Jump to content

Evangelos Achillopoulos

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Evangelos Achillopoulos

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Digital Image Technician
  1. Hello Paul, thanks... It seems that I must add an LCoS tech in film recorders area, to explain... A VERY demanding European partner has done the test... 4K scope in LaserGraphics with Vision 3 5201 Cam Neg. against 4K scope in Aaton K Kodak 2242 internegative... winner was Lasergraphics and the camera negative... Its like comparing a lamp audio amplifier with a digital one... Nothing beats the lamp... The sound from a Lamp amplifier is sweet because its analogue... Camera negative has character that is missing from internegative stocks... also the natural anti-aliasing of phosphor along with the natural flare of the lamp, are rounding things and make them more appealing, while you can still count 4K in the microscope on neg... The only reason that I don't do many Filmouts is just because politics and price dumping... There isn't a single blind comparison that we have done all over the world, the last three years, that not come out as a winner... Aaton K is working with a "Sony style" 4K LCoS panel... if you see from close up in a projection screen a gray card, you will notice the individual pixels... you can't shoot pixels and print pixels and expect to get it good... Pixels can only be printed analogue... and analogue can be printed in both pixels and analogue... Google: "Lcos mirror photo" and see the pixels...
  2. What actually David is claiming is not totally correct... let me elaborate in a more down to earth manner and a bit excadurated, very closely to what Phil's chart try to show: Let’s assume that we want to capture an 8 stops image from a sensor that has 12 bits internal processing that’s 4096 steps of light intensity to an 8bit compressed H264 file that’s 256 steps like a 5D camera is doing. In “linear” the top brightest stop n. 8 will consume 128 steps, the stop n. 7 will consume the next 64 steps and the stop n. 6 will consume the next 32 steps. The top 3 brightest stops of an image when is being described in linear will result to “consume” the 87,5% of the available bits in a file, leaving the lower 5 stops of the mid-tones/shadows to be described by just 32 bits…!!! On "Log" we allocate 10 stops in equivalent segments like 25 bits for each stop. That results to a secondary data compression of an applied curve, which needs to be decompressed with the use of an appropriate 3D LUT in order to counteract accurately also the saturation of the converted image. By doing that we effectively recreate information that wasn’t visible in the original file but was there in the original image the sensor was capturing. So the difference between Linear and Log is night and day…
  3. After a long time of collecting and preparing I’m very happy to announce our new web site has today finally launched… even though few things are missing… It’s designed to educate about workflows and LUT’s, what is Log and what is Linear, what are the differences, how you can get a DCP XYZ conversion LUT, what’s the differences between Film recorders etc… How with one Color Grading session you can deliver on anything like, Film, DCP, HD, internet etc. What is the Digital Delimma and why your Digital movie is in danger if it’s not stored in a medium that can withstand 60 years in store and ignore state and be there for the next generations… There is an array of services we offer for all the actors of Cinematography… Post facilities, Producers, Cinematographers, DIT’s and Students can get a helping hand from us… Also generic LUT’s for typical Apple MAC setups running Color, DaVinci, Iridas, Scratch, 3cp etc… Also LUT’s for cameras like Alexa, RED, F3, F35 etc… And lastly lots of awarded movies we have done with our clients around the world with high res images, info and articles… For the first three clients of the consulting packages I will give a refund of 40%... Hope its interesting… awaiting your comments… http://www.motionfx.gr/film-overview.html
  4. And the also famous fluid zoom drive, it has being used more than the others but again rarely, it is smooth as silk... detailed description: 102-13 Fluid Zoom Drive mod. 0.8 gear Cinestyle & Film 102-13-01 Bracket for Fluid Zoom Drive Canon 8-64 + 7-63, with rod Total list 1637$ My price is 800 euro's including shipping everywhere (that's about 1145$ with todays exchange rate) As a package deal I will also do a better price... 5500 euro's for all (matte box, FF, fluid drive) including shipping with DHL everywhere... Or If you want just the Mattebox and the FF my price for you is 5000 euro's including shipping with DHL everywhere... The items I sell, is for 15mm lightweight 60mm spacing system. There are a lot of bridge plates available, the best is from Element Technica that has the support and the rods for the 15mm lightweight... http://www.elementtechnica.com/products/view.php?p=64 http://www.elementtechnica.com/products/view.php?p=72 Or for RED users you can use this which acts like a bridge plate... I like this, more... http://www.elementtechnica.com/products/view.php?p=95 I select the lightweight because the19mmm are very heavy... Also there are adapters if you search Google for "15mm to 19mm adapter"... from Chrosziel, Arri, Zacuto, ET and many others also in ebay... http://cgi.ebay.ie/19mm-to-15mm-Brid...08201510001r52 Payment is with bank transfer. I will also expect offers if you don't agree with what I'm asking
  5. The follow focus is the famous studio FF with dual handwheel's and 0.8mm gear read to be used for cine lenses, also there are four replacing scales,(not that the original want replacing... they not even used...), very smooth motion like new, detailed description: 201-01 Studio Rig -Film-, focus control incl. handwheel with scale, focus lever list price 3699 201-02 2nd Handwheel for Studio Rig incl. Scale list price 600$ 201-04 Scale for Studio Rig (201-/203-) list price 224$ (four pieces) 201-12 Focus Drive for Video prime lenses and Cine Style, for Studio Rig, mod 0.8 - Ø 25,6 mm, B 8mm (teeth 30) list price 159$ Total list 4682$ My price is 2400 euro's including shipping with DHL everywhere (that's about 3437$ with todays exchange rate) In the following post is the fluid zoom and last details...
  6. I have two cameras... and I have two sets of Chrosziel matte box, FF, and one fluid drive... I decided to sell one set... because it seems that I never rent both on the same time for some unknown reason... so the triple stage one and the one studio FF are getting dust the last few years on the shelf... they are used for just five or six ads... so there are like new... clean and unused... just some dust... Very few times I have used the fluid zoom drive, so I will let it go also... Both Fluid zoom drive and FF motion, is smooth as silk... The matte box is a swing away triple stage, with two rotating. Its for 15mm rods, can be used an adapter to mount to 19mm rods... or just change the swing away arm... detailed description: 805-02 Wide angle MatteBox 16:9/4:3 and Film, incl. housing (CLWAH-F8), french flag, pivot mechanism, swing-away bracket for Ø 15mm LWS rods, single filterstage with 1 filterholder multi-format 4x4/4x5.650 (410-31), rear plate Ø 142,5mm list price 4380$ 820-02 Double filterstage, rotatable, without Filterholders, for MB 805 list price 600$ 410-200 Set of Side Wings for wideangle housing, large list price 625$ 410-31 Filterholder multi-format for 4x4 and 4x5.650 horizontal filters (150mm wide) list price 318$ 410-31 Filterholder multi-format for 4x4 and 4x5.650 horizontal filters (150mm wide) list price 318$ 410-14F Rubber Bellows Retaining Ring Ø 142.5:95 mm list price 379$ 410-50 Retaining Ring Ø 142,5:120 mm list price 244$ 410-52 Retaining Ring Ø 142,5:117 mm and 117,4 mm for RED 300mm list price 159$ Total list 7023$ My price is 2800 euro's including shipping with DHL everywhere (that's about 4010$ with todays exchange rate) in following post is the FF...
  7. Hello to all Please check this post in DVXuser: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=174960 Please comment...
  8. We have developed a GG for Brevis that doesn't have a diffused side... both sides are totally polished like a glass window. It doesn't diffuse the image and it doesn't have grain. We called FiberScreen because it is made of fiber optics. Its like ARRI's 435 viewfinder. This test is with the FiberScreen. It is noticeable sharper than Pro35 to the point that it can be intercut with regular 2/3 lenses... http://www.motionfx.gr/ggrelay_galery.htm
  9. Ravi, please go to menu under the diagnostic menu and tell me the camera status. Is it 11? Do you see any noise when in wide mode? Can you post the full size tiff? It will be great to see a color corrected image...
  10. The question John is 1) why someone would buy an F23 and not a Viper? and 2) why Vipers are vanished? Only Fincher can understand the difference?
  11. Averege is going half way to what a sophisicated algorithm will do... So the point is, that five years after Thomson introduce Viper, Sony build an F23 that is a lot less of a cinema camera than Viper is... In all aspects... DR, resolution, scope capable etc... So F23 can be a good B-camera on a Viper project...
  12. John, Even if its on-chip averaging, that doesn't mean that light is not falling in physically different photosites, that have different noise patterns and light levels, in the same point in time... that is exactly the same as if it was, on a later step inside a DSP done an average processing step... the result will always be, lower noise floor and quieter resolution with no ringing effects... the same thing like getting 4K RGB frame and downres to HD res... the only problem is that we don't have access to the original 4K image... And yes you get more resolution, when shoot in 1:2.35 scope an ISO res chart we get 1300 lines... instead of 980... and that's because in scope the camera records in 1440 vertical resolution... but records only the center portion of it that is 1080 in anamorphic scope... So its not only clever, it is also very effective idea...
  13. I don't thing that the design behind this sensor has to do with the 2/3 manufacturing easiness... because is the only 3 x 9Mpixels CCD sensor that Thomson is using, and its being designed from scratch to do scope... I thing David, a better reasoning is the 2/3 "culture" that they had... R&D to a bigger CCD wafer is much easier than a smaller... the breakthrough in microelectronics is to make things smaller... so toooo many broadcast engineers around that project... and they have Fu%$#$@ it... The performance of the camera today has nothing to fear from F23... and a lot to fear from F35... RED is another story... DoF is the number one difference... WHICH IS BIG, and in favor of RED... Dynamic range which is in favor of Viper by at least 2,5 stops... Motion artifacts like skew and global shutter are non exist in Viper since it is using a true mechanical shutter. The uncompressed nature of Viper gives much better results in all aspects of image, but its harder to work with than RED... Resolution is another subject... lets compare... in case of CinemaScope feture, like "Benjamin Button"... With RED we have at 4K in the center of an ISO card 1450 lines, with Viper in scope mode, we have 1300 lines. When we film out we using, 2K film recording almost 99%... So with RED we get from a 4096 x 1742 bayer, thats 7.1 Mpixels source, we get 2048 x 871 image. With Viper we get from a 1920 x 3240 RGB sensor, thats 3 x (1920 x 3240)= 18,66 Mpixels source, a 1920 x 1080 anamorphic scope image... RED = 2048 x 871 = 1.78Mpixels in the theatrical CinemaScope projection F23 = 1920 x 817 = 1.56Mpixels in the theatrical CinemaScope projection F35 = the same as F23... Viper = 1920 x 1080 anamorphic pixels = 2.07Mpixels in the theatrical CinemaScope projection So with Viper against RED, F23, F35, we get a better resolution by at least 25% when projecting in CinemaScope... Viper has a bigger resolution than all the others and it gets that because of the 27Mpixels sensor... If the CinemaScope its not Cinema and DoF is what matters, then its not a Digital Cinema camera... But to judge a camera like Viper with how its being list in a web site... for me, the marketing guys in Thomson, they have mess it up big time... For me Viper is way better than all Sony cameras apart from F35... As i see it is EPIC FF35, D21, F35, Viper and all the rest
  14. Its the only 3 x 9Mpixels camera that Thomson builds, its the only 2,35 :1 native HD camera... it has 27.5Mpixels CCD to deliver a 1080p image, thats x4 oversampling... its 2.5 times the pixel count of RED... it has a real mechanical shutter... So no David, I disagree, its not designed for TV... its a real Digital Cinema camera... In CinemaScope mode with standard lenses, it delivers the same resolution as RED does... with the difference that the same pixels are derived from 2x source pixels as RED has... I don't thing a regular broadcast camera gets 13 Oscar nominations... F23 its not even close... Of coarse an S35mm ccd on a new Viper would not heart us...
×
×
  • Create New...