Please consider registering
guest

Log In Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —

  

— Match —

   

— Forum Options —

   

Wildcard usage:
*  matches any number of characters    %  matches exactly one character

Minimum search word length is 4 characters – maximum search word length is 84 characters

Topic RSS
More footage?
Topic Rating: +154 (156 votes) 
January 23, 2014
12:22 am
pask74
Member
Forum Posts: 854
Member Since:
January 15, 2013
Offline
126
+1

joerubinstein said
… would people accept a camera that had ISO settings of 65, 125, and 250? I know you would ;) but would others?

I definitely would, as well!

I also think this could be a selling point. I'd much prefer avoiding ND filters when shooting outdoors, so even a ISO 2 setting would be great ;-) as long as DR doesn't take a hit. Or if it does, it should be made clear.

The following users say thank you to pask74 for this useful post:

M. Ryan, Grimorca
January 23, 2014
9:14 am
phaas
Brooklyn, New York

Camera Owner

Kickstarter Backer
Forum Posts: 38
Member Since:
April 15, 2012
Offline
127
+3

Hey guys,

 

More DNG files!  Footage will be posted on Vimeo as soon as it's finished compressing.

 

Yesterday was 8¬įF without factoring in the wind-chill, so we didn't get to spend as much time outside shooting as we hoped.¬† Some of the files will initially appear very blue, but that's because I forgot to change the white balance setting on the camera, and it's completely correctable by typing in "5500" under color temperature.

 

WS: Keif, standing by the East River, looking into NYC: https://copy.com/oK2AL7eSbtHw // https://copy.com/lWAbFSSfQHVp

CU: Keif, standing by the East River, looking into NYC: https://copy.com/e36uVJgrHvTZ

WS: Me, same place: https://copy.com/Gx0LBT1OtZLJ

WS: Stephanie & Me: https://copy.com/McVtrEcHH4GL  // this image was another example of 400 ISO in a low-light situation.  There are four light sources going on here.  The obvious practical lamp (60 watt bulb), an off camera bulb (60 watt) and over head behind us (150 watt) and the string of Christmas lights in the far back.

 

If you didn't see the article about the other footage, check it out here: http://www.redsharknews.com/pr…..on-footage

 

Cheers,

   _pH:.

The following users say thank you to phaas for this useful post:

M. Ryan, Grimorca, joerubinstein
January 23, 2014
10:06 am
jordanservice
Member
Forum Posts: 150
Member Since:
February 14, 2013
Offline
128
+2

I'm calling this now, I think the initial responses to the IQ are going to be underwhelming cause it is going to take a skilled post colorist to really highlight the footage coming out of the camera. So people are going to confuse ease of use with actual ability. Then after people get used to it, people are gonna be floored. Maybe that wont take so long, but the image is really beautiful.

 

Watching that blue shot go from just straight up blue, to true color was amazing. Adding a little bit of sharpening, and you have a crisp image-- which seems to be a common complaint, that the image is not sharp enough. That's such bs, the image is so lovely. I really, really, can't wait to get mine.  

 

Peter, can you do a low light test of the camera at 100 ISO? I'm less interested in seeing how much light it can pick up, and more interested in seeing how it handles total darkness, and how you can get that to be less noisy. To me that can be used as an artistic choice, kinda chiaroscuro, and higher contrast. That's one thing that I hate about DLRS their total blacks are ugly as sin. 

. 

The following users say thank you to jordanservice for this useful post:

M. Ryan, DVCinLV
January 23, 2014
11:06 am
wado1942
Guru
Forum Posts: 1107
Member Since:
March 19, 2012
Offline
129
+4

jordanservice said
I'm calling this now, I think the initial responses to the IQ are going to be underwhelming cause it is going to take a skilled post colorist to really highlight the footage coming out of the camera.

I don't think this is the case at all.¬† I think the problem is that people THINK they have to really screw with everything to make the image work.¬† I've found in the cases of proper exposure and decent lenses, all you have to do is fine tune the white balance and you're done… nice, natural looking image.¬† The camera has no built-in sharpening of course, so if you want that artificially sharpened video look, you'll have to add that yourself.¬† Personally, I always turned down that feature almost all the way on any conventional video camera I've used.

 

Peter, can you do a low light test of the camera at 100 ISO? I'm less interested in seeing how much light it can pick up, and more interested in seeing how it handles total darkness, and how you can get that to be less noisy. To me that can be used as an artistic choice, kinda chiaroscuro, and higher contrast. That's one thing that I hate about DLRS their total blacks are ugly as sin. 

I agree.  It seems that most shots so far have gone for super minimalist, available light shoots using bad lenses except for Joe's portrait studio stuff.  That's not how movies are normally made.

The following users say thank you to wado1942 for this useful post:

Grimorca, M. Ryan, jordanservice, DVCinLV, joerubinstein
January 23, 2014
2:39 pm
jordanservice
Member
Forum Posts: 150
Member Since:
February 14, 2013
Offline
130
+1

Haha, Wado I agree. Talk to an average DSLR shooter, I have a creeping suspicion that most of them couldn't use a light meter. I think thats why people coming from a film background are excited, and the DSLR shooters are wondering why there is no usable 1 million ISO value. So if you are used to controlling a scene then you will get great results. Not that the documentary style stuff looks bad at all, I just think there is more of learning curve to get over. 

The following users say thank you to jordanservice for this useful post:

M. Ryan, DVCinLV
January 23, 2014
3:28 pm
meestro
Member
Forum Posts: 44
Member Since:
September 26, 2013
Offline
131
0

The shot's out of focus, and looks like a bit of motion blur maybe.

http://oi40.tinypic.com/ivbuv9.jpg

The following users say thank you to meestro for this useful post:

Grimorca
January 23, 2014
5:26 pm
DVCinLV
Member
Forum Posts: 453
Member Since:
April 10, 2012
Offline
132
+2

"Harry Lime said  Look at the motion of the carrousel. Got to love that global shutter. It looks like a real movie."

 

I went off to Asia (Malaysia, India, and Vietnam) in mid-December just as cameras were to ship and came back to Bloom's wonderful footage already posted. Wish I had had a D16 on the trip.Smile

To my eyes his grading of the "carrousel" is THE one that shows off what I would want from the D16.

First, the carrousel's color balance correctly (naturally) matches the actual lighting of the scene. Thankfully, it hasn't been tinted blue to drum home to a supposedly stupid viewer that it was a rainy day. Or worse, tinted green because a green-tint is the new blue-tint.Cry

Second, the exposure looks correct -- no super crushed blacks to make a viewer feel they are looking at "film" and not "video." The D16's DR is capable of handling the scene.

Third, no softening to suggest "film" and not "video." Softening is not needed because the D16 does not sharpen object edges as is done by most video cameras. To me, his grade looks like 35mm film because of the real detail in the image.

Having said all this, you may assume I'm against modifying the look of a D16. That's not true. If I had a camera I would grade to get the look of an actual film stock that has been correctly exposed and correctly color balanced. (Why else would we have spent years perfecting these skills?)

 

Bloom uses FilmConvert to get both the color (or, B&W) emulsion and grain right. You can the use FilmConvert's 3-level CC to adjust other aspects, which is important for FCP X users because we only have the Color Board.Frown  Unfortunately, at this point in time two functions are missing.

First, FilmConvert must know a camera's sensor characteristics. (Could DB contact Rubber Monkey? Smile (I've already requested a D16 setting at their site.)

Right now we have to hope some other camera matches the D16.Smile Joe/Elle can you look at their camera list to see which you think might work:

  • Arri Alexa
  • Blackmagic Cinema Camera
  • Blackmagic Pocket Camera
  • Canon 5D Mk II
  • Canon 5D Mk III
  • Canon 6D
  • Canon 550D / T2i
  • Canon 600D / T3i
  • Canon 7D / 60D
  • Canon C100
  • Canon C300
  • Canon XF300
  • GoPro Hero
  • Nikon D800
  • Nikon D7000
  • Panasonic GH2
  • Panasonic GH3
  • RED one
  • RED one MX
  • RED EPIC / Scarlet
  • Sony EX3 / EX1
  • Sony FS700 / FS100

FilmConvert models the following Film Stocks:

Motion Color Negative
– Kodak Vision 3 250D 5207
– Kodak Vision 3 200T 5213
– Fuji Vivid 8543
– Fuji Eterna 8553
– Fuji Reala 8563

Stills Color Transparency
– Fuji Astia
– Fuji Provia
– Fuji Velvia

Stills Black and White
– Fuji Neopan
– Ilford Delta 400
– Ilford Delta 3200
– Kodak T-Maxx 100
– Kodak Tri-X 400

Stills Color Negative
– Fujicolor Pro 400H
– Fujicolor Pro 160s
– Fujifilm Superia Xtra 400
– Kodak Portra 400

Stills Color Positive
– Polaroid 600

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  No Plus-X!Yell

 

Of course, this assumes LightPost is used for a one-light transfer to ProRes or DNxHD.

 

Second, it would be great if this type of functionality were included in LightPost. This seems possible because FilmConvert can be bought in a plug-in version for Resolve 10. It directly supports RAW footage.

 

However, perhaps a few stocks could be emulated in LightPost. (I'd like K64 and Plus-X). I'm sure others would like a few more modern stocks. (Remember that we are looking at the stock's "look" -- not its ISO or Color Balance.)

I know -- more to do. Sorry.Wink

 

The following users say thank you to DVCinLV for this useful post:

M. Ryan, pask74
January 23, 2014
6:46 pm
ROBERT
Member
Forum Posts: 32
Member Since:
December 31, 2013
Offline
133
0

DVCinLV said
"Harry Lime said  Look at the motion of the carrousel. Got to love that global shutter. It looks like a real movie."

I went off to Asia (Malaysia, India, and Vietnam) in mid-December just as cameras were to ship and came back to Bloom's wonderful footage already posted. Wish I had had a D16 on the trip.Smile

To my eyes his grading of the "carrousel" is THE one that shows off what I would want from the D16.

First, the carrousel's color balance correctly (naturally) matches the actual lighting of the scene. Thankfully, it hasn't been tinted blue to drum home to a supposedly stupid viewer that it was a rainy day. Or worse, tinted green because a green-tint is the new blue-tint.Cry

Second, the exposure looks correct -- no super crushed blacks to make a viewer feel they are looking at "film" and not "video." The D16's DR is capable of handling the scene.

Third, no softening to suggest "film" and not "video." Softening is not needed because the D16 does not sharpen object edges as is done by most video cameras. To me, his grade looks like 35mm film because of the real detail in the image.

Having said all this, you may assume I'm against modifying the look of a D16. That's not true. If I had a camera I would grade to get the look of an actual film stock that has been correctly exposed and correctly color balanced. (Why else would we have spent years perfecting these skills?)

Bloom uses FilmConvert to get both the color (or, B&W) emulsion and grain right. You can the use FilmConvert's 3-level CC to adjust other aspects, which is important for FCP X users because we only have the Color Board.Frown  Unfortunately, at this point in time two functions are missing.

First, FilmConvert must know a camera's sensor characteristics. (Could DB contact Rubber Monkey? Smile (I've already requested a D16 setting at their site.)

Right now we have to hope some other camera matches the D16.Smile Joe/Elle can you look at their camera list to see which you think might work:

  • Arri Alexa
  • Blackmagic Cinema Camera
  • Blackmagic Pocket Camera
  • Canon 5D Mk II
  • Canon 5D Mk III
  • Canon 6D
  • Canon 550D / T2i
  • Canon 600D / T3i
  • Canon 7D / 60D
  • Canon C100
  • Canon C300
  • Canon XF300
  • GoPro Hero
  • Nikon D800
  • Nikon D7000
  • Panasonic GH2
  • Panasonic GH3
  • RED one
  • RED one MX
  • RED EPIC / Scarlet
  • Sony EX3 / EX1
  • Sony FS700 / FS100

FilmConvert models the following Film Stocks:

Motion Color Negative
‚Äď Kodak Vision 3 250D 5207
‚Äď Kodak Vision 3 200T 5213
‚Äď Fuji Vivid 8543
‚Äď Fuji Eterna 8553
‚Äď Fuji Reala 8563

Stills Color Transparency
‚Äď Fuji Astia
‚Äď Fuji Provia
‚Äď Fuji Velvia

Stills Black and White
‚Äď Fuji Neopan
‚Äď Ilford Delta 400
‚Äď Ilford Delta 3200
‚Äď Kodak T-Maxx 100
‚Äď Kodak Tri-X 400

Stills Color Negative
‚Äď Fujicolor Pro 400H
‚Äď Fujicolor Pro 160s
‚Äď Fujifilm Superia Xtra 400
‚Äď Kodak Portra 400

Stills Color Positive
‚Äď Polaroid 600

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  No Plus-X!Yell

Of course, this assumes LightPost is used for a one-light transfer to ProRes or DNxHD.

Second, it would be great if this type of functionality were included in LightPost. This seems possible because FilmConvert can be bought in a plug-in version for Resolve 10. It directly supports RAW footage.

However, perhaps a few stocks could be emulated in LightPost. (I'd like K64 and Plus-X). I'm sure others would like a few more modern stocks. (Remember that we are looking at the stock's "look" -- not its ISO or Color Balance.)

I know -- more to do. Sorry.Wink

 I bought the Film Convert plugin for After Effects CS6..Love it but wish there was a D16 Reference to match..Although I'm hoping the D16 pulls off that organic film feel and look out of the camera as if it was real film and not try to help it along other then grade a little..I edit in Edius and wish they had a plugin for that..Although I'm really hoping for the Anamorphic feature don't know if this will be a firmware update or what?..Wink

 

January 23, 2014
6:46 pm
phaas
Brooklyn, New York

Camera Owner

Kickstarter Backer
Forum Posts: 38
Member Since:
April 15, 2012
Offline
134
+2

Hey Guys!

More footage and DNGs!  I lit a scene with a single bulb and made sure there was a ton of fall-off.  This video demonstrates a single frame shot at ISO 100 and 200 in a dark environment. The scene is lit to ensure a huge fall off, see lighting chart for foot-candle measurements. 

 

I grabbed my trusty Sekonic light meter and took some readings: 

 

 Video:

 

Single DNG Frames and camera log can be downloaded here (.zip file): copy.com/rKoejJ1QLKky

 

Cheers,
  _pH:.

The following users say thank you to phaas for this useful post:

M. Ryan, wado1942, Grimorca, pask74, joerubinstein
January 23, 2014
7:35 pm
wado1942
Guru
Forum Posts: 1107
Member Since:
March 19, 2012
Offline
135
+2

YES!  This is the sort of test shot I've been wanting to see since the prototype shots started appearing.  I mean, a situation where I KNOW what the lighting is like in the frame.  The only thing that bothers me in this example is that the color shifts noticeably from shot to shot.  I know the shadows tend to have a slight magenta shift to them, but the whole image, shadows and all, look perfect in some shots but red in others.  Any idea?

The following users say thank you to wado1942 for this useful post:

M. Ryan, DVCinLV, pask74
January 23, 2014
8:51 pm
phaas
Brooklyn, New York

Camera Owner

Kickstarter Backer
Forum Posts: 38
Member Since:
April 15, 2012
Offline
136
+3

I've been really pressed for time today, lots of deadline / projects going on.  In the day's rush I might have forgotten to reset all the color corrections I was playing around with.  Check out the original DNG files (link: copy.com/rKoejJ1QLKky ) to play around with the original images, and you'll see the camera's color :)

 

More soon!

 

Cheers,
     _pH:.

 

The following users say thank you to phaas for this useful post:

M. Ryan, Grimorca, joerubinstein
January 23, 2014
9:10 pm
Razz16mm
Guru
Forum Posts: 1572
Member Since:
March 27, 2012
Online
137
+1

Some quick grades. Looking much better on day 2 Peter. Couple of quick grades.

The following users say thank you to Razz16mm for this useful post:

Grimorca, pask74, joerubinstein, wado1942
January 23, 2014
9:24 pm
DVCinLV
Member
Forum Posts: 453
Member Since:
April 10, 2012
Offline
138
0

Now, I recently talked to a youngster who will take over a music video project that I just can't find time to complete. Some of the guerilla-shots are out of focus. He doesn't care and even finds it artistically interesting.

In that same vein, couldn't a poorly lit raw shot scene turn into just something new in the hands of a fresh creative mind?

 

A long time ago I had a student want to capture the look of DV in Fast Forward. She thought the blocking looked "neat."

 

/RantOn

Obviously, an artist is free to do what they want. But, I would ask them in what way, in 2014, is an out-of-focus shot either interesting or creative? What does it contribute to the video's story? Why isn't it going to be seen for what it is -- a shooter's error?

My problem is that 99% of what I see as focus errors, color balance errors, and exposure errors are 100% derivative of most everything that's been produced for the last several decades. It's not new -- it's old! So, in what way is it creative?

And, do you really need RAW to crush blacks and tint things blue or green? I can do all this in any NLE. (Why not get the new Sony UHD camera that has a Super 16 sized sensor, ND filters, and a VF -- all for $2000. If you only want to copy everybody else's looks, do you really need a RAW camera? (Although we all want you to buy a D16!)

These looks are now seen on most every TV drama and most all movies. So I do understand it's not surprising that those who've never seen, for example, a Technicolor movie in a theater, think film looks like what they see everyday. That's my explanation for some/most of the D16 grades that have been posted. (Guru's upper grade has faces that are too blue [the closest light likely is Tungsten] while the lower has a way too red face [skylight shadow is blue].)

I would hope those buying a D16 would create new looks -- and if one can't -- as I posted earlier, I'd use a film-stock look. If you want a film look -- make it look like actual film.

A film school may not be expensive if it includes a year-long film history course.Laugh

/RantOff

 

 

The following users say thank you to DVCinLV for this useful post:

pask74
January 23, 2014
10:51 pm
hieber

Camera Owner

Kickstarter Backer
Forum Posts: 233
Member Since:
March 18, 2012
Offline
139
+2

joerubinstein said

… would people accept a camera that had ISO settings of 65, 125, and 250? I know you would ;) but would others?

 ISO 64!!!!! 125!!!! 250!!! 320!!!

in a perfect world I would shoot these all day everyday!

 

Joe if you end up making these an option I would love to use them, I don't care much for ISO 800 or above

The following users say thank you to hieber for this useful post:

M. Ryan, Grimorca
January 23, 2014
11:09 pm
kennethcmerrill
Member
Forum Posts: 100
Member Since:
January 11, 2014
Offline
140
0

phaas said
Hey Guys!

More footage and DNGs!  I lit a scene with a single bulb and made sure there was a ton of fall-off.  This video demonstrates a single frame shot at ISO 100 and 200 in a dark environment. The scene is lit to ensure a huge fall off, see lighting chart for foot-candle measurements. 

 

I grabbed my trusty Sekonic light meter and took some readings: 

 

 Video:

 

Single DNG Frames and camera log can be downloaded here (.zip file): copy.com/rKoejJ1QLKky

 

Cheers,
  _pH:.

I'm not familiar with foot-candle readings. So someone please educated me. But the way I'm doing math, it seems there's only about a 6-7 stop difference between the barely visible 1 fc background and the nearly blown-out 80 fc side of the doll's face.

The following users say thank you to kennethcmerrill for this useful post:

Grimorca
January 24, 2014
1:09 am
DVCinLV
Member
Forum Posts: 453
Member Since:
April 10, 2012
Offline
141
0

"I bought the Film Convert plugin for After Effects CS6..Love it but wish there was a D16 Reference to match..Although I'm hoping the D16 pulls off that organic film feel and look out of the camera as if it was real film and not try to help it along other then grade a little."

 

Rubber Monkey suggests using DEFAULT if your camera isn't listed. I'd love to know camera you have used.

If you feel grain is critical to creating a film look, then you need something like FilmConvert. However, if you are used to shooting the latest very fine grain 35mm film -- I doubt you'll need to add grain.

I'm thinking of the Standalone version because I want to support FCP X (ProRes) and Media Composer (DNxHD).

 

January 24, 2014
1:48 am
joerubinstein

Camera Owner
Forum Posts: 1782
Member Since:
February 28, 2012
Offline
142
0

Razz16mm said
Very much looking forward to having my own to play with in a couple of months. Cool

I'm looking forward to you having one too :)

January 24, 2014
2:06 am
joerubinstein

Camera Owner
Forum Posts: 1782
Member Since:
February 28, 2012
Offline
143
0

DVCinLV said
First, FilmConvert must know a camera's sensor characteristics. (Could DB contact Rubber Monkey? Smile (I've already requested a D16 setting at their site.)

Yes we are in contact with Rubber Monkey and eager to work with them. They are waiting for us to send them a D16 to create a camera profile. We are just short on cameras right now :) It will happen soon though.

Second, it would be great if this type of functionality were included in LightPost. This seems possible because FilmConvert can be bought in a plug-in version for Resolve 10. It directly supports RAW footage.

  

We have also discussed this with both Pomfort and Rubber Monkey, we are eager to get the plugin to work in LightPost. Currently the coding of the two software elements don't mix. Pomfort will have to write a special bridge to get Film Convert to work. This will take time and cost someone money so we have to figure out when they have time and who can pay for it.

January 24, 2014
2:11 am
joerubinstein

Camera Owner
Forum Posts: 1782
Member Since:
February 28, 2012
Offline
144
+1

phaas said
I've been really pressed for time today, lots of deadline / projects going on.  

Thank you so much for the time you have taken and all the footage you are getting out so quickly!

The following users say thank you to joerubinstein for this useful post:

M. Ryan, Grimorca
January 24, 2014
3:12 am
DVCinLV
Member
Forum Posts: 453
Member Since:
April 10, 2012
Offline
145
0

Razz16mm said
Some quick grades. Looking much better on day 2 Peter.

================================================== 

My PhotoShop grade, to capture a slightly warm image from Tungsten illumination--yet keeping the walls and poles neutral. Plus, I wanted her sweater to be gray and his shirt and her hair blacker. I used high compression to upload so there are lots of compression artifacts. (Joe, why are we limited to 50,000-bytes?)

 

BLX-0038-20140122-0001438____.jpg 

 

The following users say thank you to DVCinLV for this useful post:

Grimorca
January 24, 2014
1:54 pm
wado1942
Guru
Forum Posts: 1107
Member Since:
March 19, 2012
Offline
146
0

Joe/Elle can you look at their camera list to see which you think might work:

Sadly, not a one of those cameras come remotely close to the D16.

 

DVCinLV said
If you feel grain is critical to creating a film look, then you need something like FilmConvert. However, if you are used to shooting the latest very fine grain 35mm film -- I doubt you'll need to add grain.

I just assume treat film and video as two separate entities that should not be forced into looking like the other.  However, since it's such a topic of discussion, and I happen to have it handy on my HDD still, I thought it would be prudent to first show what actual 16mm film looks like.  Here's a few quick pickup shots I did on my Zenit K3 for a music video I did a while back.  This was Kodak Vision2 200T (7217) REGULAR 16mm shot with a 28mm Lentar and scanned on a Rank Turbo, center-cropped for 16:9.  Grain is visible but not intrusive.  The colors are pretty natural as is the latitude.  The transfer facility did nothing aside from adding a small amount of sharpening.  I did no color grading, grain reduction etc either.  I did use JPEG2000 compression to avoid temporal artifacts in the grain structure.
http://www.gcmstudio.com/video…..2_200t.avi

The following users say thank you to wado1942 for this useful post:

DVCinLV
January 24, 2014
5:26 pm
Razz16mm
Guru
Forum Posts: 1572
Member Since:
March 27, 2012
Online
147
0

kennethcmerrill said

phaas said
Hey Guys!

More footage and DNGs!  I lit a scene with a single bulb and made sure there was a ton of fall-off.  This video demonstrates a single frame shot at ISO 100 and 200 in a dark environment. The scene is lit to ensure a huge fall off, see lighting chart for foot-candle measurements. 

 

I grabbed my trusty Sekonic light meter and took some readings: 

 

 Video:

 

Single DNG Frames and camera log can be downloaded here (.zip file): copy.com/rKoejJ1QLKky

 

Cheers,
  _pH:.

I'm not familiar with foot-candle readings. So someone please educated me. But the way I'm doing math, it seems there's only about a 6-7 stop difference between the barely visible 1 fc background and the nearly blown-out 80 fc side of the doll's face.

That's about right. I'm not seeing the DR in these files that has been there in other footage from Joe's test camera Derek, like the night shots in LA. I wonder if there is a calibration issue or something going on with Peter's camera? It should definitely be better.

The raw files come up looking odd by the camera profile. Not what I'm used to seeing.

January 24, 2014
5:40 pm
wado1942
Guru
Forum Posts: 1107
Member Since:
March 19, 2012
Offline
148
+1

I suspect he measured incident light at those points rather than reflected light.

The following users say thank you to wado1942 for this useful post:

joerubinstein
January 24, 2014
6:19 pm
Razz16mm
Guru
Forum Posts: 1572
Member Since:
March 27, 2012
Online
149
+1

The incident readings don't make sense either at the doll's face.  You have to turn the meter 180 degrees away from the key light to read ambient shadow. Between 1fc and 80 fc you have roughly 6.25 stops. I don't expect to hold shadow detail at that level, but the highlights should not be blown in the raw file at 200 ISO at that 80 fc either. 100 fc at 100 ISO at f/2.8 should give middle gray. Was he reading incident or spot?.  The difference in value between 80 fc and 65 fc should only be about 1/3rd of a stop. 

Bloom's camera seems to have much better response than this too. But in fairness, he is nailing his exposures.

Off exposures do not completely explain this however.

On the other hand the cafe shot is not too bad. Maybe it's just learning curve for Peter.

January 25, 2014
10:07 am
Dale D
Member
Forum Posts: 15
Member Since:
May 5, 2013
Offline
150
0

wado1942 said

Joe/Elle can you look at their camera list to see which you think might work:

Sadly, not a one of those cameras come remotely close to the D16.

Beg to differ…the Alexa has been used on more academy award winning films this year than any other and the Red cameras are easily in the class of the D16. I'd say none of the DLSRs listed are in the D16 class other than an MK3 with ML Raw, and the Black Magics are close in look and workflow, just not in rolling shutter performance (the production cam has global shutter though) and in aliasing/moire performance.

 

If one can get their hands on an Alexa…do it, hands down the best digital cinema camera in the world right now IMO. 

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 122

Currently Online: Razz16mm
17 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
2 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Razz16mm: 1572

wado1942: 1107

pask74: 854

Thyl: 798

James M: 600

DVCinLV: 453

iaremrsir: 443

Harry Lime: 431

analoggab: 376

Ari Davidson: 369

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 1

Members: 2221

Moderators: 0

Admins: 4

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 8

Topics: 907

Posts: 12926

Newest Members: BearJaws, jabrooks, makensyrose, rBpcxnqeQR, Pieter Badenhorst, Maruchanpyon, jjay1317, san070707, ciuddo, Light23

Administrators: StenRidley (3), elleschneider (67), joerubinstein (1782), toby (7)