Apple is Coming For Y'all: Disruptive Video Production Technologies

[majoraxis]

I have an old P+S Technik Pro 35 PL to B4 P+S Image Converter that projects the lens image on to a vibrating screen to be picked up the a 3-CCD B4 camera sensor.  I saw that at one time they sold a version that could work with an iPhone. I was researching if I could convert the Pro 35 adapter for iPhone and found the Pro 35 manual on line. I was not able figure out how to make it work with an iPhone but I did come across what they P+S Technik felt contributed to look of film which I thought might add to the discuss about what make something "cinematic". 

Film-Look: Which elements are important?

Framerate:

Film works only with complete pictures, that means progressive with 24 or 25 Hz. Television systems work currently for the most part with half pictures (interlaced), that means with 50 or 60 Hz.The higher the frame rate, the higher is also the motion resolution. A football game with "only" 24 Hz would not be as informative for the viewer as football game with 50 Hz.

Exposure time:

The common shutter speed result for film cameras result normally from the frame rate. This is mostly 1/48 s., 1/50 s. or 1/60 s., some applications request a shorter exposure time. Electronic cameras work generally in the same manner, but the consolidation between frame rate and exposure time is not as steep. This means at for example 60 frames per second there is also a longer exposure time possible (up to 360 degrees Hell sector = 1/60 s.)

Motion blur:

One characteristic of the so called film look is the motion blur. Low frame rate / long exposure time lead to a higher motion blur compared to television - benefit from this creative tool.

Shutter effect / strobing:

Is your pan jerky? Probably your pan velocity is not adjusted to your frame rate (and your motion blur). Check the pan velocity against the focal distance, e. g. in the manual of the ASC (American Society of Cinematographers). Also newer monitors show the pictures often "jerky". Chose your equipment accordingly to your reporting (TV/cinema) and your method of recording (interlaced/progressive).

Method of recording:

INTERLACED is still a widespread method for increasing the motion resolution (50/60 Hz). Use this method creatively, e. g. for a later slow motion (Example: convert 50/60 Hz interlaced to 50/60 Hz progressive, afterwards rendering with 24/25 frames/s.). De-interlaced is often used for the printout. PROGRESSIVE is used for printing out the material; this is often more close to the film look, because of a lower motion resolution (24/25 Hz).

Compression:

Unfortunately, the recording quality is highly dependent on the format of recording. A lot of today's used data compression programs are for example highly sensitive to noise or quickly changing picture contents. While recording do not only trust your picture on the monitor (it shows often the uncompressed signal), but test how the recorded signal is behaving in different recording situations (see also: TARGET SPEED above).

Depth of field:

Like the human eye has a selective perception, also filmmakers and cinematographers use the depth of field for calling the attention of the viewer to specific things or also to detract from something. At the same time the effective size of the picture plays an important part: The larger it is, the lower is the depth of field; small amateur cameras work often with very small sensors and that's why their picture comes across as unnaturally sharp. The P+S Technik Image Converter allow now the identical depth of fi eld like in 35 mm film on an electronic camera with a considerably smaller size of the sensor.

Choice of lens:

The choice of lens is - especially in combination with high-resolution cameras - clearly visible. Therefore, test the lenses before shooting! See a list with applicable lenses in the annex.

Aspect ratio:

Because of the fact that the human eye has a considerably larger horizontal fi eld of vision than a vertical one, a lot of films used already very early an analogous larger aspect ratio for achieving an impressively large screen projection (Example: Cinemascope). Like this a different visual effect is produced for the viewer only because of the picture size.

 

[Emanuel]

1 hour ago, kye said:

I've posted this before, but it's worth posting again.

For the people who actually make cinematic images, high resolution is desirable on capture, and undesirable on delivery.

I think the quickest way to see if someone is a film-maker or videographer is to ask about resolution.

 

I follow and partially agree with you but it's hard to say the things are as much night and day as your last statement infers LOL : ) I've seen myself higher resolution copies on delivery projected at the big screen and they're nothing but fairly "cinematic", no matter how many more pixels they have, viewers don't run away from them ;- )

[kye]

1 hour ago, majoraxis said:

I have an old P+S Technik Pro 35 PL to B4 P+S Image Converter that projects the lens image on to a vibrating screen to be picked up the a 3-CCD B4 camera sensor.  I saw that at one time they sold a version that could work with an iPhone. I was researching if I could convert the Pro 35 adapter for iPhone and found the Pro 35 manual on line. I was not able figure out how to make it work with an iPhone but I did come across what they P+S Technik felt contributed to look of film which I thought might add to the discuss about what make something "cinematic". 

Film-Look: Which elements are important?

Framerate:

Film works only with complete pictures, that means progressive with 24 or 25 Hz. Television systems work currently for the most part with half pictures (interlaced), that means with 50 or 60 Hz.The higher the frame rate, the higher is also the motion resolution. A football game with "only" 24 Hz would not be as informative for the viewer as football game with 50 Hz.

Exposure time:

The common shutter speed result for film cameras result normally from the frame rate. This is mostly 1/48 s., 1/50 s. or 1/60 s., some applications request a shorter exposure time. Electronic cameras work generally in the same manner, but the consolidation between frame rate and exposure time is not as steep. This means at for example 60 frames per second there is also a longer exposure time possible (up to 360 degrees Hell sector = 1/60 s.)

Motion blur:

One characteristic of the so called film look is the motion blur. Low frame rate / long exposure time lead to a higher motion blur compared to television - benefit from this creative tool.

Shutter effect / strobing:

Is your pan jerky? Probably your pan velocity is not adjusted to your frame rate (and your motion blur). Check the pan velocity against the focal distance, e. g. in the manual of the ASC (American Society of Cinematographers). Also newer monitors show the pictures often "jerky". Chose your equipment accordingly to your reporting (TV/cinema) and your method of recording (interlaced/progressive).

Method of recording:

INTERLACED is still a widespread method for increasing the motion resolution (50/60 Hz). Use this method creatively, e. g. for a later slow motion (Example: convert 50/60 Hz interlaced to 50/60 Hz progressive, afterwards rendering with 24/25 frames/s.). De-interlaced is often used for the printout. PROGRESSIVE is used for printing out the material; this is often more close to the film look, because of a lower motion resolution (24/25 Hz).

Compression:

Unfortunately, the recording quality is highly dependent on the format of recording. A lot of today's used data compression programs are for example highly sensitive to noise or quickly changing picture contents. While recording do not only trust your picture on the monitor (it shows often the uncompressed signal), but test how the recorded signal is behaving in different recording situations (see also: TARGET SPEED above).

Depth of field:

Like the human eye has a selective perception, also filmmakers and cinematographers use the depth of field for calling the attention of the viewer to specific things or also to detract from something. At the same time the effective size of the picture plays an important part: The larger it is, the lower is the depth of field; small amateur cameras work often with very small sensors and that's why their picture comes across as unnaturally sharp. The P+S Technik Image Converter allow now the identical depth of fi eld like in 35 mm film on an electronic camera with a considerably smaller size of the sensor.

Choice of lens:

The choice of lens is - especially in combination with high-resolution cameras - clearly visible. Therefore, test the lenses before shooting! See a list with applicable lenses in the annex.

Aspect ratio:

Because of the fact that the human eye has a considerably larger horizontal fi eld of vision than a vertical one, a lot of films used already very early an analogous larger aspect ratio for achieving an impressively large screen projection (Example: Cinemascope). Like this a different visual effect is produced for the viewer only because of the picture size.

 

All these are relevant, but there is much more to something looking cinematic than just 24p with 180 shutter with a bit of background defocus.

1 hour ago, Emanuel said:

I follow and partially agree with you but it's hard to say the things are as much night and day as your last statement infers LOL : ) I've seen myself higher resolution copies on delivery projected at the big screen and they're nothing but fairly "cinematic", no matter how many more pixels they have, viewers don't run away from them ;- )

To elaborate on my comment about resolution, the answer is that videographers tend to think in simplistic terms (eg more is better) and film-makers have a much more nuanced perspective that quickly moves from talking about resolution to sharpness and texture, and how to adjust all the various parameters through the signal chain to hit an optimal look.  Videographers who are obsessed with higher and higher resolutions typically don't talk about texture or 'looks' (other than talking about LUTs), and would NEVER talk about deliberately lowering the sharpness of the image with lower-sharpness lenses. 

[Emanuel]

11 minutes ago, kye said:

All these are relevant, but there is much more to something looking cinematic than just 24p with 180 shutter with a bit of background defocus.

To elaborate on my comment about resolution, the answer is that videographers tend to think in simplistic terms (eg more is better) and film-makers have a much more nuanced perspective that quickly moves from talking about resolution to sharpness and texture, and how to adjust all the various parameters through the signal chain to hit an optimal look.  Videographers who are obsessed with higher and higher resolutions typically don't talk about texture or 'looks' (other than talking about LUTs), and would NEVER talk about deliberately lowering the sharpness of the image with lower-sharpness lenses. 

Fully agreed on both paragraphs, very well elaborated! : ) Texture is something indeed and that's what makes it unique and where the difference resides :- )

 

Filmmaking is a combo.

 

- EAG

[Emanuel]

Interesting reflection about what expects us in the coming years, not exactly because of the shallow DOF option but its easier access/manoeuvre and the gates to be opened then : )

Well, I'd say they surely receive this year's most relevant high-tech award for their 2021 releases.

In my case, I will buy two products of Apple for the first time ever, so go figure which and why ;- )

[JurijTurnsek]

Pixel 6 is official and both models (starting from $599) have a bigger sensor than the iPhone 13 Pro duo and can even do 4-to-1 binning. This enables it to do HDR 4K60p, so I can't wait for the reviews. Previous iterations were very "meh".

[kye]

3 hours ago, JurijTurnsek said:

Pixel 6 is official and both models (starting from $599) have a bigger sensor than the iPhone 13 Pro duo and can even do 4-to-1 binning. This enables it to do HDR 4K60p, so I can't wait for the reviews. Previous iterations were very "meh".

Any footage out yet?

[JurijTurnsek]

Very short sample at 3:00 and the HDR process explanation starts before that.

[Emanuel]

Very interesting release : ) Maybe this will be my 4th mobile unit purchased this year? LOL :- )

[Emanuel]

As Osmo Pocket 2 lover, I find this bloody cinematic mode experience curious enough to testify how softer lower resolution can overcome a detailed outcome anyway.

And here's another comparison with the same devices beyond the cinematic mode on iPhone, despite to fail testing the main camera instead for low light shooting.

 

In short and usual, to each its own ;- )

[shooter]

Shame it is only 1080p 30p. A few days ago I watched one on Youtube. Dolby Vision HDR, very cinematic, but 4k, not shot with the new cinematic mode.

[Emanuel]

This one?

 

[kye]

On 10/21/2021 at 10:48 AM, Emanuel said:

As Osmo Pocket 2 lover, I find this bloody cinematic mode experience curious enough to testify how softer lower resolution can overcome a detailed outcome anyway.

And here's another comparison with the same devices beyond the cinematic mode on iPhone, despite to fail testing the main camera instead for low light shooting.

 

In short and usual, to each its own ;- )

Interesting comparison, but to be cinematic instead of blurring part of the image they should have taken the 4K image and blurred all of it to soften the jagged edges and make it look less like low-bitrate highly-compressed 8-bit 709 footage.

I look at the image on the left and think it looks low-resolution and low-quality and the image on the right and think it looks high-resolution and like someone added an emboss filter over the top set to 15% opacity.

[Matins 2]

3 hours ago, kye said:

Interesting comparison, but to be cinematic instead of blurring part of the image they should have taken the 4K image and blurred all of it to soften the jagged edges and make it look less like low-bitrate highly-compressed 8-bit 709 footage.

I look at the image on the left and think it looks low-resolution and low-quality and the image on the right and think it looks high-resolution and like someone added an emboss filter over the top set to 15% opacity.

I look at those images and I think: what on earth did this individual do with the export settings and what settings were used on both devices?

[Emanuel]

As always, not for every single one but, generally, combos do it better ;- )