Carl Nenzen Loven
-
Posts
220 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Carl Nenzen Loven
-
-
1 minute ago, Patrick Baldwin said:
You would have to budget for all the Horlicks you would need in order to sleep at night....
Good point....probably be bankrupt by June...
C
-
1 minute ago, Phil Connolly said:
You'd still be lying, just because your clients clueless (many are) thats not really an excuse. 9 times out of 10 you'd possibly get away with it, but if you get found out if could blow up in your face. I've literally been in that situation passing off RED 3K footage as 4K, it was a DOP mistake, but I had to go eat humble pie when the client found out (they had paid extra for 4K).
So yes you could get away with it. But it would be dishonest
Also your not saving yourself any money.
You'd need an F3 + 4K SDI up-converter + external recorder + extra storage + power etc...
That rig would cost more then a budget 4K all in one camera e.g Ursa Mini, SH1, BM Pocket 4K and result in less good images. So for the same outlay you can have an actual 4k rig. The black magic pocket 4K shoots nicer images then the F3 and its $1300.
I hear you...but moral isn't really the discussion right here, right now. And as I clearly stated at the top. I know there are other cameras out there that does 4k, and everything that I have mentioned here.
I was curious if there was actual was a way to do it in the pipeline. For example, if it does work I can use the same rig for a F35 as well if that becomes the next step.
I already have the recorder, storage, and a sweet deal for a F3. So for me the biggest investment and hurdle would be to power the converter from P-tap possibly.
C -
Just now, Phil Connolly said:
Thats the point 1080p prores doesn't take much space. 4K prores does
Also if the client demands 4K you should give them 4K not uprezed 1080p. Sure you might get away with it, but its not very honest. If I as a client was expecting 4K and got uprezed 1080p I would be not happy (even if it looked fine) I'd feel ripped off
Right...but if F3 upscaled to 4k in 422 looks better than DSLR 4k in 8-bit...and the client is hiring has no knowledge about this, I wouldn't say it matters?
C -
2 minutes ago, aapo lettinen said:
Oh you meant like 30 years ago, not today. The typo was misleading ?
What typo?
It says made in the original post ?
C -
3 minutes ago, Phil Connolly said:
Isn't it more efficient to deliver a 1080p file from a storage perspective. A 4K file would need potentially 4X the disk space for minimal visual gain.
If I was editing I wouldn't be keen on do a 4k post workflow on upscaled 1080p rushes. It would take up more space, slow down my machine and renders for no reason. Personally as a client I wouldn't want upscaled 1080p rushes for that reason. From a workflow perspective, its going to be much more efficient to have a 1080p project with a 4K uprez at the end vs upressing the rushes. On longer form projects where you may end up with 100's of hours of footage - you want to keep file-sizes manageable. A 4K post workflow is only really worthwhile if you actually getting better images... You could find the nice 4:4:4 1080p images of the F3 are good enough and just stick with that. 4K isn't always needed
If 4K is really important for your clients - the Black Magic Pocket 4K is probably a better shout. Then you get internal 4K to a good codec for a similar price point.
Last I checked the ProRes from the F3 does not take up that much space, and if I am not the one doing the edit or anything in post and the client demands 4K, that's where I am thinking of.
I know 4k isn't always needed either.
C -
29 minutes ago, Phil Connolly said:
This would probably do the job:
https://cvp.com/product/blackmagic_bmd-convmsdimux4k
But outside of using it on live multi-cam shows that need a 4K signal what would be the point. Your just increasing the recorded file size significantly for no improvement in the image.
Upscaling, is best left to post production then you can use tools like: https://videoai.topazlabs.com/ to get vastly better results then what you'd get on a real time portable converter. A 4:4:4 file from an F3 processed through Gigapixel would probably look very close to 4K origination.
True, but it would still mean I need to deliver a 1080p file to upres.
Also, when I tried using the topaz labs, but it didn't read my ProRes...and only did output compressed formats...C
-
29 minutes ago, aapo lettinen said:
that meaning ANY film stock... the stills films too.
The reason why film is made in wide master rolls is because the edges of the roll are always uneven and have to be cut out. So there will be less waste if one always coats a very wide roll and then just slits it down to smaller formats. That way much larger percent of the coated material is good quality and usable.
I think you are misreading my question.
I am curious what companies that MADE 65 mm perforated back in the heyday. All those IMAX movies we saw as kids, was it always Kodak? Or did any other company try to make stock as well in those sizes.C
-
Hi!
First, I know there will be other options out there for cameras, so please only address the issue at hand.
I am considering to invest in a Sony F-3 for future work. While I know there are a lot of options out there already, and getting a different brand of camera, I like the look, and the fact that you can record 444 out of the camera makes it a possible to still use to a point. And it even looks great upscaled (from the test I have done).
However, I know some people will want a 4k pipeline and have the footage like that delivered.
So I was wondering, is there a 1080p to 4k upscaled that can be attached to a camera feeding out SDI?
C -
Hey everyone,
Like most in this forum I'm a hardcore film nut, and like to learn more every day, to understand the medium and improve. Now with the resurge of 65 film for Kodak, and people ramping up hand rolling short ends into their cameras, I was curious to know what companies that actually made 65 mm film.
Kodak still does, but did Fuji ever venture into the IMAX / 65mm size? Were there other options?
And also, has anyone ever made a black/white 65 mm stock? (clearly a VERY specific look but...)
C -
Hi there,
Selling my Canon 8-64 mm lens, with donut, and grey pelican case.
Visually looks a bit worn but optically 100%
Lens is located in Los Angles, and can be shipped, or local pickup.
$3600USD + shipping, or best offer
-
Hi there,
Selling my Eclair ACL 1.5
The kit comes in a flight case and includes:
Eclair ACL 1.5 Body with 12-75 FPS motor and fully articulated viewfinder
2 x 200 ft magazines (french)
1 x 400 ft magazine (french)
2 re-celled Ni-Mh batteries
1 modern fast charger for batteries
Arri PL mount adapter
Arri B, and S, mount adapter
Base fitted to attach 15 mm rods (which are included)
SmallRig modern top handle
Original Eclair top handle
Jaeger to block battery cable
I sadly don’t use it enough anymore so I want to to go to someone that loves it. I bought it for $1900 including shipping a few years back, but it has since then been properly converted to S16 and maintained by Super 16 INC.
$1600 USD or Best offer
-
Spoke to Bernie at Super16 on the phone.
He told me it isn't dangerous at all.
C -
Paul at Shruco Tool is who Andree at AM uses IIRC, I think hes the last guy around that resurfaces them (at least Arri ground glasses). I know hes about to do a batch of them this month, might want to email him this week at shurcotool@aol.com. Hes a bit old school, so email turnaround tends to be a few days to a week
They do not do Eclairs anymore.
C
-
Hi Carl,
I have a NPR in exactly the same situation, and I want to install a camera on it too. I was thinking about using the camera most of the time and establishing marks on the monitor with actual guidelines after testing with film, but if you can find someone who can do it, I'd be interested in knowing more if you want to share that info.
Ill let you know for sure.
Im building a 4K video tap as well, Ill let you know about that as well...
-
Hi there,
I finally have gotten my Eclair ACL kit to work, and it has been out on a handful of jobs. I love it.
Thing is, I am now making a video tap for it, to try to modernize and make it an alternative to the alluring SR's, and 416's of the world. One issue though is that the repairman that made my conversion, Bernie at Super 16 Inc, made the frame lines by hand. And that's all good for myself using it privately, but it does come across as a bit unprofessional in the working world.
My question is, is there anyone in the Los Angeles area that potentially could make me a custom ground glass to replace what I already have in the camera? Preferably someone that knows Aatons internals (since they are basically an Eclair).
//C -
I have a couple of S16 (Visual products I think) French 400' mags and a couple of standard 16 English 400' mags. Problem is the shipping is a bit high from NZ. But the exchange rate is good now, so maybe workable..PM me and we can swap email....
Would you consider parting with 1-2 french mags?
C
-
I watched some of Jason's video, but the ideas are a bit fuzzy. Carl, in a few simple words, what is the problem?
With a little skill and understanding, removing and mounting motors is not difficult. The bigger motor, the common multispeed one, not the CP one, has a larger mounting flange that fits over the original one.
The 9 pin canon connector is a bit fragile, given that non trained people remove and mount the motors. They only cost about USD25, but can take a few hours to swap out. I think any good camera tech who likes to solder can do it.
The story I have, and I don't know if it is true, is that Andrew at AZSpectrum is the only one who knows how to work in depth on the motor electronics...http://www.az-spectrum.com/ He can be quite generous with advise if approached well. Finer points of mounting motors and so forth.
A year or so ago Visual products had plenty of the 9 pin canon connectors.
The motor itself is vibrating, creating a louder noise of the camera than intended.
I managed to a temporary fix with soft side velcro put in between the body and the motor. And since my screws doesn't really seem to tighten the motor that well, I will settle for the fix for now. But future I might want ot take it off and properly velcro to stop any vibrations.
C
-
Hi there,
I am finally busting out my lovely ACL for work on Saturday again, and I just want to check that everything works again.
It seems I had the same issue as the great Jason Hinkle had on his motor.
And I am wondering if there is a way to take off the motor, and tighten the screws? I would love to send it out to Bernie, but I have no time to do it now sadly.
C -
Just curious why you'd want to use an Elaine. It never really was a go to camera for 16mm needs, and Panavision should have plenty of SR3s, SR3HS, 416s and Aatons
1. Would be fun to learn one more system.
2. Hoping that might be able to score a deal with a camera that NEVER goes out. I got 2500 ft of 16mm lying around that I want to shoot, and it not getting any fresher...even if they are in the fridge...
C
-
Hey Carl,
Do you need two cameras or are you just double posting. if so, bad boy...!
I had issues posting in the PV forum first. This one can be removed. Sorry.
C
-
Hi there,
Just curious, is there any location that still have the Elaine camera for rental, and if not, for sale?
I heard a lot of bad things about them, but would love to try it out.
C
-
Hi there,
Just curious, is there any location that still have the Elaine camera for rental, and if not, for sale?
I heard a lot of bad things about them, but would love to try it out.
C
-
Post knowledge? I work with XAVC all the time. It has nothing to do with "lack of knowledge" it has everything to do with it being a crap codec.
XAVC is an MPEG 2 variant and where it differs from the Long GOP variations, it has exactly the same problems with dispersed/hardware decoding.
This means, a very simple 10 bit XAVC 4:2:2 file @ 29.97 4k will playback fine as one stream, but add additional layers/streams and you're cooked. Doesn't matter how fast of a machine you have, doesn't matter how good your storage is. Heck even Avid's wonderful XAVC integration, still requires transcoding.
Pro Res for instance is a multi-threaded codec, so it disperses its decoding on the processors. Cinema DNG and RED code are both GPU intensive decoding, so they playback fine with a decent GPU even with multi-layers.
XAVC-I was designed specifically to be an editing codec, it's Sony's "competitor" to Pro Res HQ. Yet, it's a complete failure for that, you have to transcode to either 1080p XAVC which works a lot better OR Pro Res. Then when you relink to the camera originals (they are not negatives), you still have all the same issues with playback, especially in DaVinci. Good luck doing powerwindows or multi-layer finishing.
When you shoot RAW, you always need to transcode. When you shoot standard Rec709 media like XAVC-I, the only reason you should need to transcode is to save space on editing system, outside of that, there is no excuse for such a shitstorm of a codec. Anyone who works with Pro Res can attest to how bad XAVC is.
The C300MKII looks much warmer and natural in every way. I've shot quite a bit with it in standard Clog mode and it's always impressed me. It's unfortunate it too is an XAVC-I camera.
The external recorder on the F5/F55 that creates raw files, is cool... but like all Raw formats, you're stuck transcoding at some point.
Pro Res XQ is a far better camera origination format and the only reason Sony doesn't have it is because they wanna force customers into using their codec, rather that what the customers may want to use. This is what I keep tell people about Sony... they FORCE you to do what they want you to do and put up road blocks if you wanna do anything else. Buy this special adaptor, buy this special software update, work with this special card and card reader, work with this special ingestion software, work with that special propritary codec, yada yada yada.
Arri, Red, Blackmagic and a few other brands, figured out that Pro Res was a necessity, so they integrated it. Capturing directly to the codec you will be editing is a lifesaver in post, it can save WEEKS of rendering time.
Yes thank you for explaining what X-AVC is, and the difference in the encoding. I think all of us taking part in this discussion already knew this. But great job trying to prove a point.
So what you are basically saying is what Stuart also confirmed. If you light it properly, it will still look great in post. But you want to alter it a lot.
And then using RAW seems like you are consider it cheating? It may be complicated, but you are setting up your own boundaries here.
C
-
Also wrong. Correctly lit and exposed footage looks great straight out of the camera. if you're relying on a good grade to get good images, then you're doing something wrong.
Ok, Stuart I'm trying to really get to a middle ground here as well. I do think that it looks great out of the camera, but I think the RAW footage gives an amazing image as well.
I did say that the RAW image with a good grade looks amazing, that does not mean the other doesn't, or does it?
C
Upscaling ProRes
in Accessories (Deprecated SubForum)
Posted
This is turning into a pseudo-discussion...I never brought up the client aspect.
Just curious to know if there is a way to make the F3 footage 4K in the recording process. I probably would never purposely lie to client about this, and honestly that still doesn't matter here for the discussion still.
But thank you for your valuable input, and I will take your moral advise in consideration as well.
C