Jump to content

georg lamshöft

Basic Member
  • Posts

    312
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by georg lamshöft

  1. Thank you very much! Nice to see something else than just lines and brickwalls ;-) Some scenes didn't show differences well on the Vimeo-limited output - but others did, I think the glass bricks in the first shot show that very well. RED admits a small difference in DR, but most real-world-shots I've seen and the (although not perfect but comparable) provideocoalition-tests show an improvement of two-four stops. The ALEXA is a different beast, it's expensive, it took them years to develop - not just sticking an prestigous "ARRI"-Label on it... To be honest, Super16 still seems like a viable choice to me, especially if you want to differenciate from the look of reality-shows... How much more information is in the negative when this was just done on a telecine? I guess the lighting changed a bit on the last scene, I can't imagine S16 holding that much more sky-detail. Makes you wonder when RAW is actually RAW... Of course, the debayering is done within the ALEXA when using ProRes, but it's rarely altered when processing it on a separate computer, on the other hand the data-rates are very high and they don't seem to "throw away" much sensor data in log-mode. The white-balance and the ISO-rating can be handled as flexible as with RedRaw - or has anybody proven otherwise? It's simply a question how much of the "sensor data" is still accessable in post, am I wrong?
  2. It started in Germany recently and I'm a bit surprised to hear nothing about it on this forum!? I thought 90% of it was brilliant. It felt like "Bourne done right", how a modern action-thriller should look like. The cinematography was done beautifully and blended in well with the editing and overall feeling of the movie itself. It felt kinetic but never like "shaky-cam", over-the-top videoclip-aesthetics and music? For sure, but they did work very well! According to the ASC-mag, some scenes were shot with a modified f0.95 Leica Noctilux - which looked very nice! How did they adapt this lens with it's short flange-distance (28mm)? The underlying conspiracy story wasn't innovative and the second-last action-scene was inferior to the ones shown before, but the acting was superb and the main character really interesting! But Berlin doesn't really look like this ;-) It felt fresh, definitely one of the better movies of it's genre - I'll give it a weak 9/10.
  3. Ask yourself: what's important for the project, where are your priorities? Resolution When you can pay for a complete 4k workflow, the RED will give a little bit resolution beyond HD. When modern anamorphic lenses like Hawk (1.3x or 2x) are not affordable, you should rather stick with good spherical designs (like Zeiss UP) - cheap anamorphics are not really sharp off-axis. Anamorphic look The only reason to choose cheap anamorphic lenses, IMHO. Filmic vs. Digital ALEXA looks very "filmic" - noise, lack of artifacts, dynamic range, colors and transition. If 35mm is impossible but would be the ideal choice, ALEXA might be the best "replacement". But when you like the RED-look, go with it. Have you thought about 35mm 2perf? The cheapest way to surpass HD. Workflow ALEXA is quick, reliable, sturdy and ergonomic but recording RAW might be more expensive - you propably have to stick with ProRes even if it limits the full potencial of the ARRI.
  4. The biggest public TV-station in Germany bought the rights for "Taras Welten" (so they call it "Tara's worlds") and started to show season 1. Ratings are horrible - guess why... Because it's shot on digital... just kidding ;-) No, they dare to show it at 2am in the morning! They've tried showing popular, new Hollywood-series in primetime - but older audiences prefer crappy local productions and private TV-stations said it would be unfair competition, because they don't squetch 15min commercials into it... A sorry for the stupid Germans not appreciating your work, but I hope it goes well at home!
  5. I don't think the technology behind creating visual storytelling justifies another award category. But yes, people have to learn to differenciate it - it has been a problem in the past: the films with excellent production design were favored for cinematography-awards and now other visual artists have great impact on the visuals of the movie as well. Audiences and juries have be "educated" to give the right awards to the right people... Your example is funny, though ;-) "True Grit" involved a DI with partly big manipulations, greenscreen work and was propably less traditional than "Inception" which was printed optically (with more control by the cinematographer as far as I've heard), no 2nd unit and involved barely any CGI besides removing wires etc.
  6. I agree that we like get lost into too technical discussions which have little relevance in reality anymore. They're only important to differenciate technical developments and marketing. The standardized, professional way is MTF - resolution over contrast - tangential, sagittal, wavelength-dependent... All these net-samples I've posted are not professional enough, either - they can only give a very basic idea. The high-res sensor of the RED is more of an technical approach than a real performance criteria. As I said, on a test chart, the RED EPIC can outperform the ALEXA, I'm pretty sure about that - regarding MTF in the final HD/2k-ouput propably not. Another story are the other IQ-parameters which more or less suffer the small photosites-approach of RED. When your producers pay for a 4k DI, they also pay for 35mm and unless you only shoot >>200ASA a (propably slightly degrained) 35mm-acquisition will offer superior performance (higher extinction MTF, dynamic range, color transitions) without the "cheap RED-aesthetics" this thread was about in the first place. RED has it's advantages, the "K-argument" is hardly one of them.
  7. As I already said, the resolution-debate has very little to do with the "RED-look"-issue. But maybe it's important to discuss due to the different approaches in the industry. RED clearly markets it's camera as a 4k/4.5k/5k-camera - nothing less. They shoot test-charts in labs and give "k"-results to determine actual output-resolution (which already simplifies the issue) and justify the approach of using a sensor with rather small photosites and compression to handle the amount of pixels. They claim 3.2k for 4k, 3.7k for 4.5k and 4k actual resolution with 5k acquisition - that's VERY optimistic, just like the dpreview-results for lpph with DSLRs often resolving beyond nyquist... There is something on the charts - but that's not real resolution. It's difficullt finding non-RED-sponsored results on the net but the images itself already give an idea how a correctly aliasing-filtered (0% contrast at 4k!) and bayer-interpolated, non-sharpened image looks like and from judging the RAW-files on the net the newer REDs are not different - no surprise since the technical/optical background remains the same. The ALEXA is not different, there is no such thing as "ARRI-magic" or "RED-magic" - but the marketing is different - the ALEXA is marketed as an excellent HD/2k-camera and judging from the images, it's true. But what is RED? There is no 3k-workflow, you can go either HD/2k or 4k according to DCI. The sample I've posted showing the actual quality-gain from going the (still not cheap) 4k-route and what ends up on the screen is not very uplifting, IMHO. Here are a few samples showing the resolving power on a test chart (these are high-contrast, b/w, partly aligned patterns - ideal for digital): http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/more_red_res_testing_the_mysteryium_resolved/P1/ 2400 lines horizontal resolution are a good result and the ALEXA with 2880 photosites in the horizontal axis will have trouble reaching this result. But what matters (resolution/sharpness)-wise is the MTF of aliasing-free 1080p/2k-output. Don't get me wrong, watching a 4k-projection from RED looks sharp, especially when coming a from a horrible 35mm-print. But is the "4k-argument" really valid in case of RED? I highly doubt it. The size-argument (especially in 3D-rigs) with RED EPIC is valid, so is the high max. frame rate - the resolution-argument propably not.
  8. That's correct but we are talking about the world of cinematography, the OLPF has to be much stronger to rule out aliasing which is still accepted in the still photography world but more importantly, the frequencies we're comparing are usually much lower where modern film has very high MTF. A 24MP-DSLR will be compared to film at 80 cycles/mm while 1080p/2k on 35mm is 40 cycles/mm. Neither grain or MFT is really an issue on this level (at least when not using constantly underexposed 500ASA film-stock). The link is interesting because it shows behaviour at 40 cycles/mm but with worse film/scanner-combo and a ridiculous 200$-Minolta-lens which easily has 20-30% less contrast at 40 cycles/mm. But I think we can agree that frequencies like 80 cycles/mm are difficult to handle in the processing-chain - but that's also the case with 35mm-style digital cameras. I think with 4k DLPs on large screens, 65mm makes more sense as an acquisition than ever. Actually, with modern equipment (Vision2/3 and 3k scan) it's pretty close resolution-wise. But grain becomes an issue that has to be dealt with, especially for 3MBit/MPEG2-broadcast... I agree but the "K"-argument will be discussed (and missunderstood) with the "5k-revolution" in the future as well, I fear. RED uses a reasonable sensor-design but doesn't want to give up the 4k-myth. Here is a comparison between 4k and HD output from 4k REDRAW: http://www.stopp.se/lab/videos/RED_4K_vs_HD.zip
  9. Cine film has slightly other properties than still film and works in a different environment with different requirements, grain doesn't degrade moving images as much, films are of higher quality (new-gen negative-film without orange mask) while digital has to deal with some issues that aren't apparent in still photography like cooling, movement artifacts, data storage, lack of ability to deal with artifacts in post (like aliasing). 3MP digital vs. 8perf 35mm is typical for consumer-scanned negatives, the equivalent to all the lousy 2k-telecines from features shot on not too well-exposed Kodak 5219 (even for daylight) - this kind of 35mm-cinematography makes the digital transition easier, that's for sure... But it's not what 35mm is about and capable of. The ARRISCAN is an interesting example "between the worlds" and gives an idea what digital has still to deal with, because it incorporates the same sensor as a camera (D-20/21) but still has distinctive differences which allow it to work with higher quality: -It doesn't use color-filters in front of the sensor but custom-made LEDs -> no color issues like in digital acquisition -it doesn't use an OLPF -no bayer-interpolation (three times the color resolution) -micro-scanning, taking 4 images from each frame at different positions to generate true 6k-files which can be downsampled to aliasing-free, high-MTF 4k-files -double-exposure to generate true 16bit files with high dynamic range and little noise So this scanner has to merge 24 (!) exposures to get a high-quality file from film. Still, the transition chemical->electronics generates a huge loss that isn't necessary in digital acquisition - but digital has still to deal with some basic issues affecting IQ. Being purely "objectively" is difficult, but I give it a try for very basic properties: Resolution: modern film has 30%-50% contrast at 80lp/mm, that are 4000 lines (RED = 0%) horizontally in a S35-frame, it goes way beyond that and that's important for scanning (aliasing, MTF) but not very usable regarding contrast and doesn't end up in the master positive or in the DI-files (6k->4k). 2000 lines with good contrast and about 3000 lines extinction resolution with low contrast are realistic in a real-world DI - we are talking real resolution here, in the final files, taken with real lenses, going through the whole process - RED uses color interpolation and a strong OLPF with little to none oversampling to compensate (4.5k->4k, 5k->4k), on test charts (high contrast, black-white - ideal for digital) the RED 4k never was able to transfer usable contrast beyond 2500 lines. I'm well aware that RED claims otherwise. Dynamic Range: the sensitometric curves for Vision3 shows a DR of 12-13 stops, counting the "shoulders" (film doesn't behave linearly at the ends) you can end up with 16 stops like Kodak claims - so it's not comparable to linear but clipping digital by those simple numbers. An HDSLR has about 9 stops, a RAW-file from a DSLR about 11-12 stops, the RED MX 11 stops and the Alexa measured under the very same circumstances up to 14 stops. They've done a 1:1 comparison (Kodak 7219 with ARRISCAN vs. ALEXA) for evaluation in Germany (switching public TV-production from S16 to Alexa) and they claimed ALEXA performed as well as the DI regarding dynamic range with less noise - which is sensational for digital acquisition, that's what the industry claimed for over a decade! But the ALEXA is a HD-camera (although with little artifacts and high MTF), pushing it to 6k (for 4k output) would compromise noise and especially DR again. Noise: I think with RED MX and ALEXA no longer showing nasty noise beyond 400ASA and pushing the boundaries, we don't have to discuss it. You can push 5219 propably one stop to 1000ASA, while the ALEXA holds up nice files up to 2 stops beyond. You want ultra-low-light-photography (remember, 500/1000ASA and T1.3 is already great), digital is the way to go. My conclusion: Highest IQ-possible with high-sharpness, clear images and barely any artifacts making it look "odd"? Easy: S35 with a high-quality 4k DI gives everything, versatility, robust workflow - it's even quite cheap when using a quick&dirty telecince or an optical print first. Modern 35mm has nothing to do with "soft" or "grainy" - it isn't even warm, cold, contrasty or flat - it's what you want it to be thanks to powerful digital post. And the images stand out against all the music videos and student films shot on RED... All this will propably change in some years, but 35mm is the golden standard in most scenarios - it has many advantages and little disadvantages - no need to jump on the digital train until it's really ready. Let's see how well Deakins' work with ALEXA holds up on the big screen - maybe it's the first step into being more than just the "producers darlin'" because it's cheap... Sources: www.provideocoalition.com www.arri.de/camera/tutorials/4k_systems_theory_basics_for_motion_picture_imaging.html motion.kodak.com/motionloadedFiles/TI2647.pdf
  10. Our PAL-TV-signal is lousy, typical MPEG-2 overcompressed crap - I cannot judge sharpness, grain or noise but I can tell if something is digital and that scares me even more. The colors and dynamic range on "Good Wife" are typical for "1st generation" digital cine cameras - it shares a certain "fingerprint" (again, not in every scene) that sets it apart from 35mm-originated-material - even in SD. It's the same with "Tudors" or "Reaper" (which looks different but not really better due to being shot on the D-21), so I guess it has nothing to do with post-processing - although I think I can see the different rendition of the D-21, but it's clearly just a poor imitation that fails trying to look like film. Series like "Fringe", "House" or "Castle" resemble a more "filmic" or "cinematic" look. What was the first thing I was looking at when seeing ALEXA-footage? Dynamic range charts or noise-measurements? No, the ability to render a human face half-lit, contrasty and yet without clipped highlights or crushed shadows. To me, the 1st gen-cameras all failed in this regard which surprises when seeing the effort that was put into Genesis/F35 with six photosites sampling one pixel - the dynamic range is low, the noise high (wich is not so surpring, since the photosites are tiny), IMHO. Again, this is no criticism of your work or artistic competence, we're just discussing the result of technical choices, right? ;-) Don't tell me you don't see it on your HD-setup? I would have to get an appointment with the eye doctor or psychiatrist ;-)
  11. 7M$ is lot's of money in comparison to the average cost of proper camera/processing. Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run, The International) just made a movie called "Drei" for about the same amount of money - 35mm anamorphic, complete 4k DI with CGI! It can be done. Of course the camera is only a small part of the whole issue - but this is the topic here. I'm not saying powerful cinematographers aren't allowed to tell what they like about a certain a technology, they just have to be highly conscious that their statements could be ripped out of context and affect their colleagues, who don't have this power over the "business-people". Mr. Mullen, I highly respect your work and your professional statements in this forum which is partly the reason why it isn't just a bunch of "internet-geeks" like me :-) You mentioned a very specific example - well, maybe I would have tried to show him how the choice of the F35 would affect the final look and let him decide if he wants to afford the more sophisticated equipment!? But this is not the situation I'm arguing about, it's about cinematographers don't having the choice because people with absolutely no interest in the product or knowledge of technology and the working conditions on set dictate what equipment to use. Like "good wife" - I don't know it very well but it's one of the few digital-shoot TV-series you've (and colleagues) that already runs in German TV and it clearly tries to establish a "cinematic" look (no reality-TV etc.) but it's really not difficult to see that it was captured with an underperforming digital camera. Wouldn't you have rather used 35mm for this job but weren't allowed to so or do my eyes trick me and this is exactly the look you wanted? Isn't the F35 one of these gigantic monsters with lot's of (image) noise, no appropriate viewfinder and still quite expensive? So it wasn't about the enjoyment of working with this camera, either, I guess? The studio has bought some cameras, likes the workflow in their process and said to you this is the camera you HAVE to use, right? I'm sorry, I'm pushing this all off-topic, but this is the only way I can manage to express my problem with this whole issue. I'm slightly "gear-fanatic", I admit, I'm an engineer. But you can not underestimate the value of good tools. Many talented people are actually so terrified of using "overperforming" tools which they can't use properly under given circumstances, experience or talent that they tend to not upgrade their tools in the first place, when hitting limits they still think it's their fault and there must be a way to work around it. I don't care if an untalented, rich person makes bad images with 50000€-equipment or 500€-equipment - they're still bad images and I could care less. But many talented people reach the point where they are actually limited by the abilities of their equipment - when this underperforming equipment wasn't even chosen by the artist, it makes me even more angry! The way ARRI or PANAVISION (from what I've heard) act as a company, the way they design, manufacture and service the equipment is something precious! It's so much easier to follow the "shareholder-value-route" like others do and just offer what the customer really wants, management tries to find a way to make things cheaper and worse, marketing has to sell this "progress" so the customer "wants" (customers are usually amateurs regarding technology, they want something, but have no idea how and at what price it is achieved) it... Don't believe it? Millions of people need their notebook as a professional worktool with high requirements - there are barely any offerings left! Millions of photographers wanted high IQ and wondered why their "professional" super-zooms with fast AF don't perform and small niche companies are the only ones offering lenses that can perform well? When we are not really careful and accept "little quirks" (a software crash here, some plastic parts there, some overheating here...) in our tools, the industry will adapt and companies like ARRI or Panavision cannot survive. We will end up with X-K prosumer-cameras with über-cool features, a dozen new every year, plastic/thin magnesium housings, large colorful touchscreens. They crash several times a day, they're built for amateur filmers but there will be nobody left who has the money AND the knowledge how to built professional cameras for cinematographers anymore! It terrfies me! When people see the ALEXA the way it is meant to be seen and Panvision manages to bring a similar performing tool on the market, we propably have a chance and the "digital revolution" will not degrade standards this time! It's 2010 and we cannot even fly in less than 6h transatlantic, we cannot shoot astronauts into space with a spaceship anymore, 35mm projection looks worse than ever, 65mm is "too expensive", TV-series make millions, actors make millions but 35mm is "too expensive"... something is wrong here!
  12. The question is not so much whether there are sharper, more dynamic or realistic aquisition technologies out there - it's about having the conscious choice of using the best technology for a certain task. As said before, 50 years ago we only had film, now we have film & digital (it's better this way, IMHO) and it would be simply stupid just having digital in a few years. I don't really think enhanced features of a technology compromise the art just because we can get lost in them (having the ability to manipulate images in post, having more latitude and therefore becoming more lazy finding the right exposure, no need to let the camera stop running...) - it's more about discpline, trying to focus on the relevant and still having access to more elaborate abilities when necessary. But - if we like it or not - there currently happens a "mortal combat" between technologies and companies and their "mentality" in designing and making aquisition technology. And powerful artists - if they like it or not - even unintendedly interfer in this "combat", propably just as much as business-people do. As soon as skilled artists allow a step backward in quality, the "business-people" will push for another step further in this direction. David Mullen makes the Genesis look well? Why even considering 35mm for future TV-work? Gale Tattersal shots the 5D? Why even consider overpriced digital cinematography cameras? Roger Deakins states he prefers digital? Why should we spend a cent if it's good enough for one of the most respected cinematographers? They affect other artists as well, who propably argue with producers about choosing their worktool. They have to be extremely careful with statements, they can use "new, exiting technology" whenever they want but they have to make sure that they make clear why they do and that it's propably not a good idea to dump other technologies instantly. "Rabbit Hole" - a multi-million-movie with Nicole Kidman - cinematographer wanted 35mm, had to use RED. "Super" - multi-million-dollar movie with Ellen Page/ Kevin Bacon/ Liv Tyler - cinematographer prefers 35mm, had to use RED. "Harry Brown" - multi-million-dollar movie starring Sir Michael Caine - cinematographers hates digital, had to use an F35. These are jsut recent examples I've stumbled over. Knowing the technology propably none of these films would have been more expensive using 35mm efficiently and none of them would have become profitable by using digital cameras. Digital technology didn't allow a more democratic/ artistic production - it actually limited the artistic quality! THAT MUST NOT HAPPEN! Every artist with some power in this business has the responsibility to fight against this "race to the bottom" - because business-people and lobbyists will fight for this race, whether we like it or not.
  13. This is about aquisition technology only and propably the directly related processing, not the "presentation" technologies (35mm print, 2k/4k-beamer, RAW-processing, optical prints...) - I doubt that he compared the Alexa output in digital projection to a regular film print from 35mm to make his statements!? 4k != 4k - this is absolutely clear if you take a step beyond RED-marketing. This is why the Alexa oversamples and the Arriscan does that as well - we can discuss if bayer-filtering & OLPF & noise degrade the theoretical resolution/sharpness/IQ more than grain & scanner noise do - but I think it has clearly shown that a regular 2k-scan (oversampled from 3k) on modern film stock (not always 500ASA) in S35 looks terrific - barely any grain/noise and sharpness close to the theoretical limits. The Alexa output (well, I've just seen 1080p) with a similar image size looks spectacular - but not really sharper or more detailed, IMHO. It's a true 4k-DI where 35mm starts to show advantages, IMHO. We can discuss how much usable information remains close to the 4k-nyquist-limit (even when the scan itself is oversampled) but at least in the 2-3k range there is plenty of detail/ information which simply isn't there in HD/2k-output. I have no idea how they did the IMAX-blowup for "Inception" but it clearly showed some serious detail beyond HD - on this large screen, HD just looks like mush in comparison (like Avatar - which does a great job to cover it up with framing, CGI, light, color and movement). Does Deakins even want to do some IMAX-prints ? ;-) We don't really know what matters for Mr. Deakins in an image regarding technical quality and how he compared these technologies. But I'm afraid that it is propably based on hasty watching and that watching the incredible clean output even in extreme night-shots (this is what he mentions for Niccol's film) on a good HD-screen on set "warps" his perception. Even if we are experienced, we are still prone to the "new toy"-syndrome - experience it myself finding cool features which feel über-important (how could I lived without it?) but lose their fascination rather quickly. I simply wonder if we have to accept a few Deakins films which aren't up to "True Grit" (at least for daylight-shots) in a 4k-theater (when those finally come...) because he jumped on the digital train a bit too early. He also shot Super35 when anamorphic (optical printing, grainier stocks, no super-sharp spherical primes...) was still vastly superior! He mentioned his reasons as well as the other "Super35-fan" Michael Ballhaus but the result never convinced me (not with the older films). On the other hand I'm glad that he doesn't rely on "K's" and he cares about the overall image impression as well.
  14. I find his arguments regarding better tonal transitions und higher dynamic range a little bit surprising - the ALEXA is good, but better than film? He also insists on a 4k DI but accepts uncompresses 1080p output? From what I understand he really likes the sensitivity ad maybe his new movie will show a look we've never seen before but he was always after? I'm a huge fan of Niccol's - let's see how "Now" holds up on the big screen.
  15. Great artists make stupid technical decisions all the time. What exactly were they looking for? For a specific look? I guess. They clearly sacrificed flexibility, but when they knew exactly what look they wanted and they can achieve it with a specific-look stock, does it matter? I have no idea. Black Swan was too grainy and too-little detail, IMHO. But what does a film for a DI need? High MTF, tight grain, high dynamic range? Does a low-con film pushed to hard contrast in post lack tonal transitions in comparison to a "native high-con" stock?
  16. A 4k Alexa would need a ~4µm pixel-pitch (we want a nice, clean, sharp and artifact-"less" 4k output - not just large images), photosites with four times less area. Without further developments in sensor-technology that yields to about 2 stops less dynamic range in the highlights (the saturation signal or "photon-bucket-size" is directly related the size of the photosites. Maybe ALEV-IV will incorporate backlit-technology (fill-rate from ~70% -> 100%, lower noise-floor to compensate the lower saturation-signal) - but not this year... Noise might be less of an issue (less than two stops difference) because - as mentioned - it becomes less apparent with higher resolution (- lower magnifification during presentation). We cannot even increase sensor-size beyond 30mm because it would yield to stitching multiple sensors which causes the weirdest artifacts unbearable for professional cinematography standards. DALSA just developed a brand-new full-frame CCD design (highest fill-rate) with 5.2µm pixel-pitch which results in about 12 stops (I don't think anybody tried a comparable test method for dynamic range) DR @ 50/100ASA !!! A sensor that needs a mechanical shutter, with a readout-time that would barely allow 24fps @ 2MP! The ALEXA is a nice Super16-replacement and an extraordinary high-sensitivity-tool - but it's not a replacement for 35mm - at least ARRI itself (Munich, not US) sees it this way as well. ARRI has a complete 4k-workflow since 2005, not über-expensive and great quality. Use it when you want to go beyond "HD-broadcast"! Why should we end up a "step backwards"? You're right, we shouldn't. But this is what we do. TV-production-standards were higher just 10 years ago, I can tell on my 3MBit-DVB-T-PAL-signal that a series is recorded with Genesis, F35, D21 or RED within a few min - who had this stupid idea to force artists to use these bulky, at times unreliable and slow "technology concepts" to take over superior, profitable, efficient standards? With the ALEXA, finally, a digital aquisition-medium looks well even under harsh conditions - we should give them time to adapt this technology for "cinema-adequate" 4k and don't fall for ridiculous marketing, otherwise we end up with VHS instead of Betamax...
  17. What about mixing lenses? Choosing some Master Primes as the primary lenses, especially with the more demanding wide-angles (at least those should be noticeably sharper in the edges) and Ultra-Primes for the longer focal lengthes (which are propably harder to focus beyond T1.9)?
  18. That might be slightly off-topic, but why don't Kodak or Fuji go all the "DI-way" and focus on stocks like 5299? It seems to have advantages to ignore optical printing and the necessary technologies within the film - you don't even need to differenciate Tungsten or Daylight-film? But 5299 doesn't seem to be popular?
  19. I guess ARRI DRTC is currently the best way to measure actual dynamic range. Especially stray light may create strange interpretations (it's grey, so it's within the dynamic range...) Art Adams also did the dynamic range tests I mentioned, although he doesn't use the more sophisticated DRTC-technique, he comes to nearly to same result as ARRI itself when speaking about 13.5/14 stops - we are not even talking RAW, we're talking ProRes4444! All possible sources of error are also suppressed due to the same measurement standards (even the same lens) - and still, the diffference between ALEXA and the rest is huge and clearly visible from the samples as well as real-world tests (I haven't found any online-samples from the foundry-test, sorry). Makes me wonder why your results are this close to each other and far apart from Art Adams/ARRI? Mr. Adams tested the ALEXA at 800ASA, as well as the Red MX (which propably reduces DR) and 400ASA ("base" ASA 100-160?) for the Canon.
  20. In this specific example it could be grading took to far or effects of the ridiculous vimeo-compression (1800MBit/s RAW to 330MBit/s Prores to 5MBit/s Vimeo) because the highlight-handling of this camera is unheard of in the digital world, I've seen 1:1 comparisons to 7219 (from 3k ARRISCAN) which looked really close regarding dynamic range. IMHO, the overall image quality, the "look" is defined by such dull technical entities like dynamic range or noise. Many entities are bound to these aspects, like tonal transition profits from a lower noise floor. You don't always need a dynamic range of 14 stops but when scenes become contrasty, less powerful systems fall apart and these artifacts become noticeable. Our brain processes the information of our eyes into a near-perfect, artifact-free appearing visual impression. So an "organic" or "natural" image renders reality witout adding artifacts of any kind.
  21. "Dynamic Range" is a quite complex topic and cannot be expressed in one single value that easy. ARRI has put a lot of effort into defining criterias and setups, including actually using spatial detail and rule out optical reflections that distort results. On www.provideocoalition.com you find a halfway professional and comparable setup where they've tested the ALEXA, the Canon 5dMk2 and the new RED: http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/aadams/story/next_stop_the_last_stop_red_mx_latitude_tests/ http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/aadams/story/alexa_dynamic_range_its_all_in_how_you_use_it/ http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/aadams/story/alexa_dynamic_range_its_all_in_how_you_use_it/ It says 14 stops on the Alexa, 11 on the RED MX (which is the same sensor technology as the EPIC) and 9 stops on the Canon. The results can vary depending on ISO, white balance, even lens choice (less contrasty lenses brighten the dark areas and creating the illusion of additional dynamic) - but they give you an idea. I think they also correspond quite well with real-world-results. They recently did a comparison for evaluation in German public-TV and tested the Alexa in a foundry and compared it to S16 Kodak 5219 (scanned with ARRISCAN). Result: resolution and dynamic range are very close, images of the Alexa are much cleaner and with higher sensitivity.
  22. I forgot "Never let me go" - but I think it won't come out in Germany within the next months? To be honest, I prefer "bigger than life"-cinematography to a certain extent, where no scene looks randomly lit or composed. Artistically, TSN appeared dull in most scenes, like the flat, slightly underexposed brownish interior scenes which were in ~60% of the movie. I cannot even remember particular scenes regarding cinematography, except for the boat race. For some people, that's the art of cinematography - I don't think so. Technically, it was the best RED-shot-movie ever! They carefully hid deficiencies just like in the previous "tries to look like film"-Fincher-movies. But occasionally, one sunny window, one light beam making the scene contrasty and the illusion fell apart. "Benjamin Button" didn't look worse, IMHO. I saw it on a very good 35mm-projection and compared to some trailers shown before, the image clearly lacked, I also saw "the American" in the very same cinema - rich, contrasty with this particular feeling of "depth" at times - despite using Cooke S4 instead of Master Primes (I like their clarity and contrast). Maybe it was the 35mm-print, but the STN-blu-ray is a very precise replication of the print I saw. Many (typically 500ASA S35, 2k-Telecine-DI) movies did look softer than TSN but others have clearly demonstrated what's possible with 35mm handled properly. I saw "Inception" just a few days apart from STN on a 28m-wide screen in 15perf - it was soft but detailed, the exact opposite of STN, IMHO.The beginning which looks as dull and brownish as most STN-scenes got a certain "dimensionality", fine tonal transitions. which made me fell how these scenes were intended to look like. But the blu-ray looks sometimes more digital and waxy than STN... No, my favourite film of Fincher: The Game - that's the Hollywood I love! And anybody seen the new Se7en-HD-Transfer? Very nice! But back On-Topic ;-)
  23. I think this thread fits in well within the "best cinematography"-thread. I thought "Shutter Island" was the best cinematography of 2010 - not very innovative, but beautifully crafted. But who cares? Not eve nominated... So I think Roger Deakins will win, although I think we've seen better work from him (beautifully shot Western: Jesse James). "Social Network" Seriously? After 10min in the theater I regretted not having waited for the blu-ray to rent - viually most underwhelming movie of Fincher ever. Very-well written film, but not well crafted, partly due to technical limitations, IMHO. "Black Swan" is the best film of 2010, IMHO - see it! Visually very "involving" but not very well lit in every scene, IMHO. Again, lack of "depth" due to limiting technology. By the way, Super16-shot "Hurt Locker" was also nominated for best cinematography. The Academy doesn't care a bit about technology. But if you want HDSLR-footage, you might be disappointed. Only 3 scenes in it with about 1min screentime.
  24. Inception: I was underwhelmed, maybe I expected more "65mm-show-off"-shots instead of realistic lit 35mm-handheld!? But overall, it looked very well and Mr. Pfister was overlooked for "Dark Knight" ("Slumdog?" Seriously?) already. True Grit: Mr. Deakins was overlooked as well and quite often... But he should have got the Oscar for "Jesse James", I've hoped that "True Grit" would more look like that, than boring "No Country" (didn't understand the whole movie, to be honest). Black Swan: Film of the year, IMHO! The visual style/ approach works great, I rarely enjoyed close-up handheld-work this much. But the cinematography itself? I think faces lacked depth due to Super16 and what about the odd lighting of Portman/ Cassel standing on the stairs during the party? Looked wrong to me. King's speech: Haven't seen it. Is it really a good movie, or just another history-piece "playing safe" and making very little wrong? Social Network: Best Film of Fincher since years. But because of Fincher? I don't think so, a good script risking very little (compared to the dramaturgy of Black Swan or Inception) and a well-trained craftsmen putting it all together (good actor, good crew) - but nothing special. Nothing "Fincheresque", IMHO. Seriously, just because everybody expected a debacle from a Facebook-biopic? And now the movie of the year? And the cinematography? Some nice, well-lit shots but the majority was pretty standard digital stuff - clean but not very detailed, odd colors limited DR and tonality - both, technically and artistically - it angers me that Fincher did much better in the 90s (but nobody dared to say "Oscar"), IMHO and isn't Fincher the one "doing" the cinematography anyway and therefore an odd choice for awards? His movies always look like Fincher - independent from the DoP and I've read he even dictates the focal length for every scene! Shutter Island: Started nearly one year ago and already forgotten? I was spoiled beforehand and couldn't enjoy the twist - but DiCaprio, the production design and the cinematography were great! Best Cinematography of 2010, IMHO. But to be honest, visually, very few movies were impressing me in 2010!?
  25. Inception: I was underwhelmed, maybe I expected more "65mm-show-off"-shots instead of 35mm-handhelf!? But overall, it looked very well and Mr. Pfister was overlooked for "Dark Knight" ("Slumdog?" for what?)
×
×
  • Create New...