Leaderboard

A friend recommended a movie to me, but it looked really long. I watched the first scene and then the last scene, and the last scene made no sense. It had characters in it I didn't know about, and it didn't explain how the characters I did know got there. The movie is obviously fundamentally flawed, and I'm not watching it. I told my friends that it was flawed, but they told me that it did make sense and the parts I didn't watch explained the whole story, but I'm not going to watch a movie that is fundamentally flawed! They keep telling me to watch the movie, but they're obviously idiots, because it's fundamentally flawed. They also sent me some recipes, and the chocolate cake recipe had ingredient three as eggs and ingredient seven as cocoa powder (I didn't read the other ingredients) but you can't make a cake using only eggs and cocoa powder - the recipe is fundamentally flawed. My friend said that the other ingredients are required in order to get a cake, but I'm not going to bother going back and reading the whole recipe and then spending time and money making it when it's obviously flawed. My friends really are stupid. I've told them about the bits that I saw, and they kept telling me that a movie and a recipe only make sense if you go through the whole thing, but that's not how I do things, so obviously they're wrong. It makes me cry for the state of humanity when that movie was not only made, but it won 17 oscars, and that cake recipe was named Oprahs cake of the month. People really must be stupid.

Unless it's Wonder Woman 1984 when just watching the trailer only (ie, not the movie) is your best course of action.

Pretty surprised but I could play back the new 8k Raw codec in DaVinci Resolve on a three-year old iMac (souped up at the time however). I have always edited in Premiere but it's pretty insane how much smoother DaVinci is with everything. Need to make the full switch.

Yes, but I haven't dug deep enough into it, but I will. In particular, I'll probably post something about his color theories. I'm happy he shares so much!

Unfortunately, the low and mid-tier camera market is stuck in the mud. Quality wise, Sony is the McDonald's of the camera industry.

I also found many of his articles particularly interesting, especially given that some have very carefully prepared tests to demonstrate how they translate to the real world. http://www.yedlin.net/NerdyFilmTechStuff/index.html Did you find anything else in here that was of interest?

only work for 4 lens atm (70-200 2.8 RF, 100-500, 600, 800), other lens will need to be updated to support it.

The 8k RAW Lite is the same file size as the 8k All-I on the R5, they should definitely do that to their other camera.

That's what I was thinking - about an 8:1 compression. Whatever this compression ratio is, I'd LOVE it if they brought it to 4k in the the C300 III, C200, and any other future 4k raw cameras. 8:1 is sort of the sweet spot for quality and file sizes. For 4k, that would probably be closer o 400-600mbps, which is the same or a bit more than All-I.

The whole video made sense to me. What you are not understanding (BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T WATCHED IT) is that you can't just criticise bits of it because the logic of it builds over the course of the video. It's like you've read a few random pages from a script and are then criticising them by saying they don't make sense in isolation. The structure of the video is this: He outlines the context of what he is doing and why He talks about how to get a 1:1 view of the pixels He shows how in a 1:1 view of the pixels that the resolutions aren't discernable Then he goes on to explore the many different processes, pipelines, and things that happen in the real world (YES, INCLUDING RESIZING) and shows that under these situations the resolutions aren't discernible either You have skipped enormous parts of the video, and you can't do that. Once again, you can't skip parts of a logical progression, or dare I say it "proof", and expect for it to make sense. Your posts don't make sense if I skip every third word, or if I only read the first and last line. Yedlin is widely regarded as a pioneer in the space of colour science, resolution, FOV, and other matters. His blog posts consist of a mixture of logical arguments, mathematics, physics and controlled tests. These are advanced topics and not many others have put the work in to perform these tests. The reason that I say this is that not everyone will understand these tests. Not everyone understands the correct and incorrect ways to use reductive logic, logical interpolation, extrapolation, equivalence, inference, exception, boundaries, or other logical devices. I highly doubt that you would understand the logic that he presents, but one thing I can tell with absolute certainty, is that you can't understand it without actually WATCHING IT.

This is truly surprising as the compression ratio is more than any C camera from Canon. 8k RAW at 1.3 Gbits/s is very very good is basically in the same ballpark as 8:1 RED 8k RAW

Well, I follow your POV but let's not forget going with 5X the 24p rate, we have 376Mbps as 'regular' speed equivalent, so it's not that bad detail-wise also in order to avoid any potential introduction of nasty artifacts along your footage ; ) Without mention, you can always recode it : ) I'd firmly suggest this one, though:

With the larger of the grips available, or the cage inc. grip from Smallrig, plus the EVF, pretty much...which is why you then have to ask yourself the question, "what does it do, that something else does not?" Maybe it's the colour science or some other aspect? Maybe because you are just one of those people that say "damn convention!" and just make it work. I've just looked at the work of twice voted best wedding videographer in Europe and he's moved to shooting the FP handheld from Black Magic. Some will want to rig it out, but for me, the appeal of it is pretty much straight out of the box, other than the smallest hand grip attachment which barely adds any size. Bare bones simplicity.

Much to my wife's chagrin, the point I make when I compare my expenditure to that of friends who are into boats, motorbikes, vintage cars etc etc is unarguable. If one buys one's equipment in a thoughtful way, favours secondhand and doesn't always chase the very latest thing, cinematography/film-making is by no means an extravagant pastime. Another mate of mine is into breeding rare prawns - I kid you not - where a breeding pair, or whatever they call them, of some species fetch over £500 a pop. When he adds up that ongoing cost (prawns, like humans, are not, sadly, immortal) to his other costs of tanks, filters, electronic gizmos etc he's got an at least Komodo-sized annual habit.

I'm familiar with those videos, although they were from a different time, when 2K was still a mainstream thing. The one I watched was more recent, and in the context of newer 4K / 6K and even 8K cameras. Obviously the ability to track things in 3D space accurately is pretty crucial if you're doing heavy VFX work like in Hollywood action blockbusters with a camera moving through a scene (say, on a boom) and then having to insert dozens/hundreds of 3D rendered objects into that scene, even extending to entire characters in the film. I've seen tracking and how it works in small proportions of a single pixel, which may have considerable impact on the location of something if the object is far away from the reference points. Obviously in cases like that having RAW 8K would be far nicer for the VFX team to reference rather than a blocky-by-comparison 2K image. This is, of course, talking about capture resolution, and not about final output resolution. I think there's a spectrum of shooters ranging from people who get everything right in-camera and almost won't even colour the footage, through to those who shoot for complete accuracy and want to do as much as possible in post. It will depend on your preferences, your budget (to hire a VFX team), and your schedule. He mentioned in the video that he applied a compression deliberately, in order to investigate what effects it would have on the image quality. He said he chose something akin to what gets streamed to peoples houses, or is in DSLR cameras. I'd guess something in the 25Mbps ballpark. It probably goes without saying that it's more difficult to tell the differences between resolutions if they're both going through a cheese grater at the end (or beginning!) of the image pipeline! Downsampling is definitely advantageous to overall image quality, for multiple reasons: a 4K sensor gives you a <4K image after debayering, so downsampling means drawing from more pixels on the input than you're pushing out the output, which helps random noise gets partially eliminated due to the averaging that occurs in the downsampling process One thing that is noteworthy though is that if you're shooting with a compressed codec, for example h264/5, that the artefacts are often X pixels wide (for example, regardless of the resolution, the 'ripple' on a hard edge is likely to be the same number of pixels wide) so in that instance you may be better off recording your files in-camera in a higher resolution and then downscaling in post, where the downscaling process can average out more of those artefacts. This is something that's likely to be situation and camera dependent, but is worth a test if you're able to. For example, shoot something in 6K and in 4K and put them both on a 4K timeline and see which looks cleaner, or 4K and 1080 on a 1080 timeline. The downside of this is that even if both resolutions had the same bitrate, and therefore file sizes, your computer will have to decode and then downscale more pixels from the higher resolution clip, increasing the computational load on your editing computer. Like with all things, do your own testing and see what you can see 🙂

Yes, as he says in the video, people are just looking at that ONE number to make easy choice as to which camera is better. Maybe this is what separates a real cinematographer from wannabes. The image is what counts, not the megapixels (after you get to the "accepted" amount of detail threshold).

The cost for the print version outside the USA is fairly stiff, unless you're really keen to hold it in your hand. I think you'll find quite a lot of features from recent issues on the website.

I still have the ones kept somewhere else (but not in digital version) I didn't help myself to end investing with my student pocket money along those old 90s back to my law school years, when I was used to spend a couple of hours literally, reading at book store (not the library : D) once arrived and my few bucks were too short to afford it every single month then. This sounds dreamlike now, by consequence. I think it's not easy to young people in digital age to have a picture what this means. - E.

That's absolutely irresistible! WOW One of the most appealing no-brainer offers I've ever seen... Mate, if your posts were one of my favs before, guess now ; ) Your life is already duplicated per se for this sharing, mark my words! : D This is what makes this community a unique case worldwide @Andrew Reid :- )

I saw his first part video when it came out and liked his theories, then the last Jedi came out, I watched it... by the time the second part of his comparisons came out, I liked Yedlin a lot less 😉

Seems they are not looking for super low budget films. That being said, I think it's a fair list. It's Netflix not vimeo.