Danyyyel Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 We are discussing asthetics. My eyes don't care whether you call something a video or a picture. If the background is distracting my eyes want it blurred and out of the way. Guys full frame wasn't used in the movie industry because of practical concerns. It was not some asthetic decision. I don't know why people are trying to reimagine the story. You guys realize IMAX film exists. It's gotten pretty good reviews... except the motion sickness from the enveloping experience. If shooting with IMAX film was as easy and cost the same as shooting with 16mm film it would be used in the majority of film productions. We all know this. So moral of the story is regardless of what camera you choose learn to use your equipment. Again as someone who shoots medium format film I am amazed at the number of people who think 35mm permanently has razor thin DoF. Change the apeture and/or subject camera distance. I think I am loosing my time discussing with you. You started by physics, then it was standard and now to make your point it is just your eyes esthetics. So be it, listening to you, it is as if the Cine 35mm/Apsc can only yield deep focus camcorder style look with no blurred background and deep focus. I think my needs is more of a practical view of moving subject that needs to be in focus and the fact that in low light situation if two cameras like the 5dmark3 and D5300 are about the same quality ISO, it will be much easier to shoot at 2.8 to 1.4 with an apsc with the Nikon vs the Canon. If you have to close the Canon by more than a stop for it to be focusable then you would need to shoot at higher ISO. The same argument can be said about 24p, yes it was the minimum to save on film and get good motion. But in the end 9/10 people would tell you that 24p is one of the main ingredient to the suspension of disbelief or movie Look. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danyyyel Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 I hear what you are saying regarding APS-C sensor size similar to 35mm film, but perhaps full frame helps make up for other DSLR deficiencies, such as dynamic range, to give it more of a film look. Also the film industry probably used very expensive lenses on their film cameras, that full frame can more easily mimic at a cost independents and amateurs can afford. Even beyond bokeh, for some reason, full frame does look more filmic to my eyes under most conditions. It's subtle, but it's there. Michael You know Dynamic range is not dependent of just Full frame. It is a set of technologies to treat the signal to noise ration and the full well capacity of the pixel. A very concrete example is that all the latest Nikon/Sony apsc sensor score 2+ stop of Dynamic range (about 14 stop) compared to the 5dmark 3 (11.6 stop) in raw. Even in video the D7100/D5200 where at least a stop above the 5D3. The more filmic look is more to do about the capacity to blur the background so that the lack of composition/framing and lower production value is more apparent than when blurring a bit more the background. Perhaps my problem is that I think more in the movie style of shots than the DW/BBC (when I was young in the eighties, they use to pass short video of people, nature, city scape with some music) that Philip Bloom has popularized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 89e2bdf5797fbbdc17c2cc6da1413fa0 Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 I hear what you are saying regarding APS-C sensor size similar to 35mm film, but perhaps full frame helps make up for other DSLR deficiencies, such as dynamic range, to give it more of a film look. Also the film industry probably used very expensive lenses on their film cameras, that full frame can more easily mimic at a cost independents and amateurs can afford. Even beyond bokeh, for some reason, full frame does look more filmic to my eyes under most conditions. It's subtle, but it's there. Michael Just to point out, the D5300 (APS-C) has better dynamic range than the stock 5DMk3 (FF) (as does the BMPCC!). My personal opinion is that you can't ignore history - over the last century we've become accustomed to most cinema having a certain (S35) look and most photos having a certain (35mm) look. Those 'looks' are partly to do with focus-plane size. But that doesn't mean those looks can't be deviated from. Despite what you'd think coming to forums like this, it's not actually a requirement that digital video looks like film. But it does help if you're trying to talk in the language of cinema. Anyway, I'm pretty sure this whole sensor size argument is the result of at least 2 crossed wires, and it is getting a little off-topic - could we perhaps agree that people are free to shoot with and enjoy watching whatever DOF etc they like? :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted February 22, 2014 Author Administrators Share Posted February 22, 2014 Despite what you'd think coming to forums like this, it's not actually a requirement that digital video looks like film. The forums are not all about some cliched 'film look' and ultra shallow DOF actually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 89e2bdf5797fbbdc17c2cc6da1413fa0 Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 The forums are not all about some cliched 'film look' and ultra shallow DOF actually. Andrew your response has nothing to do with what I was saying. I wasn't criticising any cliche'd hipster desire to look retro etc. I was saying that it is very common, when discussing digital cinema online, for a certain contingent to be very interested in comparing how this-or-that digital camera looks compared to film. As I said, cinema has a history and the vast majority of that history is Super 35mm. Cinema is also a language that the audience 'reads' and if filmmakers want to stray from what an audience has come to understand, they have to be careful. It can deteriorate the 4th wall. I wasn't saying everyone here is nuts about Film Convert and whisker-thin DOF. I know stirring-it in the forums is good for your page hits, but if you have to do it please be a bit more subtle about it. dafreaking 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael1 Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 You know Dynamic range is not dependent of just Full frame. It is a set of technologies to treat the signal to noise ration and the full well capacity of the pixel. A very concrete example is that all the latest Nikon/Sony apsc sensor score 2+ stop of Dynamic range (about 14 stop) compared to the 5dmark 3 (11.6 stop) in raw. Even in video the D7100/D5200 where at least a stop above the 5D3. The more filmic look is more to do about the capacity to blur the background so that the lack of composition/framing and lower production value is more apparent than when blurring a bit more the background. Perhaps my problem is that I think more in the movie style of shots than the DW/BBC (when I was young in the eighties, they use to pass short video of people, nature, city scape with some music) that Philip Bloom has popularized. Where can I find these "video" stop numbers you are referencing? Any info on the Nikon D610 and D800? Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tpr Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Where can I find these "video" stop numbers you are referencing? Any info on the Nikon D610 and D800? One place you can find them is DxOMark. They score sensors and lenses according to various metrics. The sensors in the D800 and D610 share the very top position of DxoMark's ranking for dynamic range at 14.4 Evs, with the D5200, D5300 and D7000 being the highest ranking among APS-C format cameras at 13.9 Evs. In general, the sensors in Nikon models currently dominate DxoMark's rankings, especially for dynamic range. http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Ratings/Landscape (those values apply to stills, but it is possible that part of the dynamic range is truncated for video) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damphousse Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 I think I am loosing my time discussing with you. You started by physics, then it was standard and now to make your point it is just your eyes esthetics. C'mon man. No need for revisionism. My very first post quoted and reacted to this... I am not the biggest fan of full frame video. Perhaps because it has been overused since the Canon 5d2 when we came from one extreme (small sensor camera) to another extreme with full frame. The habit of completely blurring the background until the subject was like floating in a mist and more than often being out of focus if he moved 5 cm in front or back was really annoying. I think that the Apsc Cine 35mm look is a good balance between subject isolation and focus. If an actor is in an environment he should at least be part of it. I think the antifull frame hysteria has reached an all time high when people are saying there is something wrong with the artful use of beautiful bokeh. A couple of days ago I was shooting a still life in a snow storm. My camera was bolted to a tripod. I was indoors and didn't have a ton of mobility because the subject was outside being drowned in snow. So I used a very shallow depth of field to blurry out the suburban clutter to improve the aesthetic of the video... It never occurred to me what I was doing was wrong. It was pretty easy to focus. I just pressed the autofocus button and it locked focus. Then I pressed record. That's it. Not hard. I was also using a 54 degree and smaller shutter angle... I guess that shouldn't be allowed either because a lot of old film cameras couldn't do that. I don't know. I did all that and the clips looked good. Who cares if a bunch of old film cameras were incapable of doing what I did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skiphunt Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Posted a longer, mostly unedited, flat color version of this D5300 footage a few days ago. Here's a shorter version, that's edited, a stab at grading, with music and some GoPro footage added. :) File too large for my free vimeo account. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Looking good Skip! The grade has made a big difference. I'm amazed at how stable your handheld footage looks too. Awesome. skiphunt 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 https://vimeo.com/87551084 Nikkor 85mm f2 AI-s on both cameras (G6 with Speed Booster). All shots graded. This is a personal test, it is not intended to be an objective comparison. Please Download the original .MOV file on Vimeo. maxotics and Nikkor 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikkor Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 The G6 has some strange artifacts, the d5300 looks great. I'm kinda suprised it looks so good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted February 25, 2014 Author Administrators Share Posted February 25, 2014 Nikkor 85mm f2 AI-s on both cameras (G6 with Speed Booster). All shots graded. This is a personal test, it is not intended to be an objective comparison. Please Download the original .MOV file on Vimeo. How much sharpening in post on the D5300 and how much on the G6? Why is the roof felt out of focus on the G6 shot? Hmm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skiphunt Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Looking good Skip! The grade has made a big difference. I'm amazed at how stable your handheld footage looks too. Awesome. Thanks Matt! Just beginning to play with grading and I happen to favor hyper-color, which I know some don't. The steadiness is partly the fact I used a VR lens for stabilization, and the rest is FCPX. Even for this little, first project, and even with the compressed D5300 footage, my MBP 13in with an external thunderbolt drive proved too slow. I'm not sure what to do at this point, but so glad I didn't go the more processor intensive raw route. The D5300 is definitely capable of getting a look that I like. With more practice, tweaking, and my better manual lenses it will only get better. Now, I have to figure out where the main bottleneck is in my editing flow. My system is just barely up to snuff and usable, but painfully slow. Trying to figure out the most efficient upgrade without having to spend a bunch of money. I'd like to stay portable, so ideally I'd max out a new 15in MBP with the most RAM, solid state drive, along with it's much faster graphics card, but that's getting close to $3000. My 13in MBP only has 8GB of RAM and a 5400rpm internal drive. I'm thinking maxing out RAM to 16GB and upgrading the internal drive to an SSD drive might be sufficient, but if it's not... that's still an expensive band-aid. Again, glad I went the camera route that can at least get by with minimal computing power. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxotics Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Skiphunt, very nice video! Sorry to sound critical, the narration sounded very interesting, but didn't match the footage for me. Quite the opposite, it was distracting. I would have rather heard you babbling on, "Look at those dogs. Ah, the dogs life. Look at the guy on the windsurfer, ah, the windsurfer's life..." :) Another way of putting it, what are these colors RED BLUE GREEN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 How much sharpening in post on the D5300 and how much on the G6? Why is the roof felt out of focus on the G6 shot? Hmm. Sharpening in post (FCPX): Shots of grass & roof 1.5% for both cameras. Shots of leaves, 2.5% for both cameras. But D5300 in-camera sharpening was set to default (3), whereas the G6 it was right down. I have to admit I was surprised when I compared them - I'm sure I have gotten sharper shots from the G6 even with sharpening right down in-camera. I'll do another test - this one was a bit rushed (my 1yr old son was wrestling with the tripod). Point of focus (roof shot) was the leaf in the centre pointing down. All shots f8. I don't know why the DOF is so different though (I haven't ever quite understood how the SB affects this when compared to same lens on APS-C) - especially when G6 has wider FOV here. Possible errors with the G6 doesn't change the fact that the D5300 'can' be very sharp though. And it's dynamic range, colour rendition and kindness to grading blow the G6 away IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 The G6 has some strange artifacts, the d5300 looks great. I'm kinda suprised it looks so good. I'm going to try to find time to do another test. I know the G6 can look better than this. DR and colour suck compared to the 5300 though, and it's nice to know the Nikon can be very sharp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted February 25, 2014 Author Administrators Share Posted February 25, 2014 To really test sharpness you need to use a wide lens, stop down for a very deep DOF and focus to infinity. Close ups of plants sharpened in post hide the resolution issues of the D5300. Also for the next test make sure clouds in the sky don't make for your shots being lit completely differently from camera to camera. In one of your shots practically the entire scene is in the shade, whilst in the other shot most of it is in bright sunlight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skiphunt Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Skiphunt, very nice video! Sorry to sound critical, the narration sounded very interesting, but didn't match the footage for me. Quite the opposite, it was distracting. I would have rather heard you babbling on, "Look at those dogs. Ah, the dogs life. Look at the guy on the windsurfer, ah, the windsurfer's life..." :) Another way of putting it, what are these colors RED BLUE GREEN I didn't have a plan for this. Just recorded some thoughts on the beach and shot stuff over a month of traveling to mostly test the camera. Then, put it together as best I could. Sorry your found it distracting, and thanks for your critique, but I'm still rather satisfied with it. I do somewhat wish I'd had a few more clips related to what I was saying. However, if you listen to the nature of what I'm saying in the narrative, ie. often the "details" distract you from seeing "the forest", I think it works as is. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 To really test sharpness you need to use a wide lens, stop down for a very deep DOF and focus to infinity. Close ups of plants sharpened in post hide the resolution issues of the D5300. Also for the next test make sure clouds in the sky don't make for your shots being lit completely differently from camera to camera. In one of your shots practically the entire scene is in the shade, whilst in the other shot most of it is in bright sunlight. Thanks Andrew I'll try another one when I can. It was a very windy & cloudy day, so the light issues couldn't be avoided. As I said this was a personal test, more to compare overall aesthetic qualities rather than specific technical ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.