Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Just exactly what is this?!?!?

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Kevin Marshall View Post
    Yeah, well it was worth a try!

    Comment


    • #32
      I'd consider using my forehead to hammer this nail...I'm tired of looking at heavily compressed, soft, low dr images. And audio will now be pristine...I just have to capture it correctly. Assuming the images meet my expectations of what 12bit, 13 stop raw footage should look like, I'm happy to work a little harder to capture them.
      http://vimeo.com/user4142226

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by pharpsied View Post
        Ohhhhh, it's a semantic argument ... I get that.
        I understand what you are saying.
        What if there was no ProRes or DNxHD, mhood? Would it be as strong to you? Subjectively? Would you still be here? Honestly?
        I'm not sure you do get it if you think it's a semantic argument. If there was no ProRes or DNxHD, it would be much harder for me to use the camera. My situation requires portability...laptops...Windows 7 i7 laptops. But, if I saw a way to make the trip with RAW and grade in Premiere CS5.5 (or CS6), that would certainly be an option.

        I have seen it said (and agree completely) that if you are truly into RAW, you should insist on 4K. IOW, there really are better options for the professional moviemaker (or filmmaker if you prefer) than the BMC. You seem to be forcing a round 2.5K RAW into a square 4K RAW hole.

        But it's a silly academic question. The BMC does have ProRes and I'm not re-purposing the camera by using it. It is only a camera and anyone with $3K can use it for any purpose they choose.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by mhood View Post
          I have seen it said (and agree completely) that if you are truly into RAW, you should insist on 4K. IOW, there really are better options for the professional moviemaker (or filmmaker if you prefer) than the BMC. You seem to be forcing a round 2.5K RAW into a square 4K RAW hole.

          But it's a silly academic question. The BMC does have ProRes and I'm not re-purposing the camera by using it. It is only a camera and anyone with $3K can use it for any purpose they choose.
          I civilly, but emphatically disagree with almost every word in the above quote. Also, What may be a silly academic question could be another's defining idea.
          Not going to argue, though.
          You're right, it's only a camera.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by mhood View Post
            I have seen it said (and agree completely) that if you are truly into RAW, you should insist on 4K. IOW, there really are better options for the professional moviemaker (or filmmaker if you prefer) than the BMC. You seem to be forcing a round 2.5K RAW into a square 4K RAW hole.
            What I find the most amusing about the 4K-hysteria on REDUser is that the work of most people who are such fans of it produce work of rather minor importance, if any at all. Like we need music videos shot in 4K, because we really will look at them in a couple of years and think "Thank god, we shot this crappy korean music video for a crappy song in 4K".
            Of course, David Fincher is not on REDUser (thankfully), and there are other filmmakers who shoot 4K on RED and just do it because it is, at the moment, the camera that suits them best.

            But Nicolas Winding Refn shot Valhalla Rising on the RED One a couple of years ago, yet he chose the Arri Alexa for his latest, highly successful, movie DRIVE. And it looks fantastic.

            And Darren Arronofsky loves 16mm film (Pi, The Wrestler, Black Swan), and if you scan it, it does not resolve to 4K.
            Gareth Edwards made a decent film in 720p, Monsters, and Shane Carruth had rather crappy selfmade cinematography on 16mm for his movie Primer (as was the cinematography and overall picture quality for Pi rather messy), but it suits the movie quite well.

            I wish all these people who are advocating 4K (RAW) the loudest would have a strong portfolio and would have earned a big say on this topic, but so far most of them do not.
            So many filmmakers in Hollywood now would have never made a carreer if they had refused to shoot their breakthrough-movie in anything less than 4K RAW...

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Paul Flack View Post
              What I find the most amusing about the 4K-hysteria on REDUser is that the work of most people who are such fans of it produce work of rather minor importance, if any at all. Like we need music videos shot in 4K, because we really will look at them in a couple of years and think "Thank god, we shot this crappy korean music video for a crappy song in 4K".
              To be perfectly honest, I see 4K as little more than a source resolution, for a sharper, higher quality 1080p/2K output. My band's music video was shot primarily on RED One (1st day) and RED Epic M (2nd day + band performance scene). For the narrative, they shot the REDs at their highest resolution at 48fps. The band performance was shot at 5K but at 25fps due to flicker issues with lighting at other framerates. Pickups were shot on 5D Mark II at 1080p.

              The guys delivered to us a ProRes HQ 444 1080p copy of the music video, and a H.264 output for YouTube, which was still 8x the size of the final YouTube compressed MP4. Simply put, the video looks amazing. Scaling 5K graded Redcode into 1080p gives an insanely crisp, noiseless (not "grain"-less) image. The ProRes file was 8GB, the H.264 800MB and the YouTube 1080p file merely 104MB.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by nickjbedford View Post
                To be perfectly honest, I see 4K as little more than a source resolution, for a sharper, higher quality 1080p/2K output. My band's music video was shot primarily on RED One (1st day) and RED Epic M (2nd day + band performance scene). For the narrative, they shot the REDs at their highest resolution at 48fps. The band performance was shot at 5K but at 25fps due to flicker issues with lighting at other framerates. Pickups were shot on 5D Mark II at 1080p.

                The guys delivered to us a ProRes HQ 444 1080p copy of the music video, and a H.264 output for YouTube, which was still 8x the size of the final YouTube compressed MP4. Simply put, the video looks amazing. Scaling 5K graded Redcode into 1080p gives an insanely crisp, noiseless (not "grain"-less) image. The ProRes file was 8GB, the H.264 800MB and the YouTube 1080p file merely 104MB.
                You music video looks well done and interesting on Youtube, well done. I think the debate on 4k vs 1080p cameras will continue until the BMC is released, for it may too deliver a crisp 1080p image (but for much lower cost).

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by mhood View Post
                  Not to be smart but: Any camera that is designed and labelled a "DSLR" is not going to be targeted at Independent Film makers. DSLRs are by their very nature designed to take photographs...

                  Folks without access to many kinds of cameras will not be able to use the "right" camera for any given job, especially if they want to own their camera. They will find ways to make the camera(s) they own do what they need them to do. If I had listened to all of the people saying that the 7D would not do for shooting talking heads across their desks and that a HDC-SD100 was a much better choice, I would not be swamped with work right now. The look of the 7D (aliasing moire patterns and all) totally blew the many competitors with traditional camcorders away. I am so glad that I went with the 7D and fully expect to feel the same way about the BMC...warts and all.
                  Totally agree. I ignored the neigh sayers with the 5dII and built a career on it. I'll ignore the hype with BMC and find out for myself.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I've built my career with a Canon T2i: shot 3 feature films, 5 short films, 7 music videos and a few commercials with it since the tail end of 2010 and I'm preparing to drive up to Houston to shoot an eighth music video with it today. I've operated RED One, DP'd a feature on RED Epic and have been generally impressed with BMD's progress with their freshman effort. The Magic Cam will be my first time owning a RAW-capable digital cinema camera. From what I can tell, and several of my ASC friends agree, that the difference between 2K and 4K is indiscernable to the human eye and, unless you're doing heavy visual effects, moot. Alexa's just a 2K camera and it lured over Roger Deakins, afterall.

                    Until now, I could not personally afford a camera with specs similar to the BMC; we rented on the RED productions from private vendors and they all said they didn't start out with a RED, they had to work their way up. You do that with diligence and perseverance. I have no intention on stopping with the BMC and letting it be my one go-to acquisition tool forever. But, for right now, it serves my purpose as a cinematographer and director. I fully intend to shoot controlled narrative work in RAW and documentaries and run-n-gun stuff in ProRes. It is a tool and like every tool it is only as good as the person using it. I may not be Roger Deakins, but I'll get there someday. Someday I'll shoot a James Bond movie with Alexa or RED or whatever. But, right now, I'm perfectly happy with a 2.5K RAW workflow that will give my clients the best possible image for their money and my time and effort. Every step should be a step forward. I started with a DSLR, the next step is a true cinema camera without ever looking back.

                    Controlled shooting environments for narrative work including feature films, short films, music videos and television commercials: 2.5K RAW. Run-n-gun (events, all-day corporate interviewy kind of things): ProRes. How often do I plan to shoot ProRes? Not that often, but it's a nice option to have when the projects dry up and I have to shoot a wedding or two to pay the bills...
                    Jason R. Johnston | Blog | IMDb

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Interesting thread. I can't agree with Barry more, it's just this time I'm not on the other side of the fence of his argument. He can be such a party pooper sometimes. (I had a 7D and thought it was god-sent.)

                      I am planning on using this camera for RAW capture of narrative work, features, shorts, commercials, you know... The workflow necessitates a computer upgrade for me of almost $2000 dollars. I've gotten by shooting HD and not having to have an array. I've gotten by without buying an SSD for my bootup. I've gotten by and made around 14 shorts now in the last two and a half years with my 7D, CS5, and a few TBs.

                      This upgrade feels Pro to me. The camera necessitates it and I feel it's professional gear for moviemaking. Not that you guys planning on using compressed video out of the camera aren't pros too in your own rights, it's just confusing to me that you wouldn't bite the bullet and just make the move to RAW. Someone already said it, but working with JPEG or MPEG compression is not the same as working with RAW. You can't get the same results. If what you're doing only allows you to appreciate the entry levels of the camera, I'd look at changing direction and move toward what it is you love. It's like having a 500 HP street car to commute in to me.
                      Facebook - Angelis Digital Studio

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Brad Ferrell View Post
                        This upgrade feels Pro to me. The camera necessitates it and I feel it's professional gear for moviemaking. Not that you guys planning on using compressed video out of the camera aren't pros too in your own rights, it's just confusing to me that you wouldn't bite the bullet and just make the move to RAW. Someone already said it, but working with JPEG or MPEG compression is not the same as working with RAW. You can't get the same results. If what you're doing only allows you to appreciate the entry levels of the camera, I'd look at changing direction and move toward what it is you love. It's like having a 500 HP street car to commute in to me.
                        To be fair, 10-bit ProRes 422 HQ is nothing like JPEG or MPEG compression.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          You may be right about that, but the compression exists in the color subsampling and that's what it has in common with MPEG and JPEG. That is a lot of information to throw away and average.
                          Facebook - Angelis Digital Studio

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Brad Ferrell View Post
                            You may be right about that, but the compression exists in the color subsampling and that's what it has in common with MPEG and JPEG. That is a lot of information to throw away and average.
                            Hasn't it been explained and described and detailed that you cannot really get more than 422 level of colour resolution in a Bayer pattern at the source resolution of the BMDCC anyway?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by nickjbedford View Post
                              Hasn't it been explained and described and detailed that you cannot really get more than 422 level of colour resolution in a Bayer pattern at the source resolution of the BMDCC anyway?
                              Si

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by nickjbedford View Post
                                Hasn't it been explained and described and detailed that you cannot really get more than 422 level of colour resolution in a Bayer pattern at the source resolution of the BMDCC anyway?
                                Which thread has that? I thought I'd read everything on this site.

                                EDIT: I found it. You might want to read it again. I quote, "No subsampling occurs while building the RAW file, therefore no subsampling ratio can possibly exist. 4:x:x applied to a RAW file is nonsense."

                                and if "you can't really get more that 4:2:2 level of color resolution in a Bayer pattern," that level of color subsampling will be resampled 4:2:2 for the compressed codecs as well. 4:2:2 is not RAW. It goes through a different process called compression. This includes spatial, temporal, and color compression. It plays well with NLEs but it's still a hot pocket and not homemade canoli.
                                Last edited by Brad Ferrell; 05-21-2012, 09:29 AM. Reason: temper. lol.
                                Facebook - Angelis Digital Studio

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X