How Many Stops of Dynamic Range Needed for Cinematic Look?

[AaronChicago]

19 hours ago, mercer said:

So you don’t believe there is a camera element involved and it’s all based on the users skill level?

There's definitely a camera element involved. I'm just saying we've hit it. Back in 2009 one could argue we need to come a way in tech to be affordable + cinematic. That has plateu'd in my opinion though.

[BTM_Pix]

After watching that Steve Yedlin video again, if I had £10K to spend and wanted a pain free way to get a cinematic look, I'd buy an Alexa for £8K off eBay and give the rest to him to set it up and teach me his workflow  

[IronFilm]

14 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Steve Yedlin video

Here is another, he is good, thanks, worth watching:
 

 

[mercer]

6 minutes ago, AaronChicago said:

There's definitely a camera element involved. I'm just saying we've hit it. Back in 2009 one could argue we need to come a way in tech to be affordable + cinematic. That has plateu'd in my opinion though.

Okay, I’d buy that but there has to be a threshold, right? Do you think it would be any camera over a certain price point, or any camera with specific features?

We have some very high end users that visit this forum (yourself included) that shoot with an Ursa Pro or EVA1 or C200 and Reds and I assume John Brawley shoots with the Alexa regularly. Those cameras are designed for cinema.

But for the rest of us that use consumer/prosumer gear and try to emulate the cinematic look, I believe certain cameras are better suited for that than others.

I don’t know if it’s dynamic range, color science or a Log Profile, rolling shutter, etc... obviously it’s a combination of everything.

But either way there are definitely sub-$2000 cameras that are naturally more cinematic than other sub-$2000 cameras.

[AaronChicago]

I think the BM pocket cinema camera is a good example of cinematic image for under $1000. There's the process of cinema (movie making) and cinema image (what's seen on the screen).  Time is underrated expense, and I believe if you have time on your side anything is possible with minimal equipment. 10 yrs ago I would agree that cinematic image may have been too out-of-reach for most, in regards to the camera.

[kidzrevil]

21 hours ago, mercer said:

Ha, I don’t know, it may be easier to eff up a cell phone video. 

This is my theory and I expect a downvote or two for saying this but it isn’t directed at anyone specifically...

On forums like this, a lot of people like to believe that skill and talent will push them and that they have it, so it becomes an ego thing.

But if that were entirely true, then why would Alexas even exist? If talent was all it took, then just go out and buy a t2i and make some Hollywood level films. A hacked GH2 would be more than enough, you would think. 

Talent and skill is the unsaid-said... obviously talent and skill helps. But for amateurs, camera choice can make your life a lot easier... it does for me anyway.

I heard William Wages say that the big cameras as good as they are only serve to protect the status quo. He showed cuts inbetween a varicam and gh4 that look indistiguishable. I agree with @AaronChicago . I think we’ve plateaud when it comes to what we can get out of even consumer cameras in comparison to an Alexa. There are obviously certain traits each camera has that outweighs another but if you like the image and you can get it to meet the technical broadcast standards then you are good. I now think lens choice matters way more to the look than the camera. 

[jonpais]

I think it's almost an exercise in futility judging a camera by online footage, good or bad, because it really is the camera operator and the creative choices they make that determine whether a video looks great or mediocre. I just watched a clip shot with the Terra 4K that looks no better or worse than the GH4, and I'm sure it's capable of spectacular looking results. Just not in this case. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xpfFd-TDhk

 

[DBounce]

23 minutes ago, kidzrevil said:

I heard William Wages say that the big cameras as good as they are only serve to protect the status quo. He showed cuts inbetween a varicam and gh4 that look indistiguishable. I agree with @AaronChicago . I think we’ve plateaud when it comes to what we can get out of even consumer cameras in comparison to an Alexa. There are obviously certain traits each camera has that outweighs another but if you like the image and you can get it to meet the technical broadcast standards then you are good. I now think lens choice matters way more to the look than the camera. 

Yes, I think this is really becoming the case. Framing, Lighting, Lenses and Filters. These are all important for getting the look. The first two have no quick and easy fix... You have to learn them and experiment... or bring in someone that knows them already. Of all of this something unmentioned is the actual on camera talent. It’s them that sell the story. A compelling enough performance and story will soon make viewer forget what lens or camera was used. They will be too busy watching. I think this is preferable. I know I don’t want viewers being absorbed with technical questions about lenses and cameras when I am trying to portray a story.

[TwoScoops]

17 minutes ago, jonpais said:

I think it's almost an exercise in futility judging a camera by online footage, good or bad, because it really is the camera operator and the creative choices they make that determine whether a video looks great or mediocre. I just watched a clip shot with the Terra 4K that looks no better or worse than the GH4, and I'm sure it's capable of spectacular looking results. Just not in this case. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xpfFd-TDhk

 

 

that does look really GH4 CiniDish. 

[DBounce]

8 minutes ago, TwoScoops said:

 

that does look really GH4 CiniDish. 

Agreed, but at least you now know the worst case scenario. And I used to say everything looks cinematic in slowmo. This video has proved me wrong.

[mercer]

You guys should just go out and buy an entry level Canon then. Why spend thousands upon thousands of dollars on cameras and native lenses? I mean, it’s all up to the operator, right?

Obviously, I was being sarcastic there and obviously all of the points that talent and skill will make any camera look good are valid and probably the most important ingredient to a cinematic image.

Now if only Hollywood Line Producers were reading this thread, then every film from this point on could be shot on a (insert consumer camera here)

[maxmizer]

GH2 and LOMO...

 

[DBounce]

9 minutes ago, mercer said:

You guys should just go out and buy an entry level Canon then. Why spend thousands upon thousands of dollars on cameras and native lenses? I mean, it’s all up to the operator, right?

Obviously, I was being sarcastic there and obviously all of the points that talent and skill will make any camera look good are valid and probably the most important ingredient to a cinematic image.

Now if only Hollywood Line Producers were reading this thread, then every film from this point on could be shot on a (insert consumer camera here)

Well there was recently a major motion picture shot on an iPhone... this is only going to become more common. There are definite advantages to small size and low weight. Red is working on their new Hydrogen smartphone, so who knows. I think this work was pretty good, not because of any technical reason, it was just shot and edited with some thought. Granted, if you want to nitpick you will have many technical things to pick at. It was after all shot on an iPhone... but I think it’s pretty good nonetheless. And for the record, the better, smaller and cheaper cameras become, the cheaper and faster we will all be able to produce material. Who’s not for that. I’m packing for NAB, and trying to decide what has to stay behind. Will take the GH5/S for testing with some new lenses. But wouldn’t it be nice if your smartphone could do it all? DOF, Anamorphic, low-light, DR, build in NDs... We can dream.

 

[maxmizer]

17 minutes ago, mercer said:

Ora se solo i produttori di Hollywood Line stavano leggendo questo thread, allora ogni film da questo punto in poi potrebbe essere girato su un (inserire la fotocamera del consumatore qui)

It makes no sense

[kidzrevil]

@DBounce that vid you just posted looks cinematic as hell ? moment is coming out with an anamorphic lens for the iphonex w/ custom battery case/mount. The game is changing. Thank God for technology

[Mark Romero 2]

@jonpais

Getting back to the original question you asked about DR, and to sort of add to the point of being "cinematic" in general...

I think it really boils down to, "not looking like video."

Think of all the BAD qualities of broadcast video and of early video cameras.

Surely limited DR was part of that, but there were other technical (and artistic) things that scream "VIDEO." I think as the video format became the option for lower budget content creaters, there is just a sort of mental connection that low-budget-looking productions are video, and more polished productions are cinematic.

One way to look at this is to ask yourself "What ISN'T cinematic???"

To me, cinematic ISN'T:

- blown highlights / horrible rolloff
- oversharpened
- compressed skin tones

Add on to that artistic features that were amateurish.

[elgabogomez]

I saw movies on dvd that were poorly encoded and for several reasons had all of those problems (blown highlights, horrible roll off, oversharpened, compressed skin tones), it detracted from them but still were “cinematic “

minority report had all of those problems for artistic reasons and still looked good... don’t believe me? Watch it again 

[Robert Collins]

Taking a look at the Yedlin footage what seems interesting is how little dynamic range is in the 'final output' when compared to how much dynamic range is in the scene.

Note the limited DR in the histogram.

The footage is also very desaturated. (The camera angle and limited color gamut also seems cinematic.)

Take a vaguely similar shot with a digital camera. Straight out of camera it looks something like this... (A7r3)

Note that this has bags more dynamic range - it fills the entire histogram and the colors are much more saturated. And that it looks 'digital'

However, if you make a tonal adjustment (see below) which compresses the dynamic range - see histogram and tone curve (by raising the blacks and lowering the whites). And reduce the saturation (see below), the photo appears more cinematic...

So my feeling is having quite a low dynamic range in your final output is quite key to a cinematic look. Of course you can achieve that with a high dynamic range scene given enough processing leeway (either in camera or post.) Or alternatively, you could achieve it with an iphone given enough additional lighting equipment I would imagine.

[Mark Romero 2]

1 hour ago, elgabogomez said:

I saw movies on dvd that were poorly encoded and for several reasons had all of those problems (blown highlights, horrible roll off, oversharpened, compressed skin tones), it detracted from them but still were “cinematic “

minority report had all of those problems for artistic reasons and still looked good... don’t believe me? Watch it again 

Ok, but what was it that made it "cinematic" for you? (And I wholeheartedly believe that cinematic means different things to different people.)

[IronFilm]

9 hours ago, jonpais said:

I think it's almost an exercise in futility judging a camera by online footage, good or bad, because it really is the camera operator and the creative choices they make that determine whether a video looks great or mediocre. I just watched a clip shot with the Terra 4K that looks no better or worse than the GH4, and I'm sure it's capable of spectacular looking results. Just not in this case. 

Shows how subjective all this can become at a certain point, as for example a youtube commentator on that link said:
 

Quote

Some of the best footage I've seen so far from the Terra!

I wouldn't agree. 

But shows it is in the eye of the beholder.