Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pieces. A new selection of footage.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • stip
    replied
    Originally posted by John Brawley View Post
    I think RED have always said their sensor is 320, but the sweetspot for exposure is 800. At this ISO, you're less likely to OVER EXPOSE the sensor and get the most DR.

    jb
    They have been pretty reserved with clarification for a long time in which they stated ISO800 to be the 'base sensitivity' (and from reading through comments here you can see that people still have that info). Guess they didn't want a 'noise' discussion to overtake in advance.

    Anyway, didn't mean to nit-pick and will stop here, footage looks great, thanks!!

    Leave a comment:


  • razz16mm
    replied
    The native sensitivity for most silicon based sensors, the exposure index that produces a 50 IRE signal from an 18% gray card with about 3 stops of peak headroom, falls between 100 and 200 ISO. This is a physical property limit of conventional silicon wafers whether it is a solar cell or a camera sensor.
    Improvements in sensor and chip design and fabrication have greatly increased signal to noise ratios, in some cases by as much as 20dB over the last 5 years, increasing total DR. So it is now possible to underexpose by several stops without unacceptable noise consequences and bring video levels to normal in post or in camera processing and encoding. That is where the real change has taken place.
    Here is a test sample from the Kineraw S35 done by Dan Hudgins that perfectly illustrates this. He included an uncorrected linear exposure shot near the end.

    Last edited by razz16mm; 08-07-2012, 01:12 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • laco
    replied
    John,

    this was shot with the Tiffen ND filters you wrote in another thread?
    It seems it works great in daylight.

    Thanks for the work!

    Leave a comment:


  • John Brawley
    replied
    Originally posted by stip View Post
    Ok, thanks, I think I expressed myself bad, I was trying to get my head around the true 'raw' sensitivity of the sensor.
    Coming from RED I know that raw sensor sensitivity and manufactorer claimed 'base' sensitivity don't have to be the same.
    I think RED have always said their sensor is 320, but the sweetspot for exposure is 800. At this ISO, you're less likely to OVER EXPOSE the sensor and get the most DR.

    jb

    Leave a comment:


  • stip
    replied
    Originally posted by John Brawley View Post
    NO.

    I shot some footage with an ISO 320 That then became 400 later. BUT the camera has always had three ISO settings. I could have shot that footage at ISO 800 or iso 1600.

    The shot done at ISO 320 was the setting the WOULD become ISO 400. Not ISO 800.

    Seriously. I've said twice that 320 was not what is now 800....

    jb

    Ok, thanks, I think I expressed myself bad, I was trying to get my head around the true 'raw' sensitivity of the sensor.
    Coming from RED I know that raw sensor sensitivity and manufactorer claimed 'base' sensitivity don't have to be the same.

    Originally posted by John Brawley View Post
    I have been shooting ISO 400, ISO 800 and ISO 1600. Though in RAW, they are all kind of the same thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Brawley
    replied
    Originally posted by mattbatt View Post
    Exactly, that is your opinion. I saw this on Leah's eye lashes as well and was criticized. Anyway, I also have 100% stills, which again, I saw this artifacting right away. I'm just sharing what I found, it would be great if they were all from the EF-S, which it may be. And it may be a type of chromatic aberration like I originally said, but most CA does not have a pattern...
    The issue you note on Leah was a DIFFERENT issue that looks visually the same as aliasing. (it was a different bug) This is why MORE of the Leah footage wasn't released at the time.

    jb

    Leave a comment:


  • John Brawley
    replied
    Originally posted by mattbatt View Post

    First look through, I saw it at 100%. The moire is blue and orange on fine detailed horizontal and vertical lines.
    This is aliasing / moire. This is where you can see what sometimes happens when you don't have an AA filter. Very fine detail can sometimes "catch" like this. The question is....is it offensive ? Is it more offensives because we "notice" it ? A lot of people didn't notice it until pointed out in 300% enlargements and even then, it was interpreted as possible CA. That's the level of this...on par with CA.

    Personally, I'd rather take the extra resolution for the slight ping like this and have the choice to not have the AA filter.

    jb

    Leave a comment:


  • John Brawley
    replied
    Originally posted by stip View Post
    Epic and Scarlet's sensor sensitivity is eqivalent to ISO 320, they just promote ISO 800 as 'sweet spot' for exposure but it's not it's base sensitivity.
    So did I get this right, it has been 400 for the BMCC pre production early model, now it's 800?
    NO.

    I shot some footage with an ISO 320 That then became 400 later. BUT the camera has always had three ISO settings. I could have shot that footage at ISO 800 or iso 1600.

    The shot done at ISO 320 was the setting the WOULD become ISO 400. Not ISO 800.

    Seriously. I've said twice that 320 was not what is now 800....

    jb

    Leave a comment:


  • Kevin Marshall
    replied
    NTFS would definitely be the more universal option. Obviously Windows can read/write to it, but OS X can at least read it natively (good enough for dumping cards) - where Windows cannot even read HFS natively. As for programs/drivers - the free option for HFS on Windows (HFS explorer) only allows read access, while the free NTFS option for OS X (NTFS 3G) allows read/write (though only works in 32-bit, I think). Of course there are paid solutions - I personally use Paragon HFS on my Windows partition. While it would of course be great to have the option of NTFS, I'd say $20 for Paragon (or a little more or MacDrive) is not a debilitating addition to a BMC purchase.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mark Nicholson
    replied
    Footage again looks amazing. Perfect DR

    Leave a comment:


  • stip
    replied
    Originally posted by nickjbedford View Post
    The RED and ARRI digital cinema cameras all have a native ISO of 800 as well as the BMD and the Canon C300 is ISO 850.
    Epic and Scarlet's sensor sensitivity is eqivalent to ISO 320, they just promote ISO 800 as 'sweet spot' for exposure but it's not it's base sensitivity.
    So did I get this right, it has been 400 for the BMCC pre production early model, now it's 800?

    Leave a comment:


  • Brian@202020
    replied
    Originally posted by rawCAM35 View Post
    ...and I will end it right here.
    Originally posted by rawCAM35 View Post
    NTFS is what I posted " why not offering NTFS option, "
    Hmmmm.

    Leave a comment:


  • rawCAM35
    replied
    [QUOTE=laco;12975]Paragon NTFS is another option as well.

    NTFS is what I posted " why not offering NTFS option, "

    Leave a comment:


  • mattbatt
    replied
    Originally posted by t.p. View Post
    yaeh i also think this is chromatic aberration made by the lens
    but also in my opnion screencapturing a still from vimeo , and choosing the widest shots and the most distant details in the background , and enlarging it by 300% doesnt qualify for me as testing the camera or even pixel peeping

    this would mean something if it was taken from the original prores file of the camera , but its not
    Exactly, that is your opinion. I saw this on Leah's eye lashes as well and was criticized. Anyway, I also have 100% stills, which again, I saw this artifacting right away. I'm just sharing what I found, it would be great if they were all from the EF-S, which it may be. And it may be a type of chromatic aberration like I originally said, but most CA does not have a pattern...

    Leave a comment:


  • laco
    replied
    Originally posted by Brian@202020 View Post
    As far as I know the only decent reliable way to write NTSF on a mac is NTSF-3G which can be a pain to implement for the average user.
    Paragon NTFS is another option as well.

    But I think there was something else in mind when they choose HFS+ over NTFS (maybe license costs?, IDK)

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X