Axel

[quote author=cpc link=topic=637.msg4769#msg4769 date=1335517150] 24fps cinema [i]happens[/i] to be dream-lke or fantasy-like. It was never meant to. This was a happy coincidence.Cinema is not fantasy by definition. It happens to be perceptually . But it can also be reality, if the filmmaker so desires.[/quote] This boils down to the definition of >cinema<. If a film deals with reality, if it does so in a realistic style, I would then call this a documentary. With whatever framerate the director sees fit for the work, I agree with you. Can you name one film that was shown in cinemas and that dealt with reality? Not in a realistic [i]style[/i], which is as arbitrary as a fantastic style. But which tried to depict reality? [quote author=cpc link=topic=637.msg4769#msg4769 date=1335517150]Now about 3D. For whether the step to 3D is a step to realism we will have to agree to disagree. For me, it is. And resoundly so. 3D in 24 fps is an abomination. But you are right about how the eyes work. And because you are right, we NEED higher frame rates in 3D. Depth perception also needs distinctive edges to quickly evaluate distances. Blur and the lack of continuous movement hinder it. This loads the brain. 48 fps will no doubt help with this. [/quote] You are probably right. I recommend the semi-documentary [i]The Cave Of Forgotten Dreams[/i] (it deals with real dreams, so to say) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kULwsoCEd3g As I understand cinema, it is in a very long tradition of the adjuration of magic. Become master of your world. Mark your fears, defeat them. Project what it is about life that you want to [i]become[/i] reality, fix the image [i]on the wall[/i], teach yourself to grow bigger than life. The cave artists painted scenes, very often the hunting of animals. Very regularly you see the chase, the slaying and the family eating on the same rock. This suggests sequential states in time, a narration. A visual narration in time, a film. [img]http://www.wellermanns.de/Gerhard/images/GL/Eiszeit_Kunst/mannmitbogen.jpg[/img] Two hunters and two deers in perspective at the same time? Or a deer surprised by a hunter (receeding already in posture) and escaping [i]later[/i] ? To some this interpretation might not be believable. Look at the bows that are taut, cinetic energy about to be set free. Look at all the frozen motion in the thousands of paintings. Some of the animals even seem to have more than four legs? Eh? Of [i]course[/i], they are running! Ice age flip-books!

[quote author=cpc link=topic=637.msg4750#msg4750 date=1335471334] The step from 2d to 3d is already a step towards realism. [/quote] I disagree. Test yourself, which 3D film looked realistic to you. The whole affair of having to wear glasses and expecting depth with crass effects only makes you aware that you watch an artificially, intentionally made up fantasy. Good. That's how cinema works. 3D adds no new means of expression to the language of film, but it helps to deepen the impression. Like surround sound that also doesn't add information, but intensifies the experience. The longer 3D is used, the rarer we'll see swords protruding into the room, because 3D is not about reality or believiabilty, it's about intensity. Right? Wrong? Comment. Scientific research on how we perceive the outside world makes an exciting read. The movements of our eyes are tracked, you can follow how we scan objects. We never [i]see[/i] the whole picture, we reconstruct it out of up to 100 fragments, and our mind searches for significance. We never pan (though there are movements of the eyeballs called [i]drifts[/i], divided by very short back-and-forth movements called [i]saccades[/i]), we "cut" - way faster than anybody would do in a timeline. We use our stereoscopic abilities exclusively for evaluation of distances (play ping pong, subconsciously measure the angle of the foot on the accelerator before a traffic light that changes), and *only* in an [u]action[/u] we are involved in. Depth of field we judge by factors that we don't need two eyes for (we compare sizes, we see perspective, we see the absorption of light, causing the contrast to be lower in the distance). Film does not mimic the way we [i]see[/i] things, it mimics the way we [i]experience[/i] things, also emotionally. Reality is not real. 3D is like the hum of a tuning fork rather than a suitable means to show physical reality. [quote author=piz link=topic=637.msg4755#msg4755 date=1335483529] There's probably no one alive anymore but it would be interesting to know how early cinematographers during silent films era who shot at 16fps  felt when 24fps + sound became standard and if there was any resistance to it. [/quote] Good idea to compare this. 24 fps - weren't they not needed for better sound (as 48 fps may be better for 3D)? There are a lot of examples of "uncinematic" (a term invented by video-film comparers) films in the beginning of sound movies. I'm sure you heard the term "talkies". But in Scorseses [i]History Of The American Cinema[/i] this is put into perspective. There [i]was[/i] a very short period (weeks, months! Cinema was faster in these days) of those boring talkies, but from the beginning there also was creative and innovative use of sound. Sound really added information to the films, it enriched the language. Neither 48p nor 3D can do something like that.

[quote author=BurnetRhoades link=topic=637.msg4743#msg4743 date=1335458952] [IMG]http://i48.tinypic.com/2wfit5w.gif[/img] ...is going on in this thread? [/quote] :) The reason why I no longer watch german dubbed films.

[quote author=karoliina link=topic=637.msg4737#msg4737 date=1335438951] I personally prefer realism in cinema: exceptional lifelike detail and lifelike smoothness in all movement.[/quote] You must be of the new generation piz was talking about. Clearly it's wrong to say that 24p is the only framerate for a narration (that higher frequencies are suitable for docs is generally accepted). [quote author=karoliina link=topic=637.msg4737#msg4737 date=1335438951]This obviously sets higher requirements for the quality of the set and for the quality of the makeup on the actors. The actors must have fashion photography quality makeup and not a "theatrical makeup". Set must be more true (or CGI) rather than bunch of painted styrofoam because it shows up when the detail is there.[/quote] Seems to have happened with [i]The Hobbit[/i] too. Jackson is as well one of the worlds best SFX and VFX supervisors, knowing each of his 48 Epics literally by name (and for which task they are used), as he is one of the cinemas most nostalgic filmmakers. The awkward aninmation of the "rat-monkey" in [i]Braindead[/i], the Willis o'Brien-like motion of the Ants and the too miniature-looking water of the broken dam in [i]Two Towers[/i], the NewYork zoo in the intro of King Kong, an homage to the phony zoo in the intro of [i]Citizen Kane[/i], to name a few. Hard to believe that they saw the dailies together and said, it looks cheap, so what? [quote author=karoliina link=topic=637.msg4737#msg4737 date=1335438951] I hope at 48 fps the 3D will be more lifelike and more immersive than the 24p that feels like having eyesight problem at times (I do not have eyeglasses, but 24p at 3D looks to me a bit like putting way too strong eyeglasses on that are not fitting with my vision). My brain also selectively wants to blank unfitting elements from the 3D scene, and it turns out in cases of motion blur, only one eye signal sometimes reach the brain. Quite far cry from what my vision about a Matrix like virtual reality would be.[/quote] Interesting. At least for 3D, you are probably right.

[quote author=shijan link=topic=637.msg4703#msg4703 date=1335384550] [quote ... as for me 99..9999% of films looks cheap and sh--ty in terms of art and human soul and mind evolution. they can be professional, cool graded, 3d, 480 fps with lot of expensive stuff, their scripts can be calculated by milliseconds, but they are filmed to make people dumb and happy. and of corse to make money. [/quote] If Hollywood is the dream factory, perhaps the dreams of mankind became too hollow. A new medium could be computer games, where you interact. But not with hyperealistic CGI, but with mind games. Dream lucid dreams. Jump into the games of real life back and forth. Find out that we live in a kind of Matrix, and that we can no longer interpret our dreams because they refer only to the film-industrial patterns. Leave the house, run, feel your body. Sigh, I saw too many films  8)

[quote author=Leang link=topic=637.msg4700#msg4700 date=1335382441]... this 3D fantasy is surely going to impress kids than their frequent tv programs, and it's not like the parents of these kids are going to complain or know jack about the stuff talked about in this forum.  i mean its 'the hobbit' who cares. [/quote] If the sets look cheap? There are even TV series these days that have big production value. Shot on film or at least with perfect lighting (sometimes daring) and grading. There are scripts that are much better than those of average cinema films (i.e. [i]Boardwalk Empire[/i], many HBO productions). If there is no exciting content, there should at least be sophisticated looking adventure. If the sets look cheap ...

[quote author=PAVP link=topic=637.msg4684#msg4684 date=1335371163] What was wrong with the Lord of the Rings trilogy?  I thought those movies were well done and generally well accepted by the public.  I don't like the look of BlueRay and perhaps that is how some of the scenes in The Hobbit are looking.  To me BlueRay versions of movies look like video. [/quote] It was in the 3D version of [i]Avatar[/i], in the scenes on the military base on Pandora, that all the vertical lines of human architecture caused the steadicam-movements and pans to judder. You saw it in 3D only, because it was doubled for each eye. In 2D it was okay. It was also okay in the soft-edged jungle. It would have been in the Shire, probably.

[quote author=SlimsMcKenzie link=topic=626.msg4649#msg4649 date=1335356616] Resolution is not the be all and end all, but it's also an exaggeration to say it's not important at all.[/quote] I didn't say that. It is important, when the screen gets too big for 2k. [quote author=SlimsMcKenzie link=topic=626.msg4649#msg4649 date=1335356616]This is all also ignoring the fact though that if you are getting 4K worth of material you can pick and choose your 2K or 1080p shot within that, which is certainly handy in getting a nice composition or in removing shakiness etc, a bit of leeway never hurt.[/quote] I see. The ProDad answer. Film in 4k to allow Mercalli to do it's magic. The "fact" is, that resolution is neither measured by a) the amount of pixels on the chip nor by b) the amount of pixels saved in the file on the card. Resolution refers to the smallest picture element, a square of specified dimensions, that faithfully describes a section of light-absorbing and reflecting objects in reality. To verify, how faithful the picture is, a testchart with lines can be recorded. What these scientifically unquestionable tests showed: We never had the resolution that the manufacturers promised. It was always way lower. That is because an image with interpolation is a fantasy that only resembles the motif. You are joining in the chorus of believers - against all contradicting proof - that there is 4k. There is not even 2k. There is not even fullHD. If it [u]was[/u] true 4k, you could only cut out 2k or 1080p by literally cutting it out. Scaling means interpolation means reducing true resolution. You can't make fullHD out of 4k, the resolution is automatically lower then (because of a and b). 

[quote author=allupons link=topic=637.msg4672#msg4672 date=1335365829]The reason 48fps and higher looks awful is due to motion characteristics and blur. When you all but remove all motion blur, yet maintain highly fluid motion with more recorded frames you get the awful vhs "soap opera" effect.[/quote] You are right, it's not sharpness, it's slowness. Why slow, when the phases change faster? Because we judge speed by motion blur. If it misses, even fast action looks lame: [img]http://asset1.cbsistatic.com/cnwk.1d/i/bto/20090813/bullitt_mustang.jpg[/img] Not true? Watch Transformers (or s.th. like this), and imagine 48p. It doesn't fit to the concept. However, the whole framerate-business is also a matter of viewing habit (is that term right? Please correct me). It can change. Jackson predicted it and his employees agreed (he is not the nice guy as he appears in making ofs, he doesn't tolerate contradiction). [quote author=OverCranked link=topic=637.msg4673#msg4673 date=1335366116]48 fps technically is better by all kinds of arguments and white papers. The people writing those white papers go pay to watch pictures made in 24fps for years to come because they feel better.[/quote] 4k and 48p need production design that is bereaved of fine overtones. Everything has to look convincing and real. Reality - the grey gruesome dimension where we park our cars - is not convincing. The haphazardly formed environment out there is nothing we wish to see. We want it to have meaning, and this simply hasn't to do with technique.

[quote author=FilmMan link=topic=626.msg4596#msg4596 date=1335228476] With respect to 4k, here's an alternative point of view.    http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels. Here John Galt writes says about 4k: [i]“The great perpetrators of that mythology have been RED and Dalsa. That’s why I call these “marketing pixels.” It’s intentional obfuscation. Because they really do nothing to improve image quality. They may improve sales volume. But they don’t do anything to quality. But somehow the world has accepted that that’s 4K. It’s purely semantic. It’s like saying, “I don’t like my weight in pounds so I converted to kilos. It sounds better! You’d be amazed at how many non-technical people I meet, often producers and directors, but sometimes even cinematographers get fooled by that stuff.”[/i] [/quote] What is more: There [u]is[/u] true 4k, *in selected cinemas*, as they say. You only [u]can[/u] see a difference at all, if you sit in the first six rows (Galt says it, and it is exactly what you'd find out, if you tried) AND if the screen is big enough. Not arguable, plain fact. This leads to the conclusion that resolution is not about quality. I print it in capitals: RESOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT QUALITY. It is about size. The size of our displays may change in the future, who knows? We might no longer suffer to be able to see pixel structures (who suffers, anyway? Lowering resolution doesn't mean proportionally lowering sharpness, - every projectionist knows that sufficient resolution is 1k for most screens - Star Wars I from 1999 was projected in 1280 x 536 *in selected cinemas*, and nobody complained).  A lot of things may change, because the limitations of analogue film are out of the way. We probably will have higher framerates. Perhaps "only" 48p. If the director then doesn't like the too clean look of it in a certain sequence (why should he? you might ask), he can easily double the frames, and he has 24p back, because the higher framerate swallows the lower. We have 50/60p already, and we can tell it looks technically more perfect. The next observation is that images contain details, but are not [i]seen[/i] with details, not only highly stlylized Picassos are'nt, pointillistic impressions, that consist of "pixels", aren't, van Eycks, that feature precisely defined details a thousandfold, aren't. The smallest items we perceive in an image are parts of the composition, [i]meaningful[/i] parts. We never see the letters when we read, we see words. Details are meaningless. Again: DETAILS MEAN NOTHING TO US. There has to be progress. If we can have better resolution, we want it. I only say that it is overrated and had been for too long. RESOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT QUALITY. DETAILS MEAN NOTHING TO US. And the industry delivers false labels to make us buy their cameras. What has been underrated for too long is picture quality. Now this seems to change to the better.

If in the video this is rough noise, then this is notorious. The reasons are not known, afaik. People report it on sunny days. Hard to reproduce. Try smooth or standard. Close the aperture (4 or 5.6 are best, use NDs). Unhack for a comparison. Will perhaps never happen again. One of those things.

Easy: BMC. 4k is described as an option by Sony, not a promise. Clever, but not trustworthy. The Canon C300 was also announced as 4k ready first. Reason won, and the next evolutionary step is not to have more ugly pixels. Suddenly everybody talks about HDR and finer hues of color. The mega-slomo is a nice feature, but how often can you use it? If every asshole uploads Jonathan the seagull, people get sick of the shit.

[quote author=Axel link=topic=622.msg4538#msg4538 date=1335128948]The enemy of art is the absence of limitations.[/quote] [quote author=Andrew Reid - EOSHD link=topic=622.msg4542#msg4542 date=1335130578]True, but there's nothing artistic about USB.[/quote] I cited Orson Welles, because garypayton writes a book about him, and I wasn't referring to Thunderbolt. My own limitation is limited means. Money, to be precise. As long as the Scarlet was the cheapest camera for 10-bit video, out of reach of the amateurs, I was hated for saying that our cameras have poor color depiction. Now that the BM is introduced, I should be happy, because my dreams came true. I [i]am[/i] happy, but I am realistic also. It is not $3000, this would be naive fallacy. > The whole rig-searching routine starts anew, because this ergonomically stupid device needs it. > Fast lenses, wide-angled, more expenses. > At least [i]one[/i] 12-bit monitor. I am very happy to learn, that the prices don't start at $3000 anymore. [quote author=garypayton link=topic=622.msg4543#msg4543 date=1335131780]I don't think all the people that will buy this camera will have 12 bit monitors.[/quote] This is not because all the people who buy the BM are particularly smart, it is because some of them are embarrassingly stupid. Even the [u]Cinema[/u] Display by Apple claims to display 16,7 million colors (8-bit), but in reality the darkest value for grey, that is the first value to be subjectively distinguishable from black, is not 1. I am no expert, but i read that the display allowed to show up to five stops. Under optimized conditions (well calibrated, dimmed and neutrally painted surrounding area). This makes it a good device to grade 8-bit video that stays 8-bit. Now the defenders of buying the BM with 8-bit monitors probably say, why, we are not interested in cinema, we grade for 8-bit, but with the BM we get almost absolute freedom to grade. Are they wrong? No, they are right. Only that there are not many people who [i]can[/i] grade. Assume that it is an advantage to have more values to choose from, will you choose the best? Do you top the industries top video engineers who designed our 8-bit cameras in such a way as to pick out the appropriate tones to represent nature? Judging from the applause the yellow-casted demo from John Brawley got - no. With the modern color grading applications you can distort every color from 8-bit into every color you like. What needs to be done first in any CC workflow is optimizing the footage in the primary correction step before you create any kind of look. Do you know how to do this, when your monitor doesn't show the colors? Rhetorical question. Comment on this, but let me for now dismiss the option of grading with 12-bit for 8-bit as crackbrained. What about cinema? No objections. Keep in mind that cinemas don't like stereo sound. If you sit in the right corner, the left sound event comes too late. This is too complicated to explain with my limited english, but believe me that your choices are mono (yawn!) or surround. Now, are you going to judge a surround mix with your PC speakers or headphones? More expenses. Don't blame it on me. I have the same dreams you have. You can end my dilemma by donating money. Money could end my most urgent limitations. And now: The enemy of art is the absence of limitations.

[quote author=garypayton link=topic=622.msg4537#msg4537 date=1335128501] I will buy a mac with thunderbolt if necessary.[/quote] Buy [url=http://www.colorhq.com/Eizo-ColorEdge-CG241W-BK-p/cg241w-bk.htm][u]this[/u][/url]. If you plan for the cinema. If not, reconsider. The enemy of art is the absence of limitations.

[quote author=garypayton link=topic=622.msg4531#msg4531 date=1335117657] You said something interesting, I don't know if we may discuss it here. The hardware needs for the BM, for example, as a imac 21 owner i want to know if it will be enough to start or if i need already something more powerful. [/quote] This is not about power. Your iMac doesn't have Thunderbolt, does it? But this is still not the problem. Even if it was a few years old C2D, it would swallow the ProRes easily. The question is, what do you want to do with the video? Will it be 8-bit in the end? Then you need to do a tone mapping that throws eight of the thirteen stops the BM records into the dustbin. Because you never see them. It's true, you gain some freedom during grading, and if you underexposed, the footage will probably be more forgiving. But you need to become an expert colorist to get better results than with native 8-bit video. And [i]if [/i]you plan to release as DCP, you simply can't grade with your hardware, because you are nearly blind.

The 5D makes not so bad videos, and the GH2 makes not so bad photos. With the kit lens 14-42 the GH2 is not very good in lowlight, but the video is clean and not remarkable. The resolution is good. I know I am getting stoned for this, but you could as well buy a Panasonic HDC-SD909. With the right lenses - like the ones that Andrew lists in his E-book - the look-characteristics of the GH2 are quite comparable to those of the 5D. [url=http://www.janzenkner.de/99ff_berufsverkehr/berufsverkehr.html][u]This[/u][/url] video was made with both, and even the filmmaker says he can't tell which shot was GH2 and which 5D anymore. There you have the answer. Since you have the 5D with all it's lenses, keep it. People tend to forget, that with interchangeable lenses the camera (and it's price!) is not the only thing to evaluate. In the Blackmagic thread you dared to ask about it's drawbacks. This seemed reasonable to me. You should ask yourself what you need the cameras for. Webfilms with "cinematic" look: 5D or GH2 with "lomographic" lenses. No reason to prefer one over the other. The Blackmagic can't show it's bigger color palette in this field. Grading, keying, everything also possible with the mpeg4-stuff, because modern software is very capable. TV-docs: Since 5D and GH2 are 4:2:0, HD-content is rejected by the broadcasters. Wrong cameras. If the Blackmagic is accepted, we don't know yet. Cinema: There are no specifications that stop you from publishing your 5D films as DCPs. I propose you try it (to make a DCP is free, you can view it on a cinema screen). Depending on your own attitude towards your subject the 5D can be sufficient (again the differences to the GH2 can be neglected). The 12-bit of the Blackmagic could be much better. But you have to know the right workflow (which probably is not too hard), and also you have to monitor in 12-bit, while your cheap LCDs probably have 6-8-bit. Here is the catch.

[quote author=garypayton link=topic=618.msg4515#msg4515 date=1335103092] For NOne english-profane people like me, does this mean Magic Lantern geniuses are getting closer to get raw footage from some of the canon camera? I mean, clean hdmi to record on an external support? [/quote] The search for clean HDMI out is the Eldorado of Magic Lantern treasure hunters. The [i]registers[/i] seem to be of a complexity as the human genome, and some insights on the way to the goal sound discouraging: [quote]> 2. Increase pixel depth to 10-bit. I don't think it's possible. You need to change the code running on the image processing chip (so-called DIGIC).[/quote] Cryptic though it is to us, I understand it's all in vain. Pray for full resolution output (some monitors may feature a 1:1 pixel view for focussing), and you may be answered.

[quote author=OverCranked link=topic=596.msg4492#msg4492 date=1335035281] [quote author=Leang link=topic=596.msg4434#msg4434 date=1334933687] [quote author=christianhubbard link=topic=596.msg4428#msg4428 date=1334928799] If you think you need slow mo (which you probably don't, no one really does) [/quote] a little toooo bold there... you should really rethink cinematography.  I guess this all depends on your subjectivity of filmmaking. [/quote] I'm not sure if anybody around here is old enough to remember how the OverCrank usage for creating drama got so badly out of hand during the 70s .... [/quote] I love slomos, stop motion, bullet time, time remapping, stop tricks and timelapse. Obvious time manipulation had been used from the beginning, and in a way it's the emotional heartbeat of the cinema. Therefore higher framerates are welcome, but no necessitiy (can be done in post). Very high framerates like with the FS700 will bring us boring vimeo stuff (some Peckinpahs or John Woos as exceptions), that I personally love to skip. Now I am through with reading 13 pages. If anyone like garypayton refuses to shriek Hallelujah, he is attacked. Don't you think this is disproportionate? We really don't know much about the camera, and it could be total junk in practice. I think the few problems that have already been named (battery, expensive rig needed, no proper wide-angle-lenses) would throw every other cam with a normal price out of the race. I expect more problems that will become apparent. The big guys became big because they had decades of experience in constructing usable video cams. This is not just a matter of screwing together some chips. Another advice I always found useful: Never buy the prototype! A prototype educates it's owner to become an expert in dealing with the weaknesses that the next generation has no longer. The grading argument: Probably true. But to take advantage of it, you [u]must[/u] grade. This is not against the camera, but be aware of that. The cinema argument ("an indie cinema camera with true 12-bit for under $3000") is complete bullshit. You can't judge a 12-bit image that is supposed to [i]stay[/i] 12-bit on an 8-bit Monitor. So to fulfill this promise, the next step of the revolution has to be a $400 12-bit 2,5k Monitor, probably neither from Sony nor Eizo. I hope it will happen. Because I always felt it was time to demand color depth rather than higher resolution. Most people don't realize that the colors of our videos lack something, because they never saw direct comparisons. Because without access to devices to view 12-bit, the majority won't care, we could as well go on using 8-bit forever. Resolution of films had been no issue for 100 years. This has changed within the past ten years, because HD became a standard. We are right now used to see 720p as sufficiently sharp and well-defined video. It will take a very long time until the audience will no longer be satisfied with this. The quality that comes with finer colors makes a fine difference. Nothing spectacular. But if you see your favourite self-shot video, one that made you proud because of it's beauty, on a big screen, you will be convinced. I am looking forward. We witness real progress. Until then, let us think again about what we already have. We have cameras capable of producing beautiful video out of the box. Video that fits on a thumbnail-sized card an hour. Video that seldom needs to be graded. And is it really true, that it can't survive Magic Bullet and the like? That - despite it is being treated with the intensive care of floating point mathematics - banding and noise appear everywhere? No, this is exaggerated.

You took the words right out of my mouth, applause ...

[quote author=cameraboy link=topic=611.msg4442#msg4442 date=1334942099] @christianhubbard lets see ... two guys one girl and cheap equiment... Shane Hurlbut  :big crew , pro lighting , best lens ... and dont forget all the magic of Technicolor facilities , Dark Energy software and best color correction money can buy ... i bet on this guys and if you cant see why then u you're ... :) [/quote] Yes! See the Revolution-rig (a steady-system with a head that can rotate around the optical axis, I wonder how much such an apparatus costs) on Hurlbuts blog, where he talks about [i]The Ticket[/i]. And then he once admitted, that he doesn't change lenses on his 5Ds, he lets every lens on it's own body. And he keeps A- and B-cameras to easier keep track of all the inserted SD-cards. Probably he also doesn't change the batteries, but has other instances of bodies, C, D and so forth. And I'm quite sure he takes a camera in his hands only for promo photos. If the Hurlbut crew changes locations, it must look like this: [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Bundesarchiv_Bild_134-C0265%2C_Schutztruppe_Deutsch-Ost-Afrika%2C_Träger.jpg[/img] I have another funny video like cameraboys: http://vimeo.com/18104656

[quote author=christianhubbard link=topic=611.msg4403#msg4403 date=1334889398] Sorry to hijack another thread about skin tones, but can someone explain even more about them? Axel really elaborated the importance of preserving skin tone in another thread, and how to go about that in post, but what makes a camera great in terms of skin tone? If you're shooting raw isnt the skin tone quality entirely up to the grader? [/quote] Yes, it is. Why I graded the still hat FilmMan recommended to me was to show that the grading in all examples above was horrible. Ikterus. I am not an Art Director swimming in piss, but I am astonished that everyone actually seems to like the skin tones. The Emperor's new clothes. One thing is true: The color depth would be a great advantage on a cinema screen. The BMC maybe better for that or not. You surely can't tell by this demo.

With GH2, under absolute lowlight, had there been such noise in the dark areas, everbody would have known, ah, baked-in blacks, the whole thing falls apart as soon as you start grading! Yesterday I saw a ten year old TV doc, filmed with existing light in an old peoples home (the old peoples home of horrors, you would say). It was SD interlaced, probably betacam. They said they measured the light in the hallways, and it was under 50 lux. The video did look dark, but it looked clean.  This Blackmagic-clip has shallow DoF despite it's small sensor and the really big lamp. How did they get the aperture that wide? How did they get noise in the shadows though it was Raw (or what? What does this foggy, yellow-casted frame grab was grabbed from?). How comes that the majority is impressed, though it looks so shitty?

[quote author=FilmMan link=topic=611.msg4375#msg4375 date=1334868734] Axel, I downloaded the jpg, and after color grading etc., I get pretty darn good detail in the shoulder area behind the powder box.  Give it er a go and see what you come up with. [/quote] I did, from what looked like a simple superflat frame (attachment, smaller because it's a screenshot from Color). Auto-Balance, and just slightly adding red, because the skin looked yellowish. [quote]... but what’s really exciting here is the dynamic range ! You can clearly see out the window and the levels inside were a fair bit down on that. There’s still fine detail in the darker fabric of her dress as well.[/quote] If he used the reflector on the right side and switched off the HMI, the inside would have been considerably darker than the outside (out the window), but not under these circumstances. You are right, we have to wait for better instances.

[quote author=FilmMan link=topic=611.msg4365#msg4365 date=1334858740] The details in the blacks is very good.[/quote] Where exactly? I have two very simple Samsung Syncmaster, but they are calibrated with Spyder Pro, have correct 2.2 gamma and are backlit against a neutral grey wall with full spectrum daylight lamps. I scrutinize the video, and I see almost no detail on the shoulder behind the powder box. Her locks often drown in black. Her neck has a stripe of carrot-orange in the middle that sometimes looks as if  it never had even been 8-bit. [quote author=Andrew Reid - EOSHD link=topic=611.msg4317#msg4317 date=1334833938]And it isn't even lit.[/quote] [quote author=FilmMan link=topic=611.msg4365#msg4365 date=1334858740]Lit with 1.2K and light bounced by 4x4 poly.[/quote] It's a long time ago since I worked with HMIs professionally, but back then they said they were three times stronger than Tungsten fresnels, the halogen lamps. I certainly had this impression. So unless the HMI stood more than 30 feet away, it wood be like the goddam SUN on the right. One should expect a little bit more of that black dress.

[quote author=mike_tee_vee link=topic=611.msg4359#msg4359 date=1334852204] When a Super 16 sensor looks this good with 13+ stops of DR, it makes me wonder how people can say that Panasonic is crippled like a boat anchor by the micro 4/3's format. [/quote] Yep! But [i]does[/i] it look good? I don't like it much. The colors are not nice. Latitude? How do you tell this was not a normal HD-camcorder? If you scale the contrasts in front of the lens, if you bring all the values into these 5-6-7 or so stops (by lightening up the shadows), you have every chance of getting an image at least as dynamic as this one looks in it's 8-bit vimeo compression. Come on, trust your eyes. This is nothing worth mentioning. If it looks like film, it looks like 16mm, good enough to add some patina to the odd music video.