Michel Hafner Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 More dynamic range than film... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Millar Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 I see a rectangle of pixels at 0 0 0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vadim Bobkovsky Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 I believe film holds overexposure better, look at the evening sky. Something is off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adrian Sierkowski Posted August 4, 2013 Premium Member Share Posted August 4, 2013 It looks pretty good I suppose; but not all that substantially different that most other high-end digital cameras. Slightly softer, but, well, 1) looking @ this on vimeo is kind of pointless. 2) I have no idea how much went on in post (e.g. color corrections, softening, noise reduction ect). I mean, I see great looking footage off of a 5D as well, it looks amazing on vimeo, because it's a sample bias. You're putting your best footage forward, normally. Aside, I don't know if red should even be fighting against film or the F65 in all honesty. If anything, their big threat has always been the Alexa. But, another day another tool and of course we'll all be happy to get eve slightly more dynamic range out of anything. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member George Ebersole Posted August 4, 2013 Premium Member Share Posted August 4, 2013 It looks pretty good I suppose; but not all that substantially different that most other high-end digital cameras. Slightly softer, but, well, 1) looking @ this on vimeo is kind of pointless. 2) I have no idea how much went on in post (e.g. color corrections, softening, noise reduction ect). I mean, I see great looking footage off of a 5D as well, it looks amazing on vimeo, because it's a sample bias. You're putting your best footage forward, normally. Aside, I don't know if red should even be fighting against film or the F65 in all honesty. If anything, their big threat has always been the Alexa. But, another day another tool and of course we'll all be happy to get eve slightly more dynamic range out of anything. At 1920 x 1080 it looks somewhat pixelated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adrian Sierkowski Posted August 4, 2013 Premium Member Share Posted August 4, 2013 I didn't notice any when I watched fullscreen HD off of the vimeo. I let it buffer, though, and it was as soon as I got up, so may've missed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted August 4, 2013 Premium Member Share Posted August 4, 2013 It looks good, it's not meant to be analyzed in detail, not on a compressed Vimeo clip. It's just a taste of things to come, to generate interest. Mark says that it has one more stop in the highlights, two or more in the shadows, I assume a bit of manual underexposure could flip that balance but it would be nice if the curves used for conversion did that... I'd rather have the increased range split more evenly or biased towards highlights. Either way, it's good news and if true, should put it on par with the Alexa if not above it in terms of DR... while already beating it in terms of resolution. Mark says that it even outperforms his Sony F65, which sounds promising. It's time for ARRI to make the next step. I had an interesting afternoon looking at a couple of 4K TV sets in a media lab -- we looked at some 4K material shot on 35mm and with some digital cameras, and I have to say that 35mm film is not as much of a reference for 4K image quality as it used to be compared to images from the Sony F65. I'm just talking technically of course, not aesthetically. I also like how the DR doesn't seem to change that much when switching from 250 ASA to 2000 ASA on the Epic Dragon, it makes the camera a lot more flexible. Probably will be a few months however before the Dragon cameras are available for rental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliver Hadlow Martin Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 Looks great. I look forward to seeing what people do with it. Having said that and despite him saying it holds highlights better than film I still find the aesthetic roll off of film more pleasing? But amazing camera none the less. Id assume Arri are the type of company to just release the camera and not do all the hype before hand? A 4k (at least) camera seems a little overdue by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Black Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 Well the original posting was rather loaded wasn't it. *sigh* Anyway I think it looks very impressive, the low light performance looks great with little noise and all this at 6K! It's taking video cameras forward to the next level. Doesn't remind me much of a grapefruit tho, just speaking personally of course. Freya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliver Hadlow Martin Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 Well the original posting was rather loaded wasn't it. *sigh* Anyway I think it looks very impressive, the low light performance looks great with little noise and all this at 6K! It's taking video cameras forward to the next level. Doesn't remind me much of a grapefruit tho, just speaking personally of course. Freya More like one of these? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Black Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 More like one of these? Wow! What is that!?? It certainly has an interesting look to it, and is suitably red! Freya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted August 4, 2013 Premium Member Share Posted August 4, 2013 Looking forward to getting my camera updated soon, I ordered within 5 minutes of orders opening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Black Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 Looking forward to getting my camera updated soon, I ordered within 5 minutes of orders opening. :) Great, glad to hear it! I think it makes sense for anyone who is invested in the Epic camera system. It looks like a much bigger jump than it was from M to MX or for that matter to Epic. I think it's going to be really interesting and actually something a bit different. I think it's daft people comparing it to existing things. I'm really hoping it will be something new. Should put people with Epic systems close to the cutting edge of digital video. Freya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Millar Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 Freya, that's a dragon fruit. Very interesting looking thing huh, but very very bland to eat (and usually expensive). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Black Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 Freya, that's a dragon fruit. Very interesting looking thing huh, but very very bland to eat (and usually expensive). Aha! heh heh! Looks classy tho. Thanks for introducing me to it. :) Maybe I will get to try one someday. Freya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Lewis Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 Still looks like video to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted August 5, 2013 Premium Member Share Posted August 5, 2013 Why, because it's grainless? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Lewis Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 (edited) Low contrast, grainless, not-that-great color. Color is subjective, of course, but it just lacks a richness that I see in film and not this. Film gives better local contrast in faces, it seems. Each time I get a workprint back from the lab and run it through a projector, I'm wowed. This doesn't get me excited, and, honestly, I find the video a little pretentious. I prefer Kodak's filmstock demo videos. They don't try to grab you emotionally because they don't have to; the stock speaks for itself. Edited August 5, 2013 by Patrick Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adrian Sierkowski Posted August 5, 2013 Premium Member Share Posted August 5, 2013 In terms of color, I was honestly least impressed with the night int @ about 1 min mark. Just didn't look "good," but that's very subjective and more than likely is an op choice -v- a specific camera thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted August 5, 2013 Premium Member Share Posted August 5, 2013 It's low in contrast and color mainly because it is a basic conversion from raw with a minimal amount of color correction -- if you saw a log scan of film you'd say that it was really, really low in contrast and color until it was corrected. Generally pushing color and contrast will reduce the dynamic range visible and since the main reason for the test is to demonstrate dynamic range, it would naturally be left somewhat subdued. Classic broadcast Rec.709 video, on the other hand, has a very limited dynamic range, which this footage looks nothing like -- if it had been shot on a betacam camcorder, I think you'd see something very different in look than this test, so I don't see why it is necessary to be so dismissive by calling it "video". It is very clean especially at night compared to high-speed film, which is the main reason why it doesn't look like film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Black Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 Still looks like video to me. Well that might be because it IS video. Well spotted. Honestly this whole thread is a great example of how easy it is to load peoples perceptions and control the dialogue. I notice the O.P. hasn't contributed at all and has no doubt gone back to hiding under his bridge. Was looking forward to discussing this but the whole thing has become a huge downer now. Maybe I should have started my own thread but I doubt it would have been worth trying, as this thread had already set the standard of conversation and contaminated all discussion on the matter. Freya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Looper Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 Looks just fine to me. Digital is like a child with parent issues. It's having trouble becoming an adult and standing on it's own two feet. The more it compares itself to film the more it fails to understand how different digital really is from film. Digital is evolving, as a different way of encoding an image. It is still learning of course, but it really needs to stop posturing all the time. It comes across as completely insecure and silly. The art of digital has come a long way and will continue to mature. Film began in the large and spawned smaller formats (16mm, 8mm, Super8). Digital began at the other end - in the small, and is growing large. It is doing fantastic work. But for goodness sake, it doesn't need to keep suggesting it's a substitute for film. It isn't. It is it's own force. Carl 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Looper Posted August 5, 2013 Share Posted August 5, 2013 Film did of course, spawn some larger formats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member George Ebersole Posted August 5, 2013 Premium Member Share Posted August 5, 2013 I didn't notice any when I watched fullscreen HD off of the vimeo. I let it buffer, though, and it was as soon as I got up, so may've missed it. Yeah, like David said it's just a compressed Vimeo clip, so my comment was unfair based on the technical limitations. Having said that, I've looked at other streams and uploads at full resolution that have been crystal clear and run smoothly. So, it's also probably a server issue. Either way it looks good windowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Walters Posted August 5, 2013 Premium Member Share Posted August 5, 2013 Wow! What is that!?? It certainly has an interesting look to it, and is suitably red! Freya The Dragon Fruit is basically all style and no substance. Just like- no, best not go there.... Asian hotels love putting dragon fruits in the "welcome" fruit basket but Westerners are inevitably disappointed. If you've ever had a Kiwi Fruit (Chinese gooseberry), imagine if they somehow forgot to add the actual "kiwi" flavour and the greenish colour. That's pretty much what a dragon fruit looks and tastes like - sweetish-tart, with lots of small seeds, and generally tasteless.... They were sort of flavour-of-the-month in Australia for a while, until people discovered that they had none :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now