Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

We who prefer 2K Super 16 over 4K+ Super 35 - The *unofficial* Super 16 RAW thread

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

  • Originally posted by alex.stefani View Post
    The secret of the D16 was in the bayer filter for the colors. At that time, the Kodak engineers who designed the sensor were not concerning so much about the ISO (nobody complained about low ISO in the film era) their main goal was to extract the best colors. And they are indeed the most cinematic colors that a camera has ever produced..

    However, BM has updated the Bayer filter of the Ursa Mini lately (in the G2) and now I see a remarkable difference. Check the colors of the G2, they're very close to Alexa.
    It seems that this improvement has passed over in silence, but for me it is a substantial progress!
    Alex, I think you will find, the D16 is a single Kodak CCD sensor, so no Bayer filter.

    Comment


    • Their is a nice clip (shot with B4 lens) on this review, https://www.provideocoalition.com/a-...camera-review/.

      Nice shots here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xcpTCuP_gE4

      Also, often overlooked, the Urs Mini 4K (PL version) has excellent motion cadence with its global shutter, getting images like the S16.
      Cheers

      Comment


      • A lot of what is ‘magical’ about the footage linked above is color grade related, not sensor size or shutter.

        UM4K would be my choice for global shutter, though nowadays I’m less enthralled after several projects with my PC4K where the distinct “blur” of the global shutter resulted in narrow objects becoming almost invisible when moving quickly.

        I imagine 60fps global shutter would be really magical with some good grading.

        Why not the f55? I’ve read that the post workflow can be quite burdensome, and global shutter has become something of a niche requirement for special shots so such a heavy investment doesn’t make much sense.
        Last edited by GeranSimpson; 05-21-2019, 11:30 AM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by NoxNoctus View Post
          Outside of the global shutter, not really. Even less so now with the superfast sensor refresh rates available on the new cams. If all you want to do is cheeky niche home video stuff, sure. Any other purpose is easily emulated with FilmConvert or other tools
          You can emulate 1TB memory, automatic offload, full size XLRs with real amps and a long lasting battery in Filmconvert?
          Youtube
          Videos, Tests, Tutorials, Reviews and so on : https://www.youtube.com/user/mattiasburling

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Nisse-Tuta View Post
            You can emulate 1TB memory, automatic offload, full size XLRs with real amps and a long lasting battery in Filmconvert?
            non-removable storage, non-removable internal battery? Novel ideas that I'm sure will propel Digital Bolex to the front of a very competitive marketplace, and I predict massive success for years to come. I just hope other companies adopt the faux-handcrank in addition to all of those amazing features

            Comment


            • Yeah I hated the option of a built in hotswap that lasted a long time. Not having to always use a v-mount made me feel so unprofessional. Just look back on this forum and see all the love that gets thrown on the battery life of the BMCC, bmpcc, BMPC4K, etc. Not a single complaint...

              Because as we all know, no camera has ever been made to suite different people. We all are by law obligated to like and need the same thing. Or we will be shot.

              BTW, can't believe looks of a camera is that important to so many people. Some sure, but it feels like most. I scratch my head every time I see a Red Machine Gun or whatever geeky name they come up with.
              Last edited by Nisse-Tuta; 05-21-2019, 09:36 PM.
              Youtube
              Videos, Tests, Tutorials, Reviews and so on : https://www.youtube.com/user/mattiasburling

              Comment


              • Originally posted by GeranSimpson View Post
                A lot of what is ‘magical’ about the footage linked above is color grade related, not sensor size or shutter.
                But is it that ? Take a look at this clip ..... https://vimeo.com/143916968

                Its everything about the clip. Not just the colour. The scenes out in the wilds...have a ...look to them. Its like one can almost feel the footage for want of a better description. Its not ALL of the clip, but parts of it just seem to be...something I cant put words too.

                Thats the thing.....I look at that clip and feel something I have never felt before when looking at video.

                To me thats the goal no matter the subject matter.

                Then i review more D16 footage and see similar traits in other clips ....but different authors.......I wonder if the Ikonoskop also looks like this ?

                I do tend to agree about the D16 itself. Too bad it was put in that package. There is little about the camera itself that draws me. Its the final footage coming out of it that is having me watch again and again, searching out more footage and seeing the same thing that piques my interest.

                There is some real mojo in that sensor/package.

                What is the point of 8K with 16 stops of DR through the sharpest lens ever put on a lens projector if the final footage is cold and clinical and it feels like I am watching more of the same footage I see all around me daily? Footage that does not stir the heart / mind into to wanting more?

                The D16 package really scored a hit here then slipped away........
                Last edited by M&M's; 05-21-2019, 09:56 PM.

                Comment


                • The ikonoscop is from the same sensor class as the d16 and can look very similar with the right grade I imagine, it has a smaller sensor though, only 2/3" and I believe only 1920/1080 no 2k. That camera was so far ahead of its time and got so many things right, it's too bad it didn't make it, they could have evolved into something awesome if they had survived long enough for technology to catch up. They had to build their own flash media as nothing was fast enough for uncompressed cdng at the time, I don't know if there is any way to adapt standard ssd to it. As funky as they d16 looked, it had similar performance at about 1/3 the price which killed any advantage ikonoscop had.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by alex.stefani View Post
                    The secret of the D16 was in the bayer filter for the colors. At that time, the Kodak engineers who designed the sensor were not concerning so much about the ISO (nobody complained about low ISO in the film era) their main goal was to extract the best colors. And they are indeed the most cinematic colors that a camera has ever produced.
                    For one thing, we were CONSTANTLY complaining about sensitivity when we were shooting on film. It's not like the push for more sensitive imagers is anything new; lighting a set is expensive and difficult, and we've always wanted things to be cheaper and easier. Let's not romanticize the gruelling days of photochemical any more than we already do, yeah?

                    For another thing, the reason that TrueSense wasn't chiefly concerned with sensitivity was because this sensor was marketed more for industrial/scientific applications, if I'm not mistaken. I recall being told that this line of sensors was used in the textile industry as a way to measure colour dyes, which is why the saturation of the BFA is high and the sensitivity is low. If you're interested in the data sheets, I'm fairly sure that the D16 uses a KAI-0405 sensor and the Ikonoskop uses a KAI-02150.

                    Where the "secret" is--and I put this in quotes because there's noting mystical about it--is in the A/D processing. I'm paraphrasing here, but because CCDs don't contain onboard A/D hardware you have to perform the conversion off-chip, which allows you to tailor the output to your specific use case. It's more power/heat/cost, but it allowed Ienso/Digital Bolex to use an industrial sensor to output an image that felt more cinematic than it really had any right to. I recall reading that prototype D16s had a much lower dynamic range of about 8-10 stops, and that it took a significant amount of work to squeeze out the current 12-13 stops that it is capable of.

                    Originally posted by Denny Smith View Post
                    Alex, I think you will find, the D16 is a single Kodak CCD sensor, so no Bayer filter.
                    The CCD in the D16 is a BFA. Any sensor design can use a BFA. There's nothing about CMOS or CCD that dictates what imaging method can be used, whether it's a three chips with a prism, RGB stripe, or a Bayer filter array.
                    Last edited by Alex.Mitchell; 05-22-2019, 10:45 AM.

                    Comment


                    • To address the "D16 Look" more, there are a lot of reasons why it looks the way it does.

                      The most important thing about the D16 footage you see floating around, and I can't stress this enough, is that a lot of really talented people are using it; AJ Molle, Olan Collardy, Romain Alaivi, the Holomax guy, etc. These are talented filmmakers and their work looks great regardless of what they're shooting on. So, you know, give some credit where credit is due right? It's their work you're enjoying, not the camera's.

                      As far as the nuts and bolts though, I think the D16 image comes down to three really important factors:

                      - The filtration in front of the sensor.
                      - The rendition of motion as a product of that specific global shutter implementation.
                      - Being motivated to use older C-Mount lenses.

                      The sensor stack really contributes a lot to the look of the D16. It's not 100% immune to moire or aliasing, but I've only really ever seen it once in any of my footage. This is the reason why, even with a Mosaic Engineering filter in my BMPCC, I still prefer the look of my D16--it resolves very fine detail while almost always avoiding the ugly texture that the BMCC, BMPCC, and BMMCC have (I can't really speak to the BM4KPC and newer though). I have some great IRND filters so I haven't tested its IR rejection, but considering how much red I see in the sensor stack I imagine it's also much better at filtering that out too.

                      Global shutters are all similar in that they expose and read out from the entire sensor, rather than reading out line-by-line, but it's worth mentioning that there are different ways to implement this process. RED published a great piece about soft global shutters that is worth a read here, and it really illustrates the point that there are ways to do this that are more cinematic than others. To be clear, I'm not able to find any published details about how the global shutter in the KAI-0405 works but Joe Rubinstein swears up and down that it's a different method than the AJA Cion/BM4KPC/etc. I personally think the way the camera renders motion is attractive, and it's something that is extremely difficult to emulate any other way, which is why I consider it a defining characteristic of the camera.

                      Lastly, it's well worth mentioning that the D16 came standard with a C-Mount. There was also a PL and MFT mount and you will see people shooting with more modern/expensive glass--I personally use Veydra lenses--but a lot of the stuff you've seen has been shot with some pretty distinct vintage glass. A lot of the look of the original, spring wound film Bolex footage comes from using those lenses, and that look transitions over nicely to newer bodies. Hell, if you put Kern-Paillard on a BMPCC you get a lot of that same vintage feel. Glass choice is important, so when Digital Bolex nudged people to use distinct glass the footage will naturally have some of that distinct look.

                      Thanks for coming to my TED talk y'all.
                      Last edited by Alex.Mitchell; 05-23-2019, 03:55 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by M&M's View Post
                        But is it that ? Take a look at this clip ..... https://vimeo.com/143916968
                        Yes. There is nothing in that footage that can't be achieved by other cinema sensors with fast readouts.

                        Originally posted by M&M's View Post
                        Its everything about the clip. Not just the colour. The scenes out in the wilds...have a ...look to them. Its like one can almost feel the footage for want of a better description. Its not ALL of the clip, but parts of it just seem to be...something I cant put words too.
                        The "look" is something colorists spend countless hours perfecting. If you looked at a log version of these videos there wouldn't be anything capturing your attention. Different cameras and lenses can bring you closer to a certain look out of camera, but it's all achievable regardless. Unless, of course, you're shooting on some Sony with a 2000ms sensor readout

                        Try breaking it down. Start to separate everything apart that's not the sensor and it will become visible to you.


                        Originally posted by M&M's View Post
                        What is the point of 8K with 16 stops of DR through the sharpest lens ever put on a lens projector if the final footage is cold and clinical and it feels like I am watching more of the same footage I see all around me daily? Footage that does not stir the heart / mind into to wanting more?
                        If it looks clinical it's because it was shot that way and was graded that way. The point is that you can choose to make the footage look however you want with more flexibility. It's easy to make an 8K helium look like 16mm through a hazey lens if you want.

                        You can always manipulate a larger sensor to record like a smaller one, you can't make a smaller one behave like a larger one.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by GeranSimpson View Post
                          The "look" is something colorists spend countless hours perfecting.
                          I feel like you're channeling the Steve Yedlin Display Prep Demo thing, and I'm all about that; cameras are way more flexible than people give them credit for and it does bother me how people pick a camera to pick a look when it only takes a little work to make any camera perform to your personal tastes.

                          However...

                          There are things that you simply can't change in the colour suite, like the rendition of motion, the full dynamic range of the sensor, the spatial resolution of the sensor, the filtration in front of the sensor, and the colour separation achieved by the strength of the BFA or other mitigating factors (e.g. backside illumination). All of those things contribute uniquely and indelibly to the image and shouldn't be ignored when you're selecting the camera system you're going to work with.

                          Comment


                          • Thanks for the update on the D16 sensor Alex. I too liked the look of the D16, and came real close buying a used one, shortly after they stopped making them.
                            Cheers

                            Comment


                            • I owned a D16 with the Hot Rod Camera PL mount and it was a very unique camera that had great potential.

                              The Kodak CCD was golden and the camera had many great features like the built in SSD for RAW recording. It was tiny and self contained. I really, really wanted this camera to succeed, in main part because of the potential of the Kodak CCD and the tiny size. I also like the Super16 format.

                              The biggest problem was that they didn't get the color science right until few weeks before they folded. That should have been the number one priority. Not leather camera bags or other items that have nothing to do with the most important factor for any camera. Image quality. For most of its existence the camera had difficulties with color accuracy. Some call it a 'look', but it wasn't viable for truly professional use. Bleeding reds and magenta skin are problems, not a look. For a long time the workflow was very poorly documented. It was truly frustrating. You could literally see the potential of this camera, but it was always out of reach.

                              The CF card offloading was outdated. They should have switched to a removable SSD.

                              The hipster marketing was terrible. The box it shipped in looked like a retro 50's kids toy that none but the most open minded would have taken serious. All of that worked against what was a camera with enormous potential.

                              I felt bad for the D16 crew when the camera tanked. They were a nice bunch of people and put an enormous amount of work into it getting it off the ground. But the camera business is pretty brutal. You need really deep pockets to compete

                              Comment


                              • The latest firmware for the D16 seems to have got the colours sorted out. Now to find one for less then the cost of the UMP G2 !

                                Its definitely an interesting "look" - however it is achieved.

                                @Alex, really appreciate the insight to this, thanks.

                                Well I can keep watching D16 footage all night long, it aint going to get me one. I do admire the footage from those who make it sing (AJ and the rest)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X