Anatole Sloan

Tom - It seems to me that there are a few issues which you haven't considered.

First, given that a colour grading process includes contrast adjustment, often by means of a Log C to rec709 output LUT, the contrast in the original log footage isn't really important. ISO 200 is higher contrast if your final delivery is in log (heaven forbid), but it is perhaps lower contrast after a transform / LUT.

What perhaps matter more is the fact that there may be fewer tonal gradations assigned to shadows than to highlights due to this log curve, and thus under exposing can create muddy images.

This leads me to the second point. This should be pretty evident anyhow when monitoring with a LUT. Additionally, we have a 12-bit codec which has far more tonal gradations than an 8-bit or 10-bit codec, so the issue is less important with the Alexa. The bias towards highlight gradations is something we have in our own vision as well; it's preferable from that perspective.

Third, the key situation where this analysis makes a differences is where you have a low key scene where you are exposing just the bottom half of the waveform. I have to say, personally I would tend to overexpose in such situations anyhow, to get a better spread across the waveform.

I think a lot of cinematographers do that. This is in effect doing exactly as you're suggesting - rating the camera at 200 or 400, without touching the menu EI settings. So in effect, DPs already do what you're suggesting - you're just presenting that same, relatively intuitive process in complex lingo.

Alright, that's cool, but will I be able to zoom in and out without having a visible cornering where the redrock/letus sits?

I still need to put another lens at the end of the redrock/letus, don't I?

Like I said, I'm a noob and am probably extremely frustrating.

Thank you for helping me out.

I'm afraid I haven't had personal experience with either the Redrock or the Letus, but you should almost certainly be able to zoom, if you have a zoom lens (such as a Nikon) attached to the end. You will require a lens, as all that is happening, effectively, is that it is viewing through the 35mm lens and focusing the image onto a ground glass. You can attach the adaptor to your XL lens, or the LetusXL allows you to attach the ground glass system straight to the body. This is basically what happens, and while the details may a bit wrong, its enough to get by. Have a look at some videos of DIY "35mm dof adaptors" so that you get an idea of what they are.

Alright, alright. I'm an extreme noob, no denying that. I just want confirmation.

If I buy this XL to PL lens, I can just put the 35mm on the front? Or does it NEED to be PL, or Arri PL?

Hi,

I posted earlier on - not sure whether you read it. This adapter will not give you the DOF that you are looking for. At the same aperture and focal length, it will give the same DOF as your current lens, and any XL lens. With the Redrock and Letus, a 50mm lens will perform like a 50mm lens in s35 (or, depending on the crop factor, maybe around a 70mm). For the XL1, a 50mm lens with that adapter that you have above will be equivalent to a 250mm lens, as you have a crop factor of around 5x. My maths here may be a little bit off, but essentially, only the Letus and Redrock provide what you're looking for.

To achieve a 50mm field of view with the nikon or arri PL adapter, you would need a 10mm lens. a. This does not exist and, b. you will still have huge dof.

Anatole

Actually for the XL1 I wouldn't reccomend the Letus or Redrock adapters. They use a spinning glass and new lens mount which acts as an adapter but causes a loss of light and degrades the image. I would use the XL to PL adapter by Optex that Mantle used on 28 days later. http://www.videogear.co.uk/index.php?act=v...mp;productId=89 its also about 3 times cheaper than those other adapters.

 

I would also highly reccomend renting the lenses insted of buying PL mounts to save costs...

I don't think this is the case. Redrock and Letus have groundglass in them - which results in the light loss - that allows you to shoot at virtually the same focal length for s35. This allows you to achieve the DOF of s35 film, where as the other provides a crop of the lens (i.e. same dof)

i'm just saying that many indie people view a move like Canon disabling 24p in the 5D2 as pure BS. it ticks people off! the camera can shoot 30p, so Canon is CLEARLY going out of their way to disable a tool that might useful to indie filmmakers. i'm just trying to explain what drives average Joe's to appreciate Jannard's approach. to me, it's no mystery at all why people really like what he is doing.

Canon's actions are, however, clearly understandable. While they have the advantage (if you would call it that) of not being in the 'professional' video market, and therefore not having a such market to cannibalise, creating a 5D Mark II capable of full video would damage their prosumer camcorder market.

Canon is acting for its own benefit as a company:

-They may be waiting to include this in the 1D(s) series

-or, they might introduce a prosumer camcorder capable of extremely good video, using technology similar to the 5D II, but better implemented; this could potentially steal a lot of the video market for Canon; however, this would also mean video will be not be fully fledged for a long time in the Canon's DSLRs, unless it is a response to Nikon.

Either way, the video market looks good in the future; especially with Scarlet, other companies may be forced to be more competitive. I do not doubt that Red has the potential to steal a lot of market-share from the camera giants, but these larger companies will react; they have the advantage of economies of scale - they are much larger than Red, and can do much more.

I got this off http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=289323

The site is controversial, I know, but this is of particular interest (regarding whether you can pull uncompressed HD off the HDMI port)

"I've already seen this demonstrated with the 5D mark 2. That will at least give you 4:2:2 8-bit uncompressed, a little better than 4:2:0 AVC."

I guess I was wrong.

Does anyone actually know what type of process is being used to downsample the images?

 

In theory, this could create beautiful 1080p images, downsampling from such a huge sensor.

 

I also wonder if a 1080p 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 feed could be pulled off the HDMI port?

We can dream...

I'm afraid that Canon may have too much to lose if they produce a killer video product in the form of a still camera - sales of their video cameras will fall, perhaps quite dramatically. Much of what they're doing is just to one-up the D90 (resolution, skew, mic input, ability to take photos at the same time as recording). Pulling the feed off the HDMI port as you describe would mean that people would have little reason to get a Canon HD camera instead, other than for the ergonomics and better controls (people will figure out some form of rifle holder, almost certainly, and audio is better recorded off camera anyway). It does have an HDMI port, but they'll probably cripple that particular function.

The 1080p comes from the entire frame, and is down-sampled to the hd signal; however, some are saying that the image doesn't look hugely sharp. Once it starts shipping, we'll have a better idea.

Concerning AF, it doesn't use the same AF as when taking photos - the mirror needs to be in place for this. Instead it uses contrast detection, and while it is better than nothing, it's quite slow. Rolling shutter is meant to be a near non-issue, and otherwise the only major bug is 30p, as opposed to 24p. I personally wouldn't care that much, but some do have gripes about it... if the reaction against this is big enough, I'm sure Canon will release a firmware update to allow 24p.

I guess I feel compelled to point out that h.264 is very much a delivery format that's not at all well-suited to production, though that hasn't stopped people before.

 

Also being noiseless is probably related to the compression, since h.264 throws out fine detail in order to squish the image down, which ends up having a de-noising effect.

I'm afraid I don't know a huge amount about compression, but will it still be the case at 40mbit/s? It's a very high bitrate (the bitrate used in bluray discs), and therefore shouldn't have much compression at all. I think that generally, h.264 codecs use a lower bitrate than their mpeg2 counterparts. For example, the Canon HG10, although a consumer camcorder, records 1080p with h.264 at 15mbit/s, yet maintains a very high level of detail, although less than the HV20.

Concerning noise, it's very likely that this is a feature of the Digic IV processor itself; the original sensor is 21.1mp, and can go up to ISO 25,600; when scaled down to 2.1mp (HD 1080p), a photo at around ISO 3200 would seam to have very little noise, considering that it is combining over 8 pixels to form a single pixel. Furthermore, this should create a very sharp image.

Regards,

Anatole

Sorry if this has been posted elsewhere, but I only saw something about the D90; the 5D Mark II has come out, also with a video mode; but with a few major differences to the D90:

-1080p

-h.264 encoding, around 40mbit/s

-Supposedly, barely any rolling shutter artefacts (D90 has a big problem with this)

-Audio input (admittedly not XLR, but better than nothing)

-Contrast Detection AF

Seems quite interesting; the people that have played around with it have been very impressed (some affiliated with Canon, others not), and the footage is meant to be near noiseless, even at ISO3200. What is most impressive is the compression - it should be better quality than the 25mbit/s Mpeg2 HDV codec.

Something like iTunes will help a lot here; I'm sure it's not only about the cost, but the ease. To rent a dvd, you have to go out and get it, etc. With music piracy for instance, there is far less now, just because it is so easy to get it off iTunes; but, film studios don't want to start depending on Apple like they do with music - ultimately, it would help them, but they don't quite see that...

Anatole

Probably the most interesting reason for having video in DSLRs is for photojournalists; Guardian photographers are required to take around camcorders, as video is worth much more than photos. Through the added convenience of having all in one package, as well as better quality video (when compared with what they use at the moment), we might get some interesting stuff on the news. On the other hand, that group is entirely unrelated to the filmmaking industry...

My opinion: Another silly discussion about using a still camera to do motion pictures as some have this belief that there is some sort of nirvana in picture quality that must be reached and that until it is uncovered they will search high and low to find it. It's amateur. A camera is such a small part of film making.

It is cinematography.com

Alone pictures are nice, but good pictures never made anything worth while watching as a motion picture. How about an article on good scriptwriting, good acting, good editing and direction? That is nirvana in film making not giving someone with three initials next to his name a camera thinking he can do more with it than anyone else, or would care to for that matter. Simply amateur dribble. I'd love a great still camera... for stills, but to shoot a movie? We already have a dozen great cameras designed for motion picture that do that, let alone film, which no digital camera can equal. I can't even find a difference in any 4x5 digital back. All flat and lifeless. It's very interesting how this generation is so into the technical perfection of film making but have little interest in the emotional or truly aesthetic aspect. It reminds me of the period in the early to middle 70's when mucis took a turn. What became most important was the technical aspect of making music. 10cc for instance made a song called I'm not in love. While they could have used tape loops and equipment to make the chorus of voices, what was more important that it be real so they got 500 people to do the background. A lot of songs during this period were concerned with the sound quality, the equipment, the perfection of the sound. And what you had were some great songs but as the seventies go, this period was the most forgettable and least programmed today on radio station mixes. It was great music, but missed the aspect that made it memorable. Today amateur and low budget film making is driven by manufactures marketing that has convinced people that it's about cameras. It never was and it will never be. It might be for a period like it is now, but I'll bet it becomes one of the least memorable times in the history of film making.

Surely allowing a few basic filmmaking tools to the greater public can only be beneficial to the industry? I know very very many people who can't really afford that $5000 camera, let only the processing and the costs of telecine, etc.; but I do know many people who can afford a $1000 camera, and who already have a computer on which to process some footage on. Many people don't become interested in something by being plunged straight into it, like working on a film set, in this case. Any new product can only be beneficial.

The compression is MJPEG, for those that wish to know. It should be of moderate quality, at least, not like the compression in p&s cameras.

I think it's potentially rather interesting; although the D90 will obviously have very compressed video in comparison with prosumer camcorders, it will undoubtedly be used in things such as cheap music videos, etc., because of its low-light ability, DOF and multiple lens options - it is the same price of an HV20, but with Canon, you have to have a Redrock adaptor to get the DOF effect. Considering that Nikon doesn't have any camcorders it makes that sales will cannibalise (unlike Canon), it will likely realise the market potential for a better quality version - I'm thinking D3 quality, 1080p, low compression in video. Nikon's probably testing the market with this, and there will be more interesting things in the future. Nikon's recently very aggressive commercial stance, for example the quick release of the D700 for half the price of the D3, but the same quality, suggests that it may be very quick to enter into this market. Videos released so far seem very impressive from the D90, although none have been released at full 720p rez.

Anatole

On that subject...

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0807/08070902Kodaksensor.asp

Hi

My impression is that a lot of people are asking for more resolution (for 8k, even beyond that); however, the motion sickness caused by the NHK Ultra-HD cameras must suggest that we shouldn't be aiming for such great heights in rez - it would be a sad day when cinematographers will have to take that into account while filming...

Anatole

EDIT: we don't have anything that can display that much resolution anyway. Wait for cinemas to catch up to 4k first, perhaps?

I know that the Fujifilm s5 pro still camera has some form of ccd chip which includes sub pixels in a honeycomb formation to provide extra dynamic range. Although initially, there doesn't seem much of a difference when compared to similar class cameras, highlights have a more graduated fall-off, rather than the sudden cut-off point in traditional chips. Furthermore, this would solve any "rolling shutter" issues (it's CCD) and apparently provides a higher effective resolution than bayer cameras. Although it would be expensive for RED to switch to CCD fabrication, surely this would provide something more "film-like". Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Yet another pointless thread started in the name of ending the discussion, which does absolutely nothing except prolong it!

 

Look, if you don't like the way the discussion is going on, refrain from joining in.

 

If and when you get the opportunity to shoot with the camera, assess it yourself, based on your budget, needs and work flow. That's all that matters really. Everyone will have an opinion, but that only matters if you chose to listen to them.

It's already been going on for long enough...how long do you expect till this finishes? Does it not require co-operation on the part of every individual, and in order to get that, how else to do it but attempt it? Do notice that I generally do refrain from joining in, and in this case I am purely making a statement, without entering either sides in the argument. Does that not suggest I am making a genuine attempt?

I know that nobody in your age group ever wants to be told this, but a lot of the problem is that these sorts of "arguments" have been going on since long before you were even born! The only difference now is that the Internet allows a more international participation.

 

The problem that a lot of people have is that these days, their job security is often in the hands of non-technical executives, who are all too easily gulled by fast-talking nonentities telling them what they want to hear, rather than what they need to know.

 

And all too often, what they want to hear is that by investing the shareholders' money in yet another new whizz-bang technology that nobody else apparently knows anything about, the company's profitibility is going to skyrocket, and they will get the credit for it and so on.

 

But the usual outcome is that the investment is a dismal failure and the company ends up bankrupt, (but usually, not before the Idiots in Business Suits have managed to siphon off a large amount of the shareholders' funds before they inevitably get fired). This has happened to me on two separate occasions. (I often wonder what became of all the analog HDTV equipment that was bought in the early 1990s, when HDTV was "just around the corner")

 

So yes, a lot of people do have a vested interest in ensuring that ALL of a manufacturer's dirty linen does get aired in public. In cases like the RED, a lot of people have managed to convince themselves (and/or people who have loaned them money to buy the equipment) that buying a RED system is their ticket to fame, fortune and security in their old age. They are not particularly pleased when people point out the holes in their grand schemes, but as far as I am concerned, most of them are going to crash and burn at some time or another, so I really don't feel I am going to make any difference to the inevitable, by asking awkward questions.

 

As for the film vs RED thing, Jim Jannard has stated several times that they never intended the RED to replace film, it's more designed as an economical replacement for the overpriced ENG cameras that are currently being promoted as "Digital Cinematography" cameras. (Personally, I would have designed the camera somewhat differently, but we'll see who is right eventually).

 

So a large part of the annoyance is the fanboys who keep hammering the "Film is Dead" line.

(In case you don't know, that was a famous headline from a 1956 issue of Variety:-)

Another large part is the fact that many of the more prolific loudmouth posters here clearly have little or no real-world production experience at all, but they somehow imagine that their youth and enthusiasm is going to make up for this.

It is absolutely healthy to maintain a certain level of debate over things like this, and it is only through criticism that an industry advances; however, there are also other aspects of any camera that must be thoroughly discussed, and should not come under the category of argument; however, it seems to me, that anything somebody posts in this forum related to the Red is automatically walking into a such debate, despite their primary purpose of trying to provide information that others can discuss with a degree of calm intellect. To me, this only seems to happen with Red; for example, those showcasing their work in the critique section, hoping to receive some form of helpful feedback, instead find that their thread has turned into a heated argument about the camera, some complaining about the camera's faults and others praising it; but should this not be a place where others can talk about their work, not Red's?

Since the decision to shoot on red rather than film is something that faces directors and producers in the real world of production, I would say this is the perfect place to have those discussions, since those interested can lean on the experience of other professionals who have gone through it and had good (or bad) experiences.

 

What is not helpful, is people who have no experience of either ranting and raving about digital will "never" be as good as film, or film is dead, when both extremes are obviously horseshit.

 

R.

I agree with you absolutely, and in my opinion, it seems that those who are ranting generally dominate the majority of conversations that have taken place; I, myself, prefer to stand back and listen to these conversations, as admittedly, I can't be terribly experienced at 16, but the experience is getting rather painful.

I will try and put this in a fairly unheated way, so as not to stoke the fire in this forum that should have been cooled months ago; please read to the end before you reply.

To be utterly frank, I think it?s about time that this argument about Red vs film should stop. The purpose of this forum is to be one that?s informative, and helpful to somebody wishing, and to allow people to make their own informative decisions. The rest of this forum happens to fulfil this purpose; for example, all the other sections on cameras all for a place in which owners and potential owners can converse with utter freedom, and without the fear of being trampled over.

What?s worse is that this argument is not only raging in the Red forum, but is spilling out into the rest of the cinematography.com website; anybody (who only happens to own a Red) who attempts to avoid this particular section so that they may receive genuinely creative comments, rather than an endless, futile debate, is immediately caught up in the whirlwind upon mentioning that they used this particular camera. I believe you have all witnessed such a case.

I myself have opinions on the Red camera, but this is not such place to put them, and therefore will not include them. We all know that this would only result in further argument which is ultimately fruitless. I am sure that the camera has its problems, and why can?t this be the place in which people can converse about these faults? There is no need to act as the balance to a form of propaganda, as some would call it, for all this does is fuel this vain discussion.

And finally, to conclude, before I am torn to bits, the only reason I am approaching you as such is due to my frustration of the juvenile way most of you have been acting in; and that is fairly strong coming from me, considering I am sixteen. Consider how far you must have gone to irritate an ?adolescent? into making such an astute comment.

Try looking for them on eBay. It's generally cheaper, and once you do get bored with it, you can sell them on for $30 loss - that sort of stuff doesn't get updated that much, so you're getting the same thing.

If those are MiniDV shots.. wow.. the HD will be incredible :D Good job man!

It was telecined to MiniDV, but shot on film. It still has film characteristics, as opposed to 1/3" MiniDV prosumer cameras.

Andres-

Some very nice work. The last shot is excellent. I agree that there is a touch too much grain visible in the sky, but it adds to the characteristic.

Very likely yes. Look for some adapters on the web. Canon has a direct adapter, which however, is only for Canon lenses (correct me if I'm wrong). Have a look at www.Letus35.com. They are good, and cheap for what they are, but still not incredibly cheap.

Canon makes an adapter which allows you to put canon Ef still lenses on an Xl mount. The format change makes every lens something like 7x more telephoto so it seems to only be very practical for nature videography.

The same is with all cheap 35mm mounts. Therefore you have to use very wide lenses to compensate for this.

You can get more expensive mounts that compensate for this.