Why are bad cameras the best cameras?

[kye]

9 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

So, Arri cameras loaded with Kodak 35mm film are bad cameras then? 🙂

My best "bad" camera seems to be my GX85, Ibis and form factor are perfect. Give it 10bit and call it GX Ten. Should be a hit and a great camera.

ARRI film cameras are in no way "worse" cameras, it's the combination of various factors that makes this label..  they seem to correlate with "affordable" though!

I'm on the fence about the GX85 being a bad camera - the 4K is pretty nice when viewed at 4K and when downsampled to 1080p it's a very nice 1080p image indeed.  I don't know what it's DR of video is, but IIRC I did an under/over test some time ago and it was pretty flexible - much more than I would have thought.

In terms of an update to the GX85?  Give it h265 12-bit support and I'd be happy!

[kye]

9 hours ago, hyalinejim said:

Yes but the reflectance values are a measurement of the light values in the scene, not of the film. Yes, they translate to density values on film. And they translate to RGB values in digital video. But the 2% to 98% = 5.5 stops is a characteristic of light, not of cameras.

Now I'm beginning to doubt myself.

If I take the film stock ARRI was talking about and a super-big DR film stock and expose both of them to a XYLA 21-stop test chart they're not going to both have the same density of exposed film at the +3 and -3 patches.  The high-DR film stock has more total DR, so the DR in the scene has to be represented as lower differences in the density of the stock.

ie, this image has the stops quite far apart (GH1 DR test)

and this image has the same stops much less far apart (GH6 DR test)

The number of stops between two points is absolutely about the scene and nothing else, however the number of stops of light required to change the exposure value on a given negative or camera from 2% to 90% has everything to do with the film/sensor and nothing to do with the scene.  Right?

[kye]

9 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

There’s a theory that says conflict to attain creativity is something that actually enhances creativity. 

Limitations get the creative juices flowing.  

If you want to dive into the whole evolutionary benefit of this phenomenon, you can mull that over too. 

I'm reminded about the idea that you can't think creatively and analytically at the same time.  A quick google didn't reveal any good sources for this, but it's definitely something I've experienced myself.

In terms of making good films, I think that the image is actually one of the least important aspects, contrary to the camera-television industrial complex and social media echo chambers.

I do wonder if having less 'options' in terms of DR is just related to the fact we have more with 'nicer' cameras.  ie, the effect only happens because it's a change from our nicer more capable cameras?  Of course, it could also be to do with the relationship between the capture DR and output DR being similar for non-HDR which makes it easier.  
It also distracts us from the red-herring of pixel-peeing the image, as everyone seemed to do for the first 5 years of 4K being around... "did you like the video I sent you" "it looked glorious in 4K - wow" "but what about the video - did you like the story" "what story?  I was looking at the resolution".
I wonder if people are shooting with a higher DR camera and publishing in HDR if they no longer have the burden of trying to compress the DR in post if that makes it simpler somehow?

I think having less distractions on things that don't matter so much (tech) you're forced to do things that are more creative and that's what gets the creative juices flowing.  Think of how the tech-focused 'creators' work is just a cookie-cutter of the same stale creative elements, whereas the folks who aren't tech-focused do new things in terms of camera angles and editing style etc etc.

6 hours ago, QuickHitRecord said:

This. It's more satisfying to get a lot out of a little than a little out of a lot. And this applies in a much more profound way when you're just shooting stuff solo, for fun.

It becomes, "Look what I was able to capture -- wow!" versus "This is all I was able to do?"

Of course, it all changes in the context of a time-sensitive/high pressure paid shoot, when you need all of the help you can get.

Absolutely agree about the differentiation between personal and paid work.  

I love the tech, which is why I'm on forums like these.  If I was trying to learn how to make good content then people sitting around arguing about codecs and DR and colour science wouldn't help at all 🙂 
Due to this, I think I get distracted by the tech and so it's really nice when shooting to be able to put those thoughts to the side and think creatively.  It's one of the reasons I shoot with the camera doing the exposure for me - it's a non-creative task (in almost all cases) that isn't worth me putting my energy into at the expense of creative aspects.  I have moved to manual focusing, and did so because I found that it's a creative aspect and I really like the aesthetic and what it contributes to my finished films.  
I'm quite lucky in that when I get out and start shooting for real the tech parts of my brain seem to get pushed to the back and I'm thinking about composition and subject and movement and all those creative things.  Well, not all the creative things, but as many as my inexperienced brain can handle.  I wish I was able to think about sound more while also concurrently thinking about the other things!  I'm getting better on that though 🙂 

[mercer]

12 hours ago, hyalinejim said:

Canon EOS 1n with Sigma 70-200 2.8. In truth, the camera body doesn't matter so much for image quality on film, only the lens and film stock. Aside from practical considerations of AF ability and perhaps minimum shutter speed

Right of course, but I think ergonomics can play a part. Sure it's psychological, but I know I am in better spirits when I'm shooting with a camera that feels like an extension of my arm. If I feel better about the process, then I see clearer and can enjoy the process a little bit more. Sometimes the tools matter more than just the specs.

[webrunner5]

I think we over think the hell out of all of this. When I was going through my 1,000's of pictures, hundreds of videos one camera kept popping up over and over again, well 2 actually. My Apple 6s Plus and my old Canon 1dx mk III with a 70-200 on it, an old 70-200, a black one not a white one

In today's world neither would be at the top of the must have list. But they keep coming to the top of mine. Neither one of them is something to write home to mother about in this day and age specs wise. But they both have something special. They are both fairly accurate while not being overbearing. Pretty much their output was as I remembered. And that is pretty much what you are looking for, at least that is what I like to see. And this is straight OOC stuff I am talking about. I can always add to it, but hard to take away stuff. 

So, the takeaway is I don't think we have hardly progressed at all to be honest. And these are cheap ass cameras to buy in this day. Even the video out of the iPhone 6s Plus is pretty dan impressive, first iPhone to have 4k, first iPhone to have a 12mp sensor, same as today yet. Like I said we really have not progressed much at all.

I think I paid 250 dollars for the Canon body and 100 for the iPhone.

[webrunner5]

First one is the Canon with a cheap 70-300, second one is the iPhone 6s Plus. Not sure what else you can ask for OOC. Not my best shots but an example. 

[kye]

1 hour ago, mercer said:

Right of course, but I think ergonomics can play a part. Sure it's psychological, but I know I am in better spirits when I'm shooting with a camera that feels like an extension of my arm. If I feel better about the process, then I see clearer and can enjoy the process a little bit more. Sometimes the tools matter more than just the specs.

Absolutely.  I'm not sure this really ever gets discussed here - the effect that the setup has on how well you use it and how creative you are when actually shooting and making directing / composition / lighting / etc choices.  

I know that the GH5 felt way nicer to use than the XC10 and for me I think a big part of that was how the images feel in post and the 10-bit codec - holding the camera and knowing that when you hit record you're making files you will enjoy editing in post certainly contributes a lot to my experience while shooting.

Camera size is one of these things - not only does it change how you use it and how you feel about using it but it also changes how the people around you feel about the situation.  Filming in public with a huge camera makes people wary and distracted and on set will make them take you more seriously (warranted or not) and the opposite is true of small cameras.

[kye]

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

I think we over think the hell out of all of this. When I was going through my 1,000's of pictures, hundreds of videos one camera kept popping up over and over again, well 2 actually. My Apple 6s Plus and my old Canon 1dx mk III with a 70-200 on it, an old 70-200, a black one not a white one

In today's world neither would be at the top of the must have list. But they keep coming to the top of mine. Neither one of them is something to write home to mother about in this day and age specs wise. But they both have something special. They are both fairly accurate while not being overbearing. Pretty much their output was as I remembered. And that is pretty much what you are looking for, at least that is what I like to see. And this is straight OOC stuff I am talking about. I can always add to it, but hard to take away stuff. 

So, the takeaway is I don't think we have hardly progressed at all to be honest. And these are cheap ass cameras to buy in this day. Even the video out of the iPhone 6s Plus is pretty dan impressive, first iPhone to have 4k, first iPhone to have a 12mp sensor, same as today yet. Like I said we really have not progressed much at all.

I think I paid 250 dollars for the Canon body and 100 for the iPhone.

I find that photos and video are very different and I don't prize either from a smartphone.  My friend only takes stills and the really good ones get printed and framed and put on his wall.  He's shot many more photos with his phone than with his ancient Canon DSLR (IIRC it's a 40D?) and yet he's never taken a single photo with his phone worthy of being printed.

In terms of video, you seem to love your smartphones but I find the images thin and uninspiring.  They have large resolutions and frame rates but I feel they lack all the things required to give them feeling, which is why I shoot in the first place. 

In terms of overthinking things, that's what this forum is for, mostly.  Hardly anyone comes on and says "I shoot this what do I need" gets some technical info and then says "thanks, I've got it all working now, bye....".  There are a few, but all the rest of us are really just here, overthinking everything!

[webrunner5]

Well, The Canon is a 1d mk III not a Canon 1DX III. 

As to smartphone shots and videos yeah, I do like them for the convenience of having it with me all the time and not a lot of need to do anything with them in post. My friends and relatives seem to like them more than any other camera pictures or videos I show.

I see what people post on here and YouTube etc. and I am not that impressed with most of that output also. It is only the 12, 14 bit Raw stuff that stands out to me, and that is really pretty damn impactable to use data wise for the average person. If I take a Long video with my Canon 1DC or even my OG BMPCC it is going to take up tons of storage. What the heck on average do I need all that data for. I am not making a full feature movie. Sure it looks better, but how good has it got to be.

Filmic, Cinematic has went out the door a long time ago. All these modern cameras are clean as a whistle output wise. I can darken a lot of my footage and get a look like the Sigma FP has, Is it going to look just like it no, but it probably is not a ton off. HDR, HLG stuff adds a lot to these new cameras DR wise. 

My 1DC works well if it is spot on otherwise it is no beauty, OG BMPCC same way, it is even worse if off if not perfect exposure wise. I am into what I saw these days not trying to pretend it was different. I want memories not something that pretends to be what I saw.

I have thought about buying a Sigma FP but after seeing a ton of videos on them and the length of the thread on here about it, nah it is too big of a pain in the butt, and if you rig it like you need to get the best out of it, it is like the OG BMPCC, a huge rig by the time you are done. The PK4 is looking better now with the stabilization but not worth crap for photos. And I am not a super fan of BRAW to be honest compared to the original DNG's. Sony F3 really nice but big and no 4k. 

I just find less is better in my life anymore. And really don't have the money anymore for the lenses that I would need. I am going to start thinning out the herd, and not sure what to keep.

[mercer]

26 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Well, The Canon is a 1d mk III not a Canon 1DX III. 

As to smartphone shots and videos yeah, I do like them for the convenience of having it with me all the time and not a lot of need to do anything with them in post. My friends and relatives seem to like them more than any other camera pictures or videos I show.

I see what people post on here and YouTube etc. and I am not that impressed with most of that output also. It is only the 12, 14 bit Raw stuff that stands out to me, and that is really pretty damn impactable to use data wise for the average person. If I take a Long video with my Canon 1DC or even my OG BMPCC it is going to take up tons of storage. What the heck on average do I need all that data for. I am not making a full feature movie. Sure it looks better, but how good has it got to be.

Filmic, Cinematic has went out the door a long time ago. All these modern cameras are clean as a whistle output wise. I can darken a lot of my footage and get a look like the Sigma FP has, Is it going to look just like it no, but it probably is not a ton off. HDR, HLG stuff adds a lot to these new cameras DR wise. 

My 1DC works well if it is spot on otherwise it is no beauty, OG BMPCC same way, it is even worse if off if not perfect exposure wise. I am into what I saw these days not trying to pretend it was different. I want memories not something that pretends to be what I saw.

I have thought about buying a Sigma FP but after seeing a ton of videos on them and the length of the thread on here about it, nah it is too big of a pain in the butt, and if you rig it like you need to get the best out of it, it is like the OG BMPCC, a huge rig by the time you are done. The PK4 is looking better now with the stabilization but not worth crap for photos. And I am not a super fan of BRAW to be honest compared to the original DNG's. Sony F3 really nice but big and no 4k. 

I just find less is better in my life anymore. And really don't have the money anymore for the lenses that I would need. I am going to start thinning out the herd, and not sure what to keep.

I don't agree with everything you said here, but I think what you're describing is exactly the spirit of this thread. Be it an FZ47 or a Canon t2i... a GH2 or an iPhone... beautiful images can be made with discarded or unassuming cameras. Some of them even have a look that is equally as interesting as old film or something very high end. I've posted these a bunch of times, but I love what the RX10ii can capture in sLog2 with Monochrome color...

Or this shot from the D5500 and an old Tokina 24-40mm zoom lens...

Now I'm not saying they're great images or anything, but I think they show that these old neglected crappy cameras can produce something interesting... good, bad or otherwise. 

[John Matthews]

35 minutes ago, mercer said:

Now I'm not saying they're great images or anything, but I think they show that these old neglected crappy cameras can produce something interesting... good, bad or otherwise. 

In my experience, I don't mind lack of DR as long as the highlights look nice and graduated as they go from detail to no detail. If that line is harsh with unnatural colors, it looks very inorganic and unpleasant. Detail in the shadows is essential for me.

[hyalinejim]

7 hours ago, kye said:

the exposure value on a given negative or camera from 2% to 90% has everything to do with the film/sensor and nothing to do with the scene.

The percentages refer to reflectance of light in the scene.

[hyalinejim]

5 hours ago, mercer said:

Right of course, but I think ergonomics can play a part.

Yes, for sure! The 1n is reassuringly heavy and solid. It has an incredibly loud shutter sound which can be a good thing or not. And I forgot to mention it's one of the very few Canon EOS film SLRs with 100% or thereabouts viewfinder coverage.

[kye]

1 hour ago, John Matthews said:

In my experience, I don't mind lack of DR as long as the highlights look nice and graduated as they go from detail to no detail. If that line is harsh with unnatural colors, it looks very inorganic and unpleasant. Detail in the shadows is essential for me.

I find that a curve with a nice rolloff in post can give a nice highlight transition without too much fuss - it does raise the brightness of the highlights though, so you can either have brighter image or one with more contrast, but if you're willing to do that then I find it's not too much of a challenge. 

Another trick that is easy enough is to desaturate the highest luma values.  It seems like the most common issues with poor highlight rolloffs is the channels clipping at different points and there being banding of colours around the edges (eg, like the sun going through rings of yellow at sunset or cyan if transitioning from a blue sky).  This desaturation can often deal with these in a very organic and neat way.

Combine the two approaches (curve and desaturation) and you can get quite good results from even poor footage I've found.

1 hour ago, hyalinejim said:

The percentages refer to reflectance of light in the scene.

Is that what ARRI is saying in the link?

[hyalinejim]

3 hours ago, kye said:

Is that what ARRI is saying in the link?

Yes. Give it another read. There's something fundamental you're not seeing. The x axis is the log of exposure, which depends on the amount of light (% reflectance) being recorded.

The y axis is density, the degree of change in the negative due to exposure. There are lines linking both axes at various exposure levels. "98%" etc are written horizontally but that's just for legibility. They are properties of the x axis, exposure, not of the y axis, density.

98% and 2% are characteristics of the scene, for example white paper and black paper, not of the negative.

 

[webrunner5]

7 hours ago, mercer said:

I don't agree with everything you said here, but I think what you're describing is exactly the spirit of this thread. Be it an FZ47 or a Canon t2i... a GH2 or an iPhone... beautiful images can be made with discarded or unassuming cameras. Some of them even have a look that is equally as interesting as old film or something very high end. I've posted these a bunch of times, but I love what the RX10ii can capture in sLog2 with Monochrome color...

Or this shot from the D5500 and an old Tokina 24-40mm zoom lens...

Now I'm not saying they're great images or anything, but I think they show that these old neglected crappy cameras can produce something interesting... good, bad or otherwise. 

I can take the same iPhone 6s picture put it in Lightroom and make it look like it came from an old camera if I want. This stuff is not magic anymore.

[PannySVHS]

100% viewfinder, that sounds like a great treat. @hyalinejim I´ve had a AE1 for maybe eight years or so but only once sent a roll of film through it. Now, years later, cameras are cheap but film has become expensive. Good thing I had enjoyed my Oly XA, Mju2, RC35 a good deal, among Canon AF35 plastic fantastic with awesome lens and a few others, Yashica 35cc with a f1.8 lens not to forget!

@webrunner5 You could also do that with the RAW files or maybe even Jpegs from a good ole Lumix LX3 or Canon S90, which still give you a different approach and different feeling in the hands and using them. I enjoy taking snaps with my phone, but I also enjoy holding a camera. You are right about good photo quality coming from phones and the advantage of light weight, image stabi, small footprint.

[OleB]

5 hours ago, kye said:

I find that a curve with a nice rolloff in post can give a nice highlight transition without too much fuss - it does raise the brightness of the highlights though, so you can either have brighter image or one with more contrast, but if you're willing to do that then I find it's not too much of a challenge. 

Another trick that is easy enough is to desaturate the highest luma values.  It seems like the most common issues with poor highlight rolloffs is the channels clipping at different points and there being banding of colours around the edges (eg, like the sun going through rings of yellow at sunset or cyan if transitioning from a blue sky).  This desaturation can often deal with these in a very organic and neat way.

Combine the two approaches (curve and desaturation) and you can get quite good results from even poor footage I've found.

Is that what ARRI is saying in the link?

And that is exactly the reason why b/w footage of "bad" cameras which are exposed for the highlights are still looking good. You can try this easily basically with every photo in Lightroom, if you see the ugly yellow ring around the sun, turn the picture into b/w and the rolloff immediately looks great. 🙂 

[hyalinejim]

55 minutes ago, PannySVHS said:

Good thing I had enjoyed my Oly XA, Mju2, RC35 a good deal, among Canon AF35

Sounds like you got in at the right time. I do have an XA and don't shoot it quite as much as I should, although I do try as it looks so cute, is very small and results are good if I get the focus right. I had an Olympus RC but it was knackered and I sold it on for parts. Also had a Canon AF35ML and the AF was a crapshoot so that went back into the Bay.

I went on a compact film camera binge during lockdown as there was little or no other entertainment. Sold all thatI didn't love before I moved temporarily to New Zealand, which was a mild mistake as I could have made quite a bit more over there, at the ends of the Earth, than I did over here.

Here, at the pool in Tuscany there is a Dutch girl taking her first shots with a green sticker Contax G1 that she paid €700 for.

1 hour ago, PannySVHS said:

cameras are cheap but film has become expensive

I am obsessed with film freshness because I'm profiling various film stocks to make emulation luts (for video) and Lightroom profiles (for photography). I was lucky to be able to buy fresh rolls of everything I'm interested in very shortly before this current shortage / supply chain problem hit. At the same time I have 40 - 50 rolls of various films that have been shipped across the world in the belly of a presumably equator-hugging ship on a five plus month journey at least once and/or zapped by X rays at numerous airports there and back again and I now have absolutely zero qualms about using these rolls for my own personal use now. I don't care how beat up the chemistry is, the value of that at today's prices is insane. 

[Tim Sewell]

I have a big bag of Ektar, Portra, Fujicolor Industrial and Acros that I'm slowly working my way through. It's actually amazing how well film holds up after long storage in less than ideal conditions.