hmcindie

I've seen a lot of film scans. None of them (absolutely none) come close to Alexa quality. And I work in a posthouse. Yes telecine introduces all kinds off stuff especially in NTSC, I natively speak finnish so meant to say film scanning, not telecine as such. Can you post an example of this mystical magistical 35mm film print that just digital can't get ever? Just a screenshot, ANY screenshot. Can you? Film does look nice in a way that grain and low contrast looks nice. But it's not "technically better". Look for example how Dragon is slightly better at highlight handling (for example the first candle): Also way less noise/grain on the digital cams.

No it didn't. Film looks like crap except for highlight handling. Also a lot of film's "quality" came from the telecine transfer where they added sharpness and color timing. You didn't "just shoot" and it looked great. Modern film can't handle shadows at all compared to digital cameras nor can it handle darkness.

I agree, my home plasma (The last Pioneer Kuro models, with very good blacks) consistently looks better than ANYTHING I see in a theatre. That's just because the contrast / black levels are outstanding and in theatres they suck. That's why I'm way more interested in OLED screens than anything to do with 4K.

Lots of artificial sharpening. And I mean lots. "Sharp".

Still shooting on it, still getting moolah from clients!

Because at the time people were used to 35mm adapters on 1/3" sensor cameras to get dof. AND THOSE WERE REALLY SOFT! Softness is good anyways if the comparison is for example the Sony EX1 class cameras. Which are artificially sharp. Softness isn't always bad, I prefer softness to sharpened halos. The only real problem with the APS-C cams was aliasing and moire, not softness.

I always like to grade to magenta/green so I find it funny when people say this looks "unnatural". It's perfectly natural for me, hehehe.

I don't think those ISOs in S-LOG are comparable. You can't say ISO 12800 with S-LOG and compare it to 12800 from a 5dmarkIII/any other cameras because S-LOG is measured differently. "Native" S-LOG on the FS700 is also somewhere around ISO 3200 and it compares pretty closely to ISO 800 (which is gain 0 on the FS700). Should we have a new standard because comparing like this is almost useless?

It's funny how much people give credit to different cameras. Newsflash, give a pro a 5dmarkIII/a7s and it will still look good. The crew will complain like hell but in the end, they will make it work. For example, that "atrocious" picture you complain about... would look about 99.5% the same on an Alexa. Funny. The difference is that an experienced crew would've changed the shot and white balance it around until the background looked slightly better. But it's not the camera doing it. Yeah weird, I know.

Put your money where your mouth is.

Something wonky with the Sunset shots on the 5dmarkIII, 3:30 are you using ACR's highlight adjustments? That halo is weird and all the highlights look clipped. There should be enough information in RAW to do a nice roll off but you have to do it yourself. 3:42 holy! What did you do to the sun??! Huge blocking artifacts that look something like 4:2:0. Look how much better we can see into the shadows on the h264 5dmarkIII than the A7S. Do we conclude that the h264 has better dynamic range? ;)

It looks like compression artifacts. I don't know why people keep claiming this an 8-bit issue when you can clearly see the compression destroying the image noise with little blocks. 10-bits won't help with h264.

It does but half of the colors are interpolated anyway.

Why should a bayer sensor do 4:4:4? It doesn't have 4:4:4 color information anyway.

Is that 4:2:2? Edges are starting to block. Damn, we can't even get 4:4:4 in a still image!

Well they did test it with a "pre-release" firmware and only afterwards Sony came forwards with the release firmware that should have 15.3 stops in RAW. So there's atleast one mistake already. And how do they always get Nikon/Sony made sensor cameras to test so easily but never Fuji? I think they're mainly for marketing for certain firms.

That "touch of blackness" obviously increased saturation. Using rgb curves or something that touches saturation too? I also prefer the original. But I - of course - have the best properly graded monitor. And I also happen to like green.

The base ISO is measured to be ISO 3200 (and the camera reports that) but it's the same as ISO 100 in photography mode. Same thing as the FS700 has a way higher base iso at S-log. It's just a measuring way, why are people so confused? And DXOMark probably measured the camera all wrong with an old pre-release firmware. But DXOMark sucks anyway, why do people keep bringing them up? You guys think a bmpcc would measure well with the DXOMark tests? It would maybe measure 10 stops.

The aliasing gives the "apparent" sharpness look. Same thing as with watching 4k videos on a 1080p screen. The scaling is done so fast that it creates those aliased lines. A good scaler would make that look smooth but then we would miss the "OMG LOOK AT THAT SHARPNESS!"- effect. I'm more impressed by the colors.

Is this a joke? Am I missing something? All those images are 240p in size and I can't figure out how to view them fullsize to check them. People are actually talking about these little images?

Or you could say : "only unseasoned and untrained filmmakers use establishing shots"- anyway. That's why beginner films are full of shots of people moving from A to B ;) Why could you not focus to specific point in an establishing shot? I can't come up with a reason. And if you can focus to a specific point in an establishing shot, why not with DOF? An establishing shot does not have to be wide. A wide shot can't have small dof? That's a silly "rule".

I just don't think you're noticing it because you're not looking for it while watching a well made film. Jaws: '> Godfather: '> Look at the chair, it's already out of focus: '> The Good, The Bad and the Ugly was very specifically shot with deep dof, way more than usual. Apocalypse Now (even the second character is blurring): '> Skyfall (Face shots are very often blurred up): '> Bladerunner (even Harrisons second eye is going out of focus here) '> Especially when shooting anamorphically s35 (which a lot of films do), you tend to get a very small dof area. It is absolutely an essential aesthetic. Have these new people just gotten used to smaller sensor cameras because where I'm from = larger sensor = larger oof area = more cinematic. There's a reason we used 35mm adapters in the golden days before DSLR's with every good looking independent film. You think people crave that speedbooster for nothing?? Saying that DOF isn't important is obviously coming from someone who hasn't shot much good looking stuff (knocking on wood)

Then you probably don't ever use DSLR's anyway - no matter who builds them - right?

No it doesn't. It's just a measurement thing. It measures iso 3200 with slog2 but DO NOT compare it to other cameras. There is no DR loss compared to anything.

Shot this one with the 5d mark III. First I thought maybe going RAW but instead decided to go with h264. No regrets really. Sorry about the silly language ;)