Thread: Here comes Z CAM

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33
  1. #21  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    956
    Quote Originally Posted by ShawnMi View Post
    What was the biggest standout in your mind? Any "ah ha" moments for you while watching the comparison?

    Shawn
    Huge dynamic range diffence, both in shadows and highlights. Higher resolution is negligible, the Arri footage was uprezzing to the screen while the 8k would be down sampled, but didn't signal better in any tangible way. Maybe I'm just getting older but I personally can't resolve beyond full HD any more, extra sharpness associated with higher resolution just reads as digital to me, not organic like film.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    956
    Back on topic, I really like the ZCam hardware, but they're probably at least a year away from decent software. It would be cool if Resolve would support their Raw format, on paper it seems similar to Braw, but if you have to use a clunky software package to convert to an editing codec. It seems kind of pointless. And they definitely need a North American service depot, if they want this market, selling them at B$H isn't enough, where does it go if it dies, that is an important concern.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by dop16mm View Post
    Huge dynamic range diffence, both in shadows and highlights. Higher resolution is negligible, the Arri footage was uprezzing to the screen while the 8k would be down sampled, but didn't signal better in any tangible way. Maybe I'm just getting older but I personally can't resolve beyond full HD any more, extra sharpness associated with higher resolution just reads as digital to me, not organic like film.
    That's interesting. I wouldn't have expected a big difference in latitude, but maybe I shouldn't be too surprised, Red's DR claims always struck me as being optimistic and Arri's very conservative (17+ stops vs 14).

    I'm not sure anyone can see the difference between 4k and 8k at optimal viewing distance... or maybe an 8k projector was needed? :-)

    Shawn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by polaroid22 View Post
    Nobody needs or wants 8k. I rather have a 2k arri alexa in a small and affordable body.
    Not everybody shoot movies here. I deal with ads, music videos, fashion stuff, frequent requests for vertical videos done out of horizontal videos for social platforms, videos for HUGE building displays with absurd aspect ratios.
    The 4.6K is a minimum resolution I can consider as appropriate.
    I often work with masks, cleaning unwanted stuff from the footage, etc... , and for me it will be much faster and easier to work with 8k footage.
    There shouldn't be any difference in attitude between photo and video camera resolutions. If 8K is good for photo (which nobody seems to have problem with) then 8K is good for video too.

    The main issue people have with 8K is the storage it requires. As for me, I just got two PC's with 10x10TB HDD drives in each, and forgot about size issues for I guess ~10 years.
    But for those who don't want to spend money on storage, there is an option to down-res to 4k/2k in camera, so why even bother anyway?

    Resolution can not affect cinematic look, lens/camera/filters do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by dop16mm View Post
    Huge dynamic range diffence, both in shadows and highlights. Higher resolution is negligible, the Arri footage was uprezzing to the screen while the 8k would be down sampled, but didn't signal better in any tangible way. Maybe I'm just getting older but I personally can't resolve beyond full HD any more, extra sharpness associated with higher resolution just reads as digital to me, not organic like film.
    You're saying it stupid to shoot 8K RED.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    402
    Quote Originally Posted by ShawnMi View Post
    What was the biggest standout in your mind? Any "ah ha" moments for you while watching the comparison?

    Shawn
    Just wanted to put in my 2 cents on this, since I've graded quite a bit of Alexa and Red footage, sometimes mixed together. The main difference for me is how smooth and efficient it is to grade Alexa's colors. Red's skin tones are always all over the place when other variables start to change, and I find myself tweaking on the board to get it just right (good luck with a mouse and keyboard). With Alexa, everything is already where it should be, and remains constant as you adjust primaries, even if the lighting in the scene changed a bit.

    When you're coloring a feature with 1000+ cuts, every minute spent fine tweaking a scene adds up to a LOT of time.

    -another reason I don't see z cam or kinifinity "disrupting" the market any time soon. The color science is worth more than the other features on the specs page, and nobody advertises color science.

    Blackmagic's colors on the Ursa are getting really good, so there's that.

    With that said..there are times I still prefer to grade Red footage, especially if the DP is not great. Most of the time Alexa footage is prores, and Red is almost always raw. That added flexibility can save a bad shot.

    The choice of the tool depends on so many variables.
    Last edited by GeranSimpson; 08-23-2019 at 09:54 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by GeranSimpson View Post
    Just wanted to put in my 2 cents on this, since I've graded quite a bit of Alexa and Red footage, sometimes mixed together. The main difference for me is how smooth and efficient it is to grade Alexa's colors. Red's skin tones are always all over the place when other variables start to change, and I find myself tweaking on the board to get it just right (good luck with a mouse and keyboard). With Alexa, everything is already where it should be, and remains constant as you adjust primaries, even if the lighting in the scene changed a bit.

    When you're coloring a feature with 1000+ cuts, every minute spent fine tweaking a scene adds up to a LOT of time.

    -another reason I don't see z cam or kinifinity "disrupting" the market any time soon. The color science is worth more than the other features on the specs page, and nobody advertises color science.

    Blackmagic's colors on the Ursa are getting really good, so there's that.

    With that said..there are times I still prefer to grade Red footage, especially if the DP is not great. Most of the time Alexa footage is prores, and Red is almost always raw. That added flexibility can save a bad shot.

    The choice of the tool depends on so many variables.
    That's also very interesting. I don't deal with a lot of Red footage, so it's good to get these insights. Thank you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Senior Member DPStewart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    The Puget Sound
    Posts
    3,673
    Quote Originally Posted by ShawnMi View Post
    That's interesting. I wouldn't have expected a big difference in latitude, but maybe I shouldn't be too surprised, Red's DR claims always struck me as being optimistic and Arri's very conservative (17+ stops vs 14).

    I'm not sure anyone can see the difference between 4k and 8k at optimal viewing distance... or maybe an 8k projector was needed? :-)

    Shawn
    At normal viewing distances, the human eye really does not resolve (see) beyond 3K.

    A very detailed analysis of this was done by a very experienced Hollywood post guy, and several of us have posted his long video about it here on the forum.

    Higher resolutions are fantastic for re-framing and for image stabilization, but that's a separate function.
    Cameras: Blackmagic Cinema Camera, Blackmagic Pocket Camera (x2), Panasonic GH2 (x2), Sony RX100 ii, Canon 6D, Canon T2i,
    Mics: Sennheiser, AKG, Shure, Sanken, Audio-Technica, Audix
    Lights: Every Chinese clone you can imagine
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by DPStewart View Post
    At normal viewing distances, the human eye really does not resolve (see) beyond 3K.

    A very detailed analysis of this was done by a very experienced Hollywood post guy, and several of us have posted his long video about it here on the forum.

    Higher resolutions are fantastic for re-framing and for image stabilization, but that's a separate function.
    Are you talking about Steve Yedlin's resolution demos?

    http://www.yedlin.net/ResDemo/ResDemoPt1.html
    http://www.yedlin.net/ResDemo/ResDemoPt2.html

    Shawn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,155
    Quote Originally Posted by DPStewart View Post
    At normal viewing distances, the human eye really does not resolve (see) beyond 3K.

    A very detailed analysis of this was done by a very experienced Hollywood post guy, and several of us have posted his long video about it here on the forum.

    Higher resolutions are fantastic for re-framing and for image stabilization, but that's a separate function.
    +1
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •