Is DR that important?

[Benjamin Hilton]

5 hours ago, zlfan said:

it seems to me that the camera is not a differentiator like it was 20 years before, no matter what kind of style. intensive camera movements also can be mimicked by indie makers using s1h with good ibis, or gh7, or gimbals, or digital reframing and power window if shot in 8k or 12k. 

I think right now that hiring many actors and applying large scale green screen are the key differentiators, although these will make dps less essential to the whole product process. 

 

 

Honestly cameras haven't been the differentiators for quite some time on productions. Good productions generally just require a lot of money and talent (unless you are into micro budget stuff) and cameras have always been one of the cheapest things on the budget list. 

[zlfan]

On 8/1/2024 at 7:49 AM, Benjamin Hilton said:

Honestly cameras haven't been the differentiators for quite some time on productions. Good productions generally just require a lot of money and talent (unless you are into micro budget stuff) and cameras have always been one of the cheapest things on the budget list. 

for big budget production, camera is not a concern and a small part of the budget. for indie film makers, camera still is a big part of the budget. it is safe to say that big budget production still want to differentiate itself from indie shorts. this includes camera and the style only high end cinema cameras can provide. shooting a long take of the main character walking though a narrow street packed with group actors lighted with hundreds of meters of led tubes and reflectors is another differentiator. I have seen so many such scenes that do not matter much to the story line. also, large scale of green screen and heavy time consuming vfx, like dune 1/2. 

on the other hand, for the last ten years, tv series are getting so good, that its cinematography is better than that of most of the movies in the 1970s and earlier times. indie short films are also very good now. Denis Villeneuve spent his earlier and mid career in indie film making, then breaks through into the block bluster making. this is very rare case almost impossible 30 years ago. 

 

[zlfan]

On 7/22/2024 at 2:29 AM, zlfan said:

 

for a scene to look really good, actually the lighting needs to be controlled to be within 10 stops. otherwise, the results will be like in this video, even the camera is the legendary 15-stop usable Alexa 35. 

[TomTheDP]

I am not sure how to determine if something is "that important". Just depends on your wants/needs. 

The difference between a RED Komodo and an Alexa can be seen when shooting in naturally lit situations that have a larger amount of difference between the midtones and highlights. The Alexa will just be able to keep richer skintones while also keeping more color in the highlights. Does that matter? I am not sure. 

Also the reality is these cameras dynamic range is never that great. The Alexa looks noisy a stop under the native ISO. You get close to 6 stops in over exposure. That is a very harsh rating of the camera but it is true. That is about 5-6 stops to play with for a noise free image. Most cameras have much less than that in the highlights and usually have less pretty looking noise patterns and color when you underexpose. 

That said I have certainly shot nice looking stuff with a GH2 and also an FX6 and also an Alexa. 

[fuzzynormal]

I'm not watching the "myths" video posted here, but I really want to know how those differences in DR that are illustrated in the thumbnail would matter at all when it comes to storytelling?  Not much, imo.

DR important?  Does it have roughly 12 steps?  Good 'nuff for me.

As for movies, I grew up watching $1 films at the end of their distribution run at the local "grindhouse."

Movies always looked like shit in my world.  Didn't care.  Looked good enough to tell a story.

Heck, one place I would go to that was built in an abandoned cotton gin had a single screen, and ran Pulp Fiction for 11 months straight.  Guess what that projected film looked like on week 48.

Also, the glory years of American cinema as an art form is the 70's.  Y'all watch any 70's movies?  They mostly looked like crap compared to the IQ of today.  Watch Deliverance, for example.  That's a more compelling movie than most anything that's been released from Hollywood in this current era.

Excuse me.  Got some clouds to go yell at.

[MrSMW]

9 hours ago, zlfan said:

on the other hand, for the last ten years, tv series are getting so good, that its cinematography is better than that of most of the movies in the 1970s and earlier times

Personally, I’d say that a lot of ‘TV’ productions are simply just feature films on steroids ie far too long for anyone to watch in a single viewing (well for normal people anyway) so are broken down into 45 minute episodes.

In fact I’d go as far and say some are more cinematic than many of their big screen siblings.

And then there is this nostalgia for older movies.

My teenage years were the 80’s so those are the most memorable and iconic movies for me, but other than a few exceptions (mostly Spielberg), they look like shit next to even your average Netflix series today.

I guess it’s like anything and there is good and bad…

There is old stuff that looks great that will never be and probably cannot be, ever replicated due to the use of the tools of the time and then there is stuff today that was not possible even just a few years back.

Something I have never prescribed to is the rose-tinted spectacle that everything was just better in the good old days.

However, give me back the 80’s 😜

[ac6000cw]

On 8/3/2024 at 6:38 AM, MrSMW said:

Personally, I’d say that a lot of ‘TV’ productions are simply just feature films on steroids ie far too long for anyone to watch in a single viewing (well for normal people anyway) so are broken down into 45 minute episodes.

In fact I’d go as far and say some are more cinematic than many of their big screen siblings.

I agree - including being made in wide-screen 'cinema' aspect ratios. I'm not so keen on some of the HDR stuff, though - even in subdued lighting, searing whites and crushed shadow detail isn't much of an improvement over SDR video.

Now that almost everything is captured using video cameras (excepting the occasional actual 'film' production - but even those normally end up digitizing the negatives, so it basically becomes video with an embedded film-emulation LUT 😉), the only real difference is the size of the production budget.

Way back when cinemas were the dominant form of recorded visual entertainment, they ran 'serials' as well (often as fillers between the main features) - for the same reason as TV does, to keep people coming back for the next episode...

I'm just about old enough to remember when evening programs at my local cinema consisted of two different movies with an episode of a serial in-between (and adverts) - not so different to an evening watching TV really.

[TomTheDP]

For me when you get to post and you start messing with the files you realize why larger productions opt for an Alexa/RED. 

We have options now like the Raptor that only weigh 4 pounds and can be powered off a small v mount battery. I would say the Raptor dynamic range is very similar to the S35 Alexas. What it delivers over them is that it holds the dynamic range in the shadows. At 800 iso the Raptor is much cleaner than an Alexa mini, but with much less highlight retention. You can boost it to 2000 iso maybe even 3200 iso and still get a nice image. The Raptor pictured below could be rigged even smaller (smaller monitor, smaller lens, no top handle). There isn't much you can do to get an Alexa smaller though. Even the mini is 8 pounds with just the body and viewfinder and is also a powerhog. The Alexa 35 is even larger.



I did a feature a couple weeks ago on the Raptor. As convenient as it is to use I think we would have been better off with an FX3. The crew was so small that any convenience is a big deal. This was our rig, I traded size for battery life. 




All this to say I really do notice a difference shooting with Alexa/RED 

But after putting the files to a REC709 colorspace and adding a lot of contrast which is what I usually end up doing, the results between that and a mirrorless can definately be hard to tell if it was shot resonably well. The truth is you can sometimes shoot things better with a mirrorless. It saves you time, which then gives you more time to fine tune the things that actually matter (lighting, composition, etc...)

 

[zlfan]

On 8/6/2024 at 7:35 AM, TomTheDP said:

For me when you get to post and you start messing with the files you realize why larger productions opt for an Alexa/RED. 

We have options now like the Raptor that only weigh 4 pounds and can be powered off a small v mount battery. I would say the Raptor dynamic range is very similar to the S35 Alexas. What it delivers over them is that it holds the dynamic range in the shadows. At 800 iso the Raptor is much cleaner than an Alexa mini, but with much less highlight retention. You can boost it to 2000 iso maybe even 3200 iso and still get a nice image. The Raptor pictured below could be rigged even smaller (smaller monitor, smaller lens, no top handle). There isn't much you can do to get an Alexa smaller though. Even the mini is 8 pounds with just the body and viewfinder and is also a powerhog. The Alexa 35 is even larger.



I did a feature a couple weeks ago on the Raptor. As convenient as it is to use I think we would have been better off with an FX3. The crew was so small that any convenience is a big deal. This was our rig, I traded size for battery life. 




All this to say I really do notice a difference shooting with Alexa/RED 

But after putting the files to a REC709 colorspace and adding a lot of contrast which is what I usually end up doing, the results between that and a mirrorless can definately be hard to tell if it was shot resonably well. The truth is you can sometimes shoot things better with a mirrorless. It saves you time, which then gives you more time to fine tune the things that actually matter (lighting, composition, etc...)

 

i totally agree with your analysis. 

i think the bottleneck is the end user's monitor/tv/screen+projector now. if these can reach to the level of very high end production monitor or even better, like 12 to 14 bits, ips, oled, 120 inches, dr of 15 USEABLE stops, then a35 and raptor etc are really essential. 

[TomTheDP]

8 hours ago, zlfan said:

i totally agree with your analysis. 

i think the bottleneck is the end user's monitor/tv/screen+projector now. if these can reach to the level of very high end production monitor or even better, like 12 to 14 bits, ips, oled, 120 inches, dr of 15 USEABLE stops, then a35 and raptor etc are really essential. 

Thanks, I was just reading an article, can't remember where, but it was talking about even if you are mastering for HDR you may not be using all the DR it offers as it might not be the look you want. I tend to love really harsh contrast which doesn't really need HDR dynamic range. The thing is even movies like Arrival which are really soft and show off more dynamic range looked fine in regular REC709 or theatrical displays(which probably have a bit more dynamic range than traditional REC709 I imagine). 

[zlfan]

 

this video is so dark on my laptop. it is 4k HDR 10+. 

[zlfan]

why HDR in door? does not make sense to me. 

gh7 has a nice look here though. 

[Davide DB]

Do you like it?

I see a strong blue cast coming from the bad indoor artificial lights. 

I can hear the DoP scratching his head...

[zlfan]

On 8/15/2024 at 2:58 AM, Davide DB said:

Do you like it?

I see a strong blue cast coming from the bad indoor artificial lights. 

I can hear the DoP scratching his head...

I feel it is a little too blue too. generally I like the look. it kind of making gh7 sort of cinematic.