (probably accurately) capture saturation from shadows to midtones to highlights.

I agree partially --  I think that there are other variables involved in how film renders color.  For instance, film generally has more color depth than digital.

 

 

On 10/24/2020 at 10:57 AM, KnightsFan said:

I don't think you'd get a significantly thicker image out of any two decent digital/film cameras given the same scene and sensible settings.

I disagree.  A lot depends on the emulsion.  I think that one would see a dramatic difference comparing Kodachrome to digital.  Typical print film would yield less of a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
6 hours ago, seanzzxx said:

eh I think I'll just wait for Tupp to show up and say that it cannot have a dense image as long as it wasn't shot on Kodachrome(tm), seeing how that has been this thread for the last month or so.

LOL!

 

Well, I think that some of the images that I linked were actually shot on Ektachrome and Kodacolor, but I mostly gave Kodachrome examples, as it is the "extreme" of the color emulsions.

 

Also, I said early in the thread that color depth was probably the key variable for digital "thickness,"  so I agree that "dense" digital images can be (and have been) achieved with digital cameras.

 

 

On 11/21/2020 at 5:34 PM, kye said:

Thoughts on how thin / thick these two trailers are?

Both trailers look good, but the Red footage looks thin/brittle compared to that of the Alexa footage.  Of course, much of these looks could result from the grade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tupp said:

 

Both trailers look good, but the Red footage looks thin/brittle compared to that of the Alexa footage.  Of course, much of these looks could result from the grade.

Alexa>anything else 

aside from Film of course. Its super odd to me that no one has been able to match the Alexa since the classic came out 10 years ago. I guess 10 years isn't a long time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, tupp said:

Both trailers look good, but the Red footage looks thin/brittle compared to that of the Alexa footage.  Of course, much of these looks could result from the grade.

I suspect that it's the grade, or some part of the image pipeline.

Apparently the first one was shot on a Red Epic, which according to wikipedia:
"In 2010, Red released the Red Epic which was used to shoot The Amazing Spider-Man, The Hobbit, Prometheus, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides and The Great Gatsby as well as many other feature films."

I'm assuming that it was the earlier Epic, instead of later ones, but even then, I didn't think that those other films looked particularly thin.  I'd imagine that shooting with a Red you'd either shoot in RAW or Prores, so it would have been at least 10-bit.

For me, it was quite a difference between the two in terms of image thickness.

In terms of the creative effect, the subject matter of the first one is very digital/cold whereas the second one is more analog and human, so 'thin' and 'brittle' is a relevant and appropriate creative choice for the subject matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kye said:

I suspect that it's the grade, or some part of the image pipeline.

Apparently the first one was shot on a Red Epic, which according to wikipedia:
"In 2010, Red released the Red Epic which was used to shoot The Amazing Spider-Man, The Hobbit, Prometheus, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides and The Great Gatsby as well as many other feature films."

I'm assuming that it was the earlier Epic, instead of later ones, but even then, I didn't think that those other films looked particularly thin.  I'd imagine that shooting with a Red you'd either shoot in RAW or Prores, so it would have been at least 10-bit.

For me, it was quite a difference between the two in terms of image thickness.

In terms of the creative effect, the subject matter of the first one is very digital/cold whereas the second one is more analog and human, so 'thin' and 'brittle' is a relevant and appropriate creative choice for the subject matter.

Looks like a higher framerate. 30fps. The motion looks off. But def interested in figuring out why it looks so bad. It doesnt look natural it looks like theatre lighting, some shots have good contrast ratio but still looks cheap. The lenses are prolly too sharp. Some bad framing as well, and digital fx from the 80's. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/23/2020 at 11:15 PM, TomTheDP said:

Alexa>anything else

I don't know... footage from the F35 looks really good.

 

 

On 11/24/2020 at 4:52 AM, zerocool22 said:

Looks like a higher framerate. 30fps.

Frame rate and "motion cadence" are significant properties in making video look like film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...