Tenolian Bell

Well you're assuming it's easy to get the result you want in a CG environment because you can so precisely change the lighting and surface textures. Well I can tell you it's far far more complex than that because things behave MORE unpredictably than in the real world. To actually get the result you want and that looks great is far more fiddly than a simple adjustment slider in an interface. This is not photoshop. So when you can actually achieve a visually beautiful and story appropriate result, it's a significant achievement.

No I don't understand how its more unpredictable. The objects you are working with don't exist. They are a collection of binary code written by a programmer. The rules under which CG objects operate were created by a person. These rules can be changed simply by manipulating variables in the code

There is nothing wrong with that. The whole purpose and advantage of computer generated imagery is that the artist is not limited by the laws of the physical world. That is an incredible advantage.

It's not as different as you are suggesting....

 

I happen to know that Happy Feet commissioned a vessel at great cost to travel to Antarctica to film most of the wildlife and environment for reference material. My good friend and cinematographer Tom Gleeson, traveled as DP and shot thousands of feet of 35mm of penguins, icebergs etc for 4 months. There was a crew of 14, including animators. He also shot live action reference material of tap dancers for the animators to work from...

Yeah that was just reference material, it was not directly vital to the telling of the story. With the "March of the Penguins" filmmakers, what they shot is what they got. They had to stay out there shooting until they had a complete story.

The fact that you've made this comparison leads me to think you assume that happy feet was made by a bunch of people sitting in an office. Clearly it's not the case. And while his reference work is not strictly photography that makes it into the production, it reveals a commonly held assumption that animated films, especially CG based ones are all done in the sterile vacuum of an office rather than out in the *real world*

 

Im not trying to pick a fight. I too once thought imagery generated from a virtual environment was cheating until I tried to do it myself.

Seems you keep trying to veer the conversation into one vs the other. That's not my point at all. My point is that they are different and should be judged as so. An actor doesn't win a Tony for acting in a motion picture, nor does an actor win an Oscar for acting in theater. These two awards recognize the aesthetics of both mediums.

One pretty good way to tell. Movie theaters with true IMAX screens were originally designed and built for IMAX. Any theater that has been around for years and suddenly has a new IMAX screen is very likely an IMAX Experience.

A few movie theaters in New York have suddenly added IMAX screens, I wondered how they were totally redesigning the theater to suddenly add such a big screen. But of course its not a true IMAX screen.

I still go to the Lincoln Center Loews in Manhattan which has a true IMAX theater.

I'm not sure if anyone claimed that cinematography in the physical world is more pure. My argument is that the two are different and should not be judged together in the same award category.

I would imagine their are some type of rules set up for how light reacts the different surfaes in CGI, the same way it acts in real life. The difference being the CGI surfaces don't actually exist so you are free to adjust how the surface reacts to light so you end up with the result that you want. While the options are much more limited for changing how a real surface reacts to light. It is possible to diffuse shiny surfaces or you could change a fabric or carpeting if its not reacting to light the way you want.

I think if you look at the difference between the filmmakers who had to live in Antarctica to film "March of the Penguins" vs the filmmakers who were working in a production office Santa Monica to make "Happy Feet". There is a clear difference in challenges between the way those two movies were made.

I'm not saying one way is more valid than the other. My point is that they are too different to be judged equally.

While there are things that you can only do in an animated environment, like making lights invisible and even having negative lights, they are much harder to work with and get looking right. The surfaces in a 3D world all behave differently, so a lighting setup that works for one element, won't always look good for another element.

 

The idea that just because you work in a real environment with weather somehow makes it a more pure form is pretty narrow. I found it's much harder to light and get the result you want in a CG environment than a real one. Like any filmmaking endeavour, there are huge challenges to overcome. Sometimes throwing money at them is a way to solve the issues (aka the Hollywood solution) but there are plenty of indie animation films out there as well, using much smaller teams of people, that are just as resource and time restricted as a small indie live action.

Yes in the long run streaming and downloading are going to win. I agree at this point it isn't practical to download a movie with the quality of Blu-ray.

But there was actually another option I was talking about. Its possible at this point to store Blu-ray quality content on solid state ROM cards. They could build SD card slots into all televisions and computers. The problem with that is that it destroys the stand alone player market and its profits. Which is only inevitable, but they are trying to hold it off as long as possible.

Yadda, yadda, yadda.

 

While I agree there is plenty to be gained by being rid of CD, DVD, Blu-Ray media, and all of their finicky issues, once and for all, it'd probably take more than a DAY to download an HD movie with my current internet connection.

This is just a test -- the DVD came out this week and I just got a new iMac, and am trying a new DVD frame grab software rather than crank up my old PC to do it.

I've found SnapzPro X the best app for screen capture on the Mac.

There's also Handbreak for converting DVD video TS files into h.264 quicktime movies.

I wish Mac supported Blu-Ray...

Ah, you know it comes down to money, licensing, digital rights management, and lawyers.

I think a part of it too is that Apple philosophically wants to push past distributing media on silver discs. Technologically we are actually past media on silver discs. Studios and the consumer electronic industry are protecting an aging business model. But that's certainly a whole different discussion.

An actor can perform in a live action film, live on stage, or voice over in an animated film. They all require acting talent and skill. But all require different acting techniques that are not considered the same simply because its acting.

Cinematography is not limited to photography.

 

There you go.

If you are looking at my post. I'm not deriding the skill needed to create computer generated imagery. I'm not saying one is necessarily better than the other. But from a practical sense they are different.

When photographing a live scene you have to work in the blistering sun, rain, snow or whatever conditions exist. You have a limited amount of time to martial and organize a large group of people into getting the shots needed to tell the story. Creating computer imagery is an entirely different experience. I don't believe the two should be mixed and judged the same.

The nature of creating computer imagery, a lot of it comes down to the money and resources available. It would be much more difficult for a production with less money and fewer resources to compete with a production that has nearly unlimited money and resources.

I feel with live photography a $2 million movie has as much opportunity to be acclaimed for its cinematography as a $200 million movie.

I would envisage that there should be a separate category for CG based cinematography, but I certainly wouldn't deride it as a genuine form as many seem to feel about it here. It takes just as much skill to light and shoot in a virtual environment as a real one.

 

We are visual storytellers are we not ? Should we not be able to visually direct etch-a-sketch animation as much as live action ? Why be so hung up upon the literalness of photography being live action ?

 

jb

I say no.

The James Cameron interview with Charlie Rose. He told of how he had to spend three or four days attempting to shoot a sunset. Now he would not bother with shooting a real sunset he would just shoot green screen.

I think when it comes to awards for cinematography, you get a cinematography award for shooting a beautiful sunset, not for drawing a beautiful sunset.

When you spend three or four days attempting to shoot the beautiful sunset you have that one moment to earn that beautiful sunset. A CG sunset you can draw, erase, and tweak as much as you want until you have it the way you want it. Its a triumph of money over impatience, I don't believe you should earn a cinematography award for that.

I agree there needs to be another category for computer generated imagery.

As we get into award season, what do people think about whether "Avatar" should get a "best cinematography" nomination?

Sure, even though Blu-ray sales have tripled year over year, they are still only 3% of DVD's sales. At the same time DVD sales are going down every year. As much as the studios hope it, Blu-ray will not replace DVD.

Netflix announced that far more people stream its movies than request Blu-ray.

Care to place a bet on that?

I bet my last dollar that phonelines around the globe are on fire with conversations between directors, DPs and producers about how to convert their current pre-production projects into 3D -- maybe even some in-production films.

 

Also, consider the impact of 3D on piracy. Does anyone really want to watch a non-3D, VHS-quality "cam" copy off bit torrent of AVATAR?? No way

I doubt there is a mad dash for all production to go 3D, Avatar budget is being estimated at $200-$300 million, with an additional $200 million for marketing and distribution. I'm sure most of the studio heads are keeping all of this in context and not jumping to hyperbole.

Perhaps you haven't heard yet about 3D Blurays?

Yeah, 3D Blu-ray will be as big a hit as DVD Audio...............

At this point what gag is original? I'd never heard of Unobtanium and looked it up to see if it was real. Once I'd discovered where it came from I thought it was a great gag, and a great theme for the movie.

He's essentially making the social statement that continuing to drill and dig for finite sources of fuel is futile and unsustainable.

I wonder if Cameron knows that every engineer on the face of the earth involved in bleeding edge technology laughs about having made something using Unobtanium. I first heard it when Roger Penske referred to his unlimited sports racing cars as having axle shafts made out of Unobtanium.

 

It's not a very original gag.

I allowed myself to get engrossed in the story and enjoy it. But I can see it from both standpoints. Those who are well studied in cinema storytelling can clearly see through the plot tricks that James Cameron likes to use. The various basic character archetypes that Cameron has used for years were mostly all in the film. In Avatar he used a lot of foreshadowing. So much so to the point that it telegraphed a lot of the important plot turns, that took away from any surprise. If watching the movie through the eyes of a cinema study you can easily see the man behind the curtain pulling all the levers.

I went to see it with a group of people who know nothing about the mechanics of cinema story structure and theory and they thoroughly enjoyed. So I just allowed myself to enjoy it the way they did.

I also really feel the theme of man attempting to dominate nature and place profit over everything else is an extremely important topic to explore today. As a world society we are literally at a cross roads where we could easily choose to be the humans that were depicted in the film.

As far as the 3D, I have to agree it is the best 3D I have ever seen. Cameron wasn't so concerned with making objects jump out at you, as it was precise control of extremely shallow depth of field. That in essence is what separated the subject from the background.

It was nice but I still did not hear the collective gasp of astonishment the way I'd heard when I saw The Dark Knight in IMAX. That first shot of the Chicago skyline, the entire audience literally gasped as though we were floating above the building.

From a filmmaker standpoint, whether the move to NYC is right or not depends on what type of filmmaker you want to be. NYC is much more of a DIY independent scene. Its not directly connected to Hollywood. In many respects the mentality of NY filmmaker is vastly different from the mentality of Hollywood filmmaking.

If you are happy to make interesting artistic works without a great deal of expectation for becoming a Hollywood filmmaker, then NY is a good move. If your goal is to be a studio filmmaker, then the Hollywood environment is likely more suited towards that expectation.

That is a performance beast. It also would be a beast to carry around.

It weighs nearly 9 pounds and is nearly an inch and a half thick. The battery life at best is probably 3 hours.

Oh, and if per chance I decided to stay with Windows and maybe switch to Adobe Premiere or Avid Media Composer, I'd probably go for a Dell M6400 Covet. Pricey - but desktop performance in a laptop for sure.

I basically don't want to find at some point that the fastest Macbook Pro sags under the weight of feature-length work with lots of sound tracks and lots of effects and proceesors.

Its a notebook. By its very nature its hardware and abilities are a trade off for its size and weight. So at some point you are going to exhaust its resources. Too many demanding processes running at the same time will slow it down.

The Core 2 Duo processors and NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT graphics card used in the MacBook Pro are as powerful as a desktop from a couple of years ago. But it still has its limits.

Oh - I lied - one more question. I now have an iPhone and have transferred several short videos over to it so I can show scenes over lunch without schlepping the laptop. I've tried 1mbps Quicktime and MPEG-4 and the Qucktime movies freeze every few seconds and then start again - totally out of sync, while the MPEG-4 shows horrible motion artifacts. So what's the best format to put videos onto your iPhone?

I'm not sure why your video is freezing, the iPhone can handle 1Mbps. As far as the sync and motion artifacts that sounds like its from the compression software. With the motion artifacts its a balance between file size and data rate. The best compression software will apply the most compression to scenes with the least amount of transition in an attempt to keep the file at its designated size.

MPEG-4 is the only video codec the iPhone will play. Quickime is the media framework the iPhone uses to play MPEG-4.

An interesting example of the 7D when its used within conditions that it can handle.

Hecq Vs Exillion - Spheres Of Fury

Hi Tenolian: I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're trying to say here. Are you implying Barry is making stuff up, or that his educated guess is groundless, or what?

 

More importantly, if _you_ know how these DSLRs create video frames, are you at liberty to explain it to us? Or are you under NDA? Barry says he's spoken with the product managers at Canon & Panasonic. If you have first-hand information about the tech in these cams, can you share it with us?

I'm saying he's taking bits of information and using an educated guess to fill in the blanks. I'm saying he may be right, he may not be. These companies don't get very specific exactly about how their sensors work. A lot of that stuff is kept secret.

May I respectfully request we not drag RED into this discussion, please? I'm certain no good will come of it.

I know its a hot button topic, but its difficult to just completely ignore it exists.

As for "1/3-inch HD cameras shooting 1080P", in Barry's posts (linked above) he shows res chart frame grabs from a popular & relatively inexpensive _1/4"_ HD video camera which records 1080p HD video -- its HD video resolution beats the pants off the "HD" video recorded by DSLRs. Sure, there are 1/4" & 1/3" HD cams which produce truly sucky HD video, but not all do.

 

"Traditional" HD video cameras*, even some relatively inexpensive ones, don't have this "problem" because they have a OLPF designed for HD video, not >10MP digital stills, and they also include varying amounts of the faster/better/bigger circuitry a DSRL currently does not.**

The best I would say is that the results of his test are the circumstances of his particular test. From the information given I would not consider his test all encompassing covering every possibility. I would give it more time and more testing. I think HDSLR will be found to have advantages and disadvantages. You weigh that against what is needed to tell the story, the same as any camera system.

Every camera has some type of weakness, no camera is the best at everything. That does not automatically prove that particular camera incapable of taking nice picture under any circumstance.

Its just like when digitally shot films shoot the most dynamically challenging scenes in 35mm.

Anyhow, here is a "shockingly nice" and "surprisingly robust" image I was able to acquire on my 5D2 in video mode in the early days when the camera came out. I only had to drive 300 miles and walk through half a mile of slick, ankle deep mud for the pleasure of having these shots ruined by this camera.

Again another interesting article. In this one Barry Green is using an educated guess to construct a story of how the 5D bins frames. He doesn't fully know if its true or not.

But for the sake of argument lets say he right. If the 5D is creating 1080P from 750,000 pixels, this is still nothing new in practices of digital video. 1/3 inch HD cams shooting 1080P, are commonly using less than a million pixels. The Red One is creating 4K from a 12MP sensor, full 4K is a 36MP image.

Among other things, in his presentation Tim states that Canon DSLRs construct video frames by binning pixels.

 

I believe Barry Green accurately explains the disadvantage of using pixel binning here:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1...mp;postcount=23

I agree entirely. I'm surprised I'm defending this camera, I'm usually the one saying don't believe the hype.

What I'm objecting most too is the notion that this particular type of camera is so inferior to the others. When its problems are to one degree or another shared by all the others.

HDSLR may not be the best choice for shooting on a bright sunny Southern California beach. It may not be the best choice for shoot large vista of a mountain range. But if you are doing a small intimate show where you control most of the set design and lighting, its perfectly adequate.

Given the level of the technology, the methods being used to generate moving video on these devices, and, yes, the price, I think it would be rather shocking if this were the case. The real issue isn't whether a $1700 SLR can compete with a $20,000 video camera, it's whether it can generate moving images that are useful and in many ways more than acceptable under many conditions. Those conditions could include things like a need for interchangeable lenses, selective focus, and performance at extremely low light levels. The Canon cameras fill all of these needs. That doesn't necessarily make them suitable to be an "A" camera on a feature length drama, but it does make them uniquely suited for capturing shockingly nice moving images in many cases. There may be aliasing issues (of course there will be, all of the low pass filtering is tuned for the full size still mode), and charts may look really lousy, but real images are surprisingly robust, especially for many situations in which a typical video camera - especially 2/3" or less - would fall apart. Not to mention their ability to bring to the masses - the real masses, not just the ones who can afford a Red One - a device that can allow them to compose images they just couldn't achieve with a camcorder in the same or even remotely similar price range.

 

Everything has its place. There are lots of tools for lots of different things.

If I understand you correctly you are saying these camera's cannot record 1920x1080 even though they do fill the 1920x1080 pixel grid.

My point with the 1440 was, with so many cameras that claim to shoot 1080P on so many HD formats. What do you feel draws the line of delineation between true 1080P and false 1080P?

Point them at a chart and find out. The only thing I know for sure is that these Canon DSLRs simply are not 1080p.

Its true they do use work around because there is no way they can capture a full 21MP image at the $2000 price point. You don't need 21MP to have a great looking 1080P image. Most 3CCD block HD cams are only using around 2MP themselves.

I'm willing to cut Canon some slack. Every camera is a compromise between quality, size, and price. I don't think Canon has any intention for the 5D/7D to compete directly with full digital cinema cams.

Yes they are, very much so.

 

These cameras use huge shortcuts and workarounds. The stills sensors quite simply do not go fast enough to do video, so they end up leaving out enormous amounts of the chip - just by dividing the vertical resolution of the 5D's sensor (about 3800 lines) by the output lines (1080) we can see that it doesn't actually have to do much more than every third or fourth line, and possibly less than that. This means the OLPF is now wrong and the debayer has scanty information to work with. The other alternative would be to clock everything much faster and run it much harder and then you get noise (see: Red).

 

There's no doubt that these things would look stunning if they took the entire chip, debayered as for stills, and gave us that as video, but they don't even nearly do that and nor are they even nearly capable of doing it. Remember that the 1DS needed two DIGIC processors to do 10fps, and that's just the processing load, never mind downloading it off the sensor.

 

The other problem with the 5D is that the default picture setup is awful, just incompetent beyond belief; select whichever the softest picture preset is and wind the contrast all the way down (under C.Fn II: Image, I think but I'm not sure) and you get an extra real stop of latitude at the expense of some odd but easily fixed colour banding around highlights.

 

But to answer an earlier query: the 5616 by 3744 sensor of a 5D2, sampled in let's say 16 bit and stored as the raw bayer matrix: forty megs a frame, or just under a gigabyte a second at 24fps. But it'd look very nice.

 

P

DSLRs record their best "HD" video to SD/CF memory cards at relatively low data rates (their _live_ video HDMI video output is problematic for quality external recording*), a tiny fraction of the data rate of uncompressed SDI video (let alone HD-SDI). DSLRs record "HD" video to SD/CF cards using the 4:2:0 8-bit MPEG-4 AVC h.264 codec, with no B-frames, @ <50 megabits/sec.

What you are describing is the end point. The camera is working with higher data rates in the luminance/chroma sampling and the A/D image processing before it is compressed and laid to flash card.

In the article and related threads Barry says he used quality DSLR lenses in his tests. The lenses were also used to shoot the res chart as a digital still (in addition to the video), and the example still image in the article displays at least 2,000 lines. Typical DSLR lenses don't seem to be the limiting factor here -- instead these cam's poor "HD" video resolution performance primarily results from how they read their image sensor (binning) and how they compress frames to create motion video.

That's my point quality DSLR lens is vague. There are a lot of good quality DSLR lens, and some are of higher quality than others. Since the lens is where the image is started it does play a limiting factor is the image you end up with. Yes you are right its not the only limiting factor.

There is some experimentation with creating PL to EOS mounts, where it will be possible to mount cinema 35mm lens on DSLR. A Master Prime, Primo, or Cooke S4 may make a significant difference in the amount of detail resolution from the 7D. We really don't know until it is tested.

Again, I believe these cams can be of terrific value for certain productions, and it's helpful to understand their weaknesses so as to get the "best bang for your buck" out of them. If (very) carefully handled, in some cases the video they create can be intercut with HD from many other cams, including the EX3.

I agree its a $2000 camera. You're only going to get so much for that much money. The 5D or 7D are not going to compete directly with full HD cams.

My overall point is that the test from this article can only account for the variables and methodology of that particular test. This one test does not cover all circumstances and possibilities of using these cameras. There are several other tests that can be run that may yield different results.

The numbers between HD and SD don't correlate that way. 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 don't mean the same thing between SD and HD because HD is sampling (at least) twice as much information, and recording a higher data rate.

Plus there are a lot of questions about the authors methodology for shooting the resolution chart. He didn't give any information about his method or what lens he used. He very likely could have used a better lens that could have resolved more detail.

That is an interesting article, but what is more interesting about it is that none of the points made in it are anything new. Digital video has always used smoke and mirror tricks to hide aliasing, chromatic aberration, and banding. Digital video has long used edge sharpening and contrast to make an image appear sharper than it really is. The points made in the article apply to pretty much all digital video formats in one way or another.

HD and SD use entirely different sample rates, bit rates, chroma sampling, and color space. I seriously doubt the Sony DSR-450WSL can equal the 5D, because its recording less information in every way.

Its a interesting article but I wouldn't call it the final word on HDSLR shooting. There will be more tests that will reveal more information.

The DSLR cams produce "HD" video with about 600 lines resolution or so, plus lots of aliasing. Links to test charts are here:

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?sh...st&p=304072

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the live SDI output of my Sony DSR-450WSL (a SD cam with three 1MP 2/3" CCDs) would be higher res when properly up-converted to 1080p compared to what's produced by the current crop of "HD" DSLRs.

 

Doesn't mean DSLRs can't produce useful HD video. But they aren't as truly hi res as most "traditional" HD video cams, including some relatively inexpensive ones, or even some SD cams.

 

See also:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=187503