cpc

[quote name='HurtinMinorKey' timestamp='1344440244' post='15147'] cpc, don't you think that lighting(on the subject) is more important than DOF for making an image appear less flat? [/quote] Surely light is important. I am only discussing the characteristics of the image inherent to the camera (in this case, the sensor).

Well, a few points: 1) The image we see is video compressed for web, which is quite heavily compressed. We can only judge compression once John is allowed to post DNG files. 2) The size of the light capturing area does affect SNR. Larger pixels will generally have crisper images due to lower noise. 3) Somewhat related: In terms of DOF, there is some weird notion on the web that shooting shallow focus gives more depth to the image. This is so full of bull. People should pay more attention to the semantics of the words "deep" and "shallow". A [i]slight [/i]defocusing can lead the eye to important image subjects and add some perceptual depth to an image. Very shallow focus on the other hand only produces flat images. There is plenty of "slight defocusing" (pun intended) in a sensor of this size.

The thing with resolving power and contrast is that you rarely need the very high spatial frequencies. For video, small-to-medium prints and web viewing, at least. Yet, most lens reviews obsess with pointless measurements of the extremes as if they are going to print posters... Resolving power and microcontrast are different things. You need not simply resolving power, but good microcontrast at the respective frequencies affecting viewing. Pixel count actually can define the maximum frequency that needs to be taken under consideration(unlike film, that needs both print size and viewing distance, to give anything meaningful as quantity). Note that most decent lenses will resolve above 0% MTF up to very high frequencies, so technically they have lots of resolving power even if lacking in microcontrast It is important to know that the less pixels you need, the more the [i]low[/i] spatial frequencies are critical. For example, a lens with [i]great [/i]microcontrast at low spatial frequencies and weak result at high frequencies will deliver a more brilliant image than a lens with just [i]good [/i]results at both low and high frequencies, if you actually only care about a 1280x720 image, and not tens of megapixels. This is why some Leica and Zeiss lenses produce exceptional images for web viewing/small print purposes even on APS-C sensors. They simply have exceptional results at 5, 10 and 20 lp/mm. And yes, if you keep the number of pixels but decrese the image field size (or sensor size) you effectively increase the maximum spatial frequency influencing the image proportionally to the crop factor. As pretty much all lenses have a decreasing MTF chart in relation of spatial frequencies, it is easy to see why the smaller pixels will lose brilliance. There is of course more that goes into a poppy image: consistently good microcontrast accross the whole image field and well corrected aberrations are also important, because it is the exceptionally crisp edges above anything else that lead to an image with 3d pop. Subject in complete focus also helps a lot. There is a great article on Zeiss's site about MTF charts and what they mean: Part 1: [url="http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_30_MTF_en/$File/CLN_MTF_Kurven_EN.pdf"]http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_30_MTF_en/$File/CLN_MTF_Kurven_EN.pdf[/url] PArt 2: [url="http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_31_MTF_en/$File/CLN_MTF_Kurven_2_en.pdf"]http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_31_MTF_en/$File/CLN_MTF_Kurven_2_en.pdf[/url]

[quote name='jgharding' timestamp='1344418324' post='15116'] Still I see very few final products that come from small sensors that don't feel slightly... flat... in a depth sense. Something I don't see as often with 135 full frame regardless of detail or resolution. Does anyone else get what I mean? Or am I off my swede? Is it actually just the lighting or the lack of subtle post in many productions shot with small-sensor cams? [/quote] This is normal and is related to how lens microcontrast interacts with sensor pixel density. At the same image resolution subject "pop" will be more noticeable in an image made with a big sensor/film-size. This is usually immediately noticeable with still images but is generally masked out by video compression issues in moving pictures. Without going into much detail, in order to achieve the same pop and brilliance with a smaller sensor, you would need a lens with the same MTF result as the lens used with the bigger sensor but at a [i]significantly higher[/i] spatial frequency. For example, if you have a 95% MTF result at 10 lp/mm. You need a lens with 95% at 23 lp/mm for a 2.3x crop camera to achieve the same brilliance and pop. And again, video compression artefacts generally screw the image enough so that this does not matter.

[quote author=Andrew Reid - EOSHD link=topic=701.msg5080#msg5080 date=1336520564] [quote author=riogrande100 link=topic=701.msg5076#msg5076 date=1336514572] What about PCs with ATI graphics cards? [/quote] As long as the card supports OpenCL, and your drivers do, should be fine. [/quote] Anyone tested this? My understanding was OpenCL is specific to MacOS. Probably limited by some shady agreement with nVidia or stuff. :)

Axel has given a nice overview. Raw dynamic range, baked dynamic range and usable dynamic range should be distinguished. Raw dynamic range is the range of the raw quantized signal. Baked dynamic range is the range when the raw data is further quantized according to the output bit-depth. For example. Canon DSLR Raw is 14-bit and the output movies (and jpegs) are 8-bit. 8-bit images in general do not exceed 9 stops DR because they are meant to be shown on consumer 8-bit displays. Add more DR and the image starts looking HDR and lacks contrast. 8.3-8.5 stops is typical. Usable dynamic range is the DR that contains recognizable detail. And detail that can be played with in post. This is around 6 stops for a typical gamma encoded 8-bit video. The darkest stops have some tonal gradation but not any real detail. Here is a more detailed overview on [url=http://www.shutterangle.com/2012/canon-picture-styles-shooting-flat-or-not/][u]picture styles and dynamic range[/u][/url] that I've written recently. Highlights can't really be saved on a DSLR camera (and most digital cameras, for that matter) because baked DR is usually mapped at the upper limit of the RAW DR. This is because the higher stops of RAW DR have the cleanest signal, due to high signal to noise ratio in there. Blacks, on the contrary, are always noisy and thin because the SNR is low. This is also the reason that noise gets excessive when blacks (underexposed areas) are pushed up in RAW processing.

I actually made a simple experiment. I showed both clips to 4 different people (all in their 30's), all moviegoers, but none of them technically proficient about films, and asked them which one appears more "cinematic" to them (without briefing them about the difference). Guess what... Two of them said the 48 fps version is more cinematic. Two of them said the 24 fps version is more cinematic. Nothing scientific about this, obviously, but still offers some food for thought. Apparently the average moviegoer doesn't care about frame rates. Or at least, doesn't care as much as we do.

[quote author=Axel link=topic=637.msg4825#msg4825 date=1335597689] [quote author=cpc link=topic=637.msg4809#msg4809 date=1335568567] I've addressed this in an article on my site (partly inspired by this discussion) on [url=http://www.shutterangle.com/2012/frame-rate-artistic-choice-silent-movies/][u]frame rate as artistic choice[/u][/url], which also expands a bit on the topic of silent films. [/quote] Your arguments are flawless. I like to stress the difference between [i]realistic[/i] and [i]realistic feel[/i]. Not to contradict you, just to nail down why there is such a problem at all. 48 fps feel more realistic, because the time is fluent, (almost) uninterrupted. I appreciate you have an analogue background, the name Shutter Angle of your site seems to refer to the 180° shutter of classic film cameras. They didn't record the whole motion, they threw away 50% (OMG, it's hard to find the right words that early in the morning, excuse germanisms). And we continue to do so. This is one of several reasons for the film-judder one endures particularly with pans. [i]The Hobbit[/i] was filmed with a "shutter angle" of 270°, that means with a exposure time of 1/36 second per frame (please correct me, mathematics are also not my hobby over my first cup of coffee), throwing away only one-fourth of the motion-phases. You could say "live" instead of "realistic". Higher framerates, bigger shutter angle (or interlaced video) make the images look like continuous real-time. I doubt that this is only a viewing habit. Will it disappear after a period of acclimatization? I don't think so. Because 24 fps, as coincidentally as they became standard, [i]now[/i] are accepted as narrated time, in the same way that a novel is coincidentally told in past tense. [i]Once upon a time[/i] promises a story that's worth listening to, we accept that it's logic is completely arbitrary, and only because we accept it early on, we engage with it. In modern literature, european more than american, novels are sometimes narrated in present tense. This is exhausting, because there is no relative future. Godard said, the cinema showed death at work. In a movie we are like passengers in a train who sit in the travel direction. You see things coming, you watch them develop, unfold. Would you sit opposing the direction of the train, every object that passes your field of vision would almost shock you, because it jumps into the scene. It means adrenaline, but there is no realism to it. By pretending that you don't know about the future while you narrate, you take an impossible position. So in a narration, it can't be kept over longer passages. You don't follow, you get bored. What higher framerates are good for, imho: Stephen King (to name a widely known author) often uses present tense for some scenes to make them feel live, breathless - how would [i]Breathless[/i] (À bout de souffle) look in 48 fps? Once all digital projectors have the presets for 48 fps, it should be easy to change the framerate also within one film, according to the feel of the scene. I must say, I enjoy this conversation. Very interesting topic. [/quote] Interesting analogy with present tense texts. It is indeed used often to involve the reader. Especially in first person narrated texts. Also, often found in non-fiction (documentary) prose. Using higher frame rates only for certain sequences certainly makes sense. After all, the intensity of the scenes in a single movie changes a lot. One thing that I find mildly amusing is that we think of today's audience as sophisticated, what with the dynamics, the flash cuts, breaking line rules, etc. All of these would be unthinkable back in the days of the silents. On the other hand, we now take the frame rate of cinema for granted - and we are a bit afraid of changing it, or introducing alternatives - while back in the silent days frame rate was all over the place. (This isn't really an argument. Just an observation that strikes me as curious.) Btw, [url=http://www.reddit.com/r/TheHobbit/comments/sthk5/so_there_have_been_a_lot_of_negative_48fps/][u]here is a scene[/u][/url] shot in both 24fps and 48fps. Makes a good reference. I also find this discussion stimulating. :) [quote author=Axel link=topic=637.msg4827#msg4827 date=1335608836] Wrong of course. @48 fps 360° would be 1/48, 180° (the standard) would be 1/96, and 270° would be 1/72. The rest of the explanation was correct. EDIT: Wrong again, I have just learned. 270° would mean 1/64 s. But then again, the Epic [i]has[/i] the shutter preset of 1/72 ... [/quote] Yes, the easy way to calc it is 1/96 + 0.5/96 = 3/192 = 1/64. Apparently, Jackson uses this shutter speed (there is no rotary shutter on the Red Epic, so shutter angle would be techincally inaccurate :) ) because it enables him to deliver a 24 fps version through dropping every other frame. This will result in a 24 fps movie shot with the equivalent of 135 degree shutter angle. Most people don't really notice any difference in strobing between 1/60, 1/50 and 1/48 (in 24 fps), so I think 1/64 will yield a pretty good 24 fps version. If, instead, he would make a 24 fps version through blending frames down to 24 fps it would be unnaturally fluid. In fact, no different than the 48 fps version in terms of fluidity. Btw, one thing that isn't being mentioned often in regard to The Hobbit is that Jackson is radically altering the appearance of an already established franchise. This will introduce visual discontinuity in the series. A move like this (3D + 48fps) would probably be better suited for a new project. Then again, Cameron is doing the same with Avatar.

[quote author=Axel link=topic=637.msg4780#msg4780 date=1335530524] [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] I didn't mean reality as "our reality", but any reality. I actually had in mind films that strive to put the viewer in the scene. But not just in the sense of immersion - most films that don't intentionally go for a detached viewpoint to the subject matter try to do this anyway. Rather, in a more visceral way; to impose the scene on the viewer by making it as indistinguishable from life as possible. Maybe higher frame rates with their life-like quality will further this ability. Any work of fiction that wants to convey a documentary feel is likely a good candidate to utilize the high frame rate option. I've addressed this in an article on my site (partly inspired by this discussion) on [url=http://www.shutterangle.com/2012/frame-rate-artistic-choice-silent-movies/][u]frame rate as artistic choice[/u][/url], which also expands a bit on the topic of silent films. [quote author=Axel link=topic=637.msg4780#msg4780 date=1335530524] [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) : 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] I can subscribe to this view. Storytelling almost always builds a fantasy. And I certainly find the unreal quality of cinema appealing. Its opposition to reality is charming. But then again, I would give anyone that disagrees the option to shoot their work in any fps at their discretion. Even if they may happen to be wrong with their choice. :)

[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.    It's obvious that due to those technical advances the narratives that film dealt with began to drastically change.  [/quote] It is a common misconception that silent movies are 16 fps. In fact, movies shot at 16 fps were the exception. Frame rate was all over the place before standardization for talkies. 12-26fps were common. Griffith actually shot different reels of the same movie at different cranking speeds. And then labled the correct projection speed for each when they were sent to cinemas. [quote author=Axel link=topic=637.msg4763#msg4763 date=1335505021] 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] I think you are thinking about cinema in the reverse way. 24fps cinema [i]happens[/i] to be dream-lke or fantasy-like. It was never meant to. This was a happy coincidence. 24 fps is an abritrary frame rate. It was selected because it was the average projection speed in a bunch of sampled theaters in 1926. (And no, the fact that this gives a decent resolution for the audio track is also a coincidence and not the reason for the choice.) It is a look we have come to appreciate. But this doesn't mean that every movie out there should be like this. Let the filmmaker decide. Cinema is not fantasy by definition. It happens to be perceptually . But it can also be reality, if the filmmaker so desires. 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.

People seem to to miss an important detail in this discussion. The step from 2d to 3d is already a step towards realism. If a filmmaker takes this step, there is no reason they should stop at that. Shooting 3d is already a statement. And if you are making realistic movie, better do it so that my eyes don't die while watching. Which means a higher frame rate to make the image cleaner. Jerky movement and lots of motion blur are nice and all. But not in 3D. Then there is also the moment with artistic creative choice. 24 fps and 48 fps (or higher) should co-exist. Some turbo-realistic movies will no doubt benefit from a higher frame rate. Give filmmakers choice. If I can decide on film vs digital, 2d vs 3d, lighting, shooting style, etc, there is no reason I shouldn't be able to choose a frame rate if a specific frame rate supports my vision. Simple as that.