KarimNassar

hope it is implemented in the d800/d810 successor. I am waiting on Nikon to step up their game in video as well. better come sooner than later they are late to the party already

that was interesting thanks for sharing thaigor

nice before and after thanks. I can see the wall directly next to the window blowing up, although not by much like you said. Obviously not all of the recovery displayed in the video comes from bringing back down the LUT effect on highlights. It's just that it is hard to gauge how much information in the highlights is being actually recovered, and how much is displayed back by bringing down the shift introduced by the LUT.

Like richg101 said, it is likely the LUT is shifting the tones of the footage, blowing up the highlights. So when he is bringing them down, he is not exclusively "recovering" highlight information, but also bringing down the overexposure introduced by the LUT to begin with. Now he does state in the video that from an incident reading on set, the alley is overexposed by 6 stops, and yet it retains a lot of highlight information.

in the full body shots the background is so even because it has been extended in post see form this raw grab: All other shots the backgrounds are real, a big soft light from above lit it evenly. If you want an even lit background you can start by placing your light as further away from it as possible. The closer you get the more you will see the gradation in the light fall off and you will create a visible gradient. Found this image that demonstrates it clearly: as you can see the light intensity changes rapidly between the 22 and 5.6 mark, so you will see a gradient. If you place it further away, starting at the 5.6 mark and around the 4 mark you will have less of a gradient (although you will have a 1 stop difference as demonstrated in the pic)

make sure you don't shooting anything against a white background if you don't want to get sued by amazon though

mad jealous

thanks, what camera did you switch to after the red one? must be nice to work with the Arri lt, and agreed love the colors and detail the raw video of the mark 3 delivers

I think I understand what you mean, I was focusing on light transmission only, without acknowledging final light density on the surface of the sensor. So my graphics are correct as: - A crop sensor without speedbooster receives less total light as the full frame sensor - A crop sensor with speedbooster receives the same amount of light as the full frame sensor But: - Since the crop sensor is smaller, the same amount of light on a smaller surface = higher density correct?

I do not see how it is possible for a full frame lens to provide the same amount of light to a crop sensor as it would to a full frame. Unless you are using a speedbooster. Now we are talking amount of light only, not sensor sensitivity. Saying a f4 full frame lens becomes an f2.8 with speedbooster on a crop sensor is in my opinion false. We all know for fact that speedboosters increase the amount of light on the sensor. But how? I say : you lose light on crop sensors to begin with and speedbooster makes up for the loss by focusing the lost light back on the crop sensor. f4 full frame = f4 on crop with speedbooter You say : there is no loss to begin with, and speedbooster increase the light on the sensor compared to full frame. f4 full frame = f2.8 on crop. I don't see how that works, please demonstrate via graphic how that works This is how I understand it, please do correct this if it is wrong:

If that is true then demonstrate to me using a graphic such as mine how a speedbooster provides more light and increases exposure.

Dishe, Andrew, again appreciate the discussion thank you. I am not arguing for the sake of arguing but so far I do not understand how what I am stating is wrong. But I will gladly learn something and stand corrected. I do understand that sensor pixel size is to be taken into consideration when talking about exposure of the sensor, larger sensors generally having larger pixels than crop ones for instance. And architecture as far as gaps between pixels and the amount of pixels. In order for me to understand your arguments, can we proceed step by step? Can we begin solely with light intensity? Regardless of sensor specs. What I don't understand in your arguments is regarding the intensity of the light, focused by speedbooster or not. For the sake of understanding here is a lens that has an aperture that lets through 4 rays of light: Is this correct or is this wrong?

I appreciate the discussion in here thank you all, but I still disagree with you. Dishe I believe you are wrong and I feel you are contradicting yourself: If the light is more intense when condensed, then it is obligatory and by definition less intense when not condensed. You are acknowledging that the speedbooster is condensing light resulting in more intense output, yet you do not want to acknowledge that a less condensed output results in less intensity. That is simply not possible. I believe your magnifying glass analogy might be the root of the disagreement. Unlike a magnifying glass, the speedbooster is placed behind the lens. Which means: - it can only focus the light the lens is letting through, it will never add light. - at f1.8 a full frame lens will always, regardless of the sensor size, let the same amount of light through - a full frame sensor takes full advantage of this f1.8 light output because the sensor area covers more of the light beam (see my previously posted graphic). - a crop sensor is missing a lot of light coming in from this f1.8 opening as lots of it lands outside of the crop sensor (see my previously posted graphic). - this is why a speedbooster, while increasing the amount of light hitting a crop sensor resulting in a more exposed crop sensor, is not actually increasing the amount of light let through the 1.8 lens, only making up for the loss that was previously missing and hitting outside of the crop sensor. Which is why ; without a speedbooster, you must multiply not only the focal length to get the field of view equivalence, but also the aperture to get the equivalence. And with a speedbooster, which is only making up for the loss, not adding more light, a f1.8 full frame lens remains a f1.8 lens. This is how I see it.

I disagree and I believe it to be true, this is what I mean visually by what I said, there is the same amount of light let through by the lens on all 3 examples: now if I am still wrong then I have completely misunderstood speedboosters from the start. let me know

That is also one of the first things I first thought about, he answered this with his thought process in the comments here: "Pixel density doesn't impact total light gathered or overall image quality, which is why I didn't feel the need to address it in this video. Pixel density does determine the noise level per pixel, but that's only relevant for comparing different sized sensors if you choose to view them on a pixel-by-pixel basis rather than keeping the image size constant and scaling the pixels as needed. Because yours is a common question, I am planning a future video to address pixel density.And I do say in the video that all comparisons assume similar sensor technology, and most modern sensors do have pretty similar total image quality."

Are you referring to the video or the short highlights I typed? the video is much more in depth as I mentioned. Makes sense to me but I will gladly learn something more so please do correct him

Agreed, I was referring to the .95 aperture which translates to 1.9.

Actually he covers that in the video as well. According to him 100iso on full frame is not equivalent to 100iso on m4/3, you have to adjust the iso by multiplying by the crop factor square. And this is what he did to match the 2 images. He goes in depth regarding this in the video I encourage you to watch it.

* edited upon request: This video has led to a debate between members questioning the accuracy and validity of the claims made in this video. It has been reviewed as incorrect and confusing so be aware of that before watching.

looks interesting thanks for sharing

looks great you did a very nice work! love the lighting, composition, narration, all around well polished video. The only nit picking thing that bothered me is a little continuity issue. As he walks toward the jersey the scientists are stepping aside but when you switch to the opposite camera angle they remain static. Did you use one of the osiris luts on this? I'm asking because of the cyan highlights and orange saturated skintones. I know this is the typical orange and teal grading look so could be done without them but I'm just curious. again very nice congrats

A S-curve is simply an adjustment curve that is shaped as an S. Such as this: As you can see in the above pic an S curves increases contrasts. As shadows are darkened and highlights brightened, resulting in increased contrast in the image.

looks great been following him on vimeo as well

lol but yeah, 720p makes it hard to judge op. thank you for this though, if you can make the original files available for download that would be great

Hello everyone, Here is my latest video work, an ad I shot with the red one mx: hope you like it, let me know what you think I also started a facebook page for my photo/video works: http://www.fb.com/karimnassarofficial If you follow me there please pm me with your page so I can follow you back! looking forward to hearing your thoughts