tupp

Higher resolution is not necessarily the primary advantage of larger formats -- the advantage is the look. Our own @richg101 developed a medium format DOF adapter -- the Forbes 70. He used the OG Blackmagic Pocket (HD) with the Forbes 70, and the images were beautiful and distinct from smaller formats. In addition, or own @Gonzalo Ezcurra made the largest format DOF adapters that I have seen (14"x14" and 20"x20"), and he used HD cameras with it, but the footage was wondrously gorgeous.

LOL!!! Actually, it would make me happy to have an 8"x10", reflective, DOF rig like the one created by Zev Hoover shown in the video above.

We've had heated discussions in this forum on the DOF equivalency principle and on the difference in the looks of different size formats. I am on the side that there is definitely a difference in the general look of different size formats. I also maintain that the DOF equivalency principle does not account for the rate that the focus "falls off" outside of the mathematical DOF range and that this DOF falloff rate differs between different formats. Keep in mind, that the assertions above apply not to the size of a sensor nor emulsion, but to the optics made for a particular size of sensor/emulsion. If one compares the images from a 16mm camera to those from, say, an 8"x10" camera, the difference in look and DOF falloff is striking. Here is footage from a recent 8"x10" camera:

Even though the format you mention may be uncompressed, the fact that it is 8-bit might cause banding artifacts to appear when you adjust the levels back down in post. Be careful and/or run tests in advance. In your NLE, you might find filters that have sliders and color wheels that will allow you to quickly change the Sony skin tones to your liking.

ETTR is suitable for raw and uncompressed formats. Just be careful going by a histogram alone. If you have zebras, set them in the range of 95%-100%, and use them to determine your upper limit and to choose which parts of the image may or may not blow-out. Waveform is also good for finding the upper limit.

Well, he certainly didn't invent tacky sunglasses and ugly shirts. Promo-wear has built-in hype, just because it is part of the fashion industry. On the other hand, the sunglasses and shirts probably didn't get as much hype as the RED One, which was vaporware for about 3 years. The RED founder and "hoax" mentioned in the same post? Oh, the irony... Some guy made a video about RED's special drives. I think he noticed something.

Has anyone here bought a Panavision DXL? ? Whether or not someone on this site bought something has no reflection on the innovation nor quality of the item in question. I don't think that I ever actually knew what the rental prices were on any one of the different Dalsa 4K raw cameras. Nevertheless, Dalsa was offering 4K raw long before it was even a glint in Jannard's eye. Keep in mind that the first ones to break ground usually incur the most development cost and sink the most resources into a type of product. So, initially, a new type of product is usually very expensive. Often, someone with deep pockets sees the development, and swoops into a market to take advantage of it (and gets all the credit). How does that $15K, very late-to-market, buggy RED One compare to a $1,500 Pocket4K? Do you see how that works? Jannard just rode a wave. Raw video and higher resolutions were inevitable in cinema cameras, as was raw compression. He didn't invent really anything.

RED was not the first to offer a cinema camera that shot 4K raw -- that distinction goes to Dalsa. Dalsa introduced their 4K raw camera at the 2003 NAB. At any rate, 4K raw and compressed raw were inevitable and obvious in the cinema world. At the Dalsa 2003 launch, raw files and the megapixels war had already been around for years in the still photo world. So, it doesn't take a genius to simply apply such notions to moving pictures. In regards to RED's wavelet compression, it had already been established in JPEG2000. So, it doesn't take a huge mental leap to merely apply the same compression method to another video format.

Yep! That would be somewhat smaller than 15m x 15m! ?

15 meters x 15 meters is a small room?

Up until about eight years ago, we said the same thing about the difference in the solidity of the look between a dolly and a Steadicam.

Hollywood/Western Station FTW! Thanks for the link! Some of those shots are beautiful.

Forza 18K from April 2014.

@User, it appears that you need a lens support -- but not a big one.

Agreed. If Panasonic uses an EF-mount once again (in spite of the fact that they already utilize the shallow and more versatile L-mount), that is truly something insane!

You are making a large format DOF adapter and using anamorphic optics? Our own @Gonzalo Ezcurra made the largest format DOF adapters that I have seen. I don't think that he ever tried anamorphic optics on them, but you should probably be aware of them, nonetheless. He made a 20"x20" version, called the "E-Cyclops." Then, he made a smaller, 14"x14" version, called "MiniCyclops." Here is construction of the E-Cyclops. Here are some of the results, evidently from the MiniCyclops. Unfortunately, he took down all of his amazing videos shot with these devices. He also made a motorized focus mechanism and a motorized stand for the cameras.

Again, the pink dots in the highlights of your video appear to be very different from the pink focus pixels that are discussed (and mapped out) on the ML forum. Upon a closer look, I see that focus pixels sometime appear in your video in the same frames as the pink highlight "fixed pattern" dots. Here is what pink focus pixel dots look like: Notice the distinctive, orderly pattern of the pink focus pixels. These faint orderly dots are easy to map out. The pink highlight dots in your video seem to be some other problem, likely related to the pink highlights phenomenon (completely different from the pink focus pixel phenomenon) and possibly also related to fixed pattern noise. Again, you additionally have a "black hole Sun" problem. I think that the free, open source MLV App will solve most of your problems, but I am not familiar with it.

Those pink dots don't look like the typical focus pixel dots. The problems is something else. It appears that you are also experiencing black (pink?) hole Sun effect. I seem to recall reading in the Magiclantern EOSM thread and watching one or two recent @ZEEK videos on how to remedy pink highlights and black hole Sun with EOSM raw. As I recall, one just lowers the white level in MLV App to eliminate the pink highlights. Perhaps, @ZEEK and/or @Alpicat will chime in with suggestions. Nice! Thanks for sharing!

I am talking about everything that involves converting an analog signal to a digital signal, including the signal going into a camera sensor's ADC and the signal coming out of that ADC. By the way, there are zillions of machine vision camera that offer selectable bit depths. There is no encoding nor compression nor codec. The bit depth changes, but the dynamic range doesn't change. No. It doesn't. Barring any artificial signal processing, the max limit of dynamic range is dictated by the analog stage of the sensor. Dynamic range is essentially (originally) a property of analog signals notated in decibels, regarding the maximum signal amplitude relative to its noise level. An ADC merely maps some number of digital increments to an analog signal's amplitude range (not to the signal's dynamic range). Regardless of how many digital increments the ADC maps, the relationship between max amplitude and noise level remains the same. Analog to Digital Converter. Most ADCs for camera sensors are linear. Certainly, other ADCs exist that don't make a linear conversion. First of all, a lot of folks who have tested Alexas would disagree with you and and say that it's dynamic range (in stops) is greater than it's bit depth -- 15+ stops of DR. However, the manufacturer Blackmagic's sensor could integrate an 8-bit ADC with the same analog stage of their 12-bit sensor and also make another sensor with a 16-bit ADC to go with the same analog stage, and the dynamic range would not differ one iota between the 8-bit version, the 12-bit version and the 16-bit version. The reason why the dynamic range (in stops) in CMOS sensors often approximates the bit depth of the ADC is because it is usually the most optimal/efficient balance between bandwidth and color depth. Mapping 16-bits to a sensor with 12 stops of dynamic range probably wouldn't improve the look much, but it would significantly increase bandwidth. Similarly, mapping only 8-bits to a sensor with 12 stops of dynamic range would severely limit the potential color depth and might make the images susceptible to banding. There are camera sensors that have outboard ADCs (not built into the sensor), and, changing the bit depth of the ADC has no effect on the DR.

Ha, ha! Likewise, I've explained many times that dynamic range and bit depth are two different and independent properties. I have also given practical, existing examples of cameras that offer variable bit depth while maintaining the same dynamic range -- the bit depth varies independently from the dynamic range. In addition, there exist cameras in which one can change the effective dynamic range while maintaining the same bit depth. It is a misguided notion that CMOS sensors (or any other types of digital sensors) have some sort of absolute linear relationship between dynamic range and bit depth. 12-bit ≠12 EV and 12-bit ≠ 12 stops DR. The mapping of bit depth increments is independent from the bit depth and also independent from the DR. You can map 8-bit logarithmically, linearly, rec-whatever or any other way -- regardless of the DR. Me too!

Dynamic range and bit depth are two different and independent properties. You can have a 30-stop dynamic range mapped to 8-bit. Likewise, you can have a 3-stop dynamic range mapped to 32-bit.

Is one of those Canon cameras an HV20? Why didn't you just go with the X-T3? Welcome to the forum!

I don't get the reference, but "Brian Jonestown Massacre" is an interesting pun on two tragedies.

Their might be some settings posted in the ML 5d II thread. Or, you could post a question in that thread on what ML settings folks tend to use.

Yep. That's been going on for years -- even before Red existed. One can safely assume that the above-the-line folks are clueless and cheap, when, at the outset, they stipulate that a DP must own a certain brand of camera. One exception to this assumption is that they might be trying to match previous footage. However, in that case, they are just cheap and one wonders what happened to the original DP. The trailer (thanks, @PannySVHS!) is reminiscent of the inexpensively made, slipshod "Now" films of the mid/late 1960s. Very cool! Not sure why he didn't just an use an off-the-shelf developer, stop bath and fixer.