Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I am done with the pocket

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

  • Originally posted by razz16mm View Post
    A properly matched OLPF filters spatial frequencies the sensor can't reproduce without artifacts
    Yeah that's the theory, and yet it's still in subtle degrees of difference. It's Subjective. There's no perfect filter because it means making a choice. And one persons choice isn't another's want.

    Look at RED, they have an "upgradeable" OLPF. They have a few options listed.

    Go down about 4 points and you'll see what they have listed. They have "skin tone" optimised versions and "Low Light" versions among others.

    https://support.red.com/entries/1002...PF-System-FAQs


    Originally posted by Mac View Post
    With the filter in, these lenses cease to be parfocal... in fact they're wildly non-parfocal.
    *IF* BM decided to do OLPF's then this wouldn't be a problem because they'd take it into account when manufacturing so as to make sure the sensor stack wouldn't change the collimation of any lens used. it's only because this is an aftermarket filter, that it adds another refractive index layer to the stack, that it in effect changes the FFD.

    JB

    Comment


    • Originally posted by John Brawley View Post
      *IF* BM decided to do OLPF's then this wouldn't be a problem because they'd take it into account when manufacturing so as to make sure the sensor stack wouldn't change the collimation of any lens used. it's only because this is an aftermarket filter, that it adds another refractive index layer to the stack, that it in effect changes the FFD.

      JB
      I am not a fan of OLPF's. They rob the picture of precious resolution. I applaud Blackmagic and other camera companies for jettisoning them. I hope the trend continues. But, I realize others feel differently. So, if Blackmagic does offer OLPF's, for the love of god, make it an option. Don't abandon your original pure cameras!

      Comment


      • I posted this in the original Mosaic OLPF thread, but it may be helpful to post it here for people who missed it. I created this comparison based on the footage supplied by BenHalford.

        No Filter:


        With Filter:


        300% Comparison:


        Personally, I think the OLPF is a no brainer. Yes, the image does seem sharper without the filter, but if you look closely, the majority of the sharpness is actually false detail. Take a look at the 300% crops above and you'll see pretty much all the detailed areas are polluted by pink/blue patterns. Those artifacts look even worse in motion since it dances and shimmers in the frame. I know there are tricks one can use to minimize moire, but sometimes it's just unavoidable. If you're shooting a wide shot with a lot of detail, you simply can't reframe or roll your focus further/closer to your subject. It's by no means a perfect solution, but it's pretty much the best solution we have so far. The only thing keeping me from pulling the trigger is the price tag

        Comment


        • Originally posted by jeclark2006 View Post
          An Optical Low Pass Filter is throwing the 'sharp' out of focus. That's what it is designed to do. Had Blackmagic put a OLPF that would cut off at the 'correct' frequency, the threads would be 'how crappy can the BMPCC be on sharpness'... so, take sharp, but live with moire, or mitigate as needed for a specific shot.

          Blackmagic sort of does this with the other problem child, noise... give a noisier image, and then use noise abatement software to mitigate...
          I don't think that is a fair assessment of how people on this forum would have reacted to an OLPF filter in the BMPCC. If you look at the post above mine, there is -in my opinion- only an extremely minimal loss of resolution, but a very substantial reduction of the moire. I cannot really tell about the loss of sharpness due to the filter at 100%, but I can definitely tell the moire.

          You compare moire to noise on the image but I don't feel it is accurate either. I can get rid of noise in my image with two clicks on NeatVideo but I will struggle for hours to get rid of moire, sometimes without even being able to achieve the results that I want.

          I understand that blackmagic probably didn't have the optical knowledge to produce a OLPF back when they developed the BMPCC but now they should have it, and if not they could work with a company that has it (caldwell, mosaic?... idk) to at least have the possibility to have one in the camera.

          My expectations for the URSA mini are different from the BMPCC. I can understand having issues with a $1000 camera, but today for $5000 having a camera that will give me rainbow rooftops like above will not be something I will find acceptable for the value in the current camera market.

          I don't feel like I'm being unreasonable here.

          Comment


          • The "perceived" loss of sharpness in the example above is the easiest thing to address, is called "sharpen" filter...

            Comment


            • I'll re-post the images I've generated from my time with the OLPF. Something tells me you'll be able to guess which is which.


              Comment


              • Originally posted by Alex.Mitchell View Post
                I'll re-post the images I've generated from my time with the OLPF. Something tells me you'll be able to guess which is which.


                what lens did you use? and what format did you shoot in, prores, or raw? thanks!

                Comment


                • - SLR Magic 25mm T0.95 stopped down to a T4, I think.
                  - CinemaDNG on the BMPCC

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Alex.Mitchell View Post
                    I'll re-post the images I've generated from my time with the OLPF. Something tells me you'll be able to guess which is which.


                    Damn, that's pretty amazing. Hopefully they'll have an OLPF ready to fit the Micro Cinema Camera.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by AaronChicago View Post
                      Damn, that's pretty amazing. Hopefully they'll have an OLPF ready to fit the Micro Cinema Camera.
                      I'm not at liberty to discuss exactly what they've got planned but I can tell you with 100% certainty that they have some really tremendous stuff coming down the pipe for our favourite Super16 cameras.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Alex.Mitchell View Post
                        I'm not at liberty to discuss exactly what they've got planned but I can tell you with 100% certainty that they have some really tremendous stuff coming down the pipe for our favourite Super16 cameras.
                        mosaic or blackmagic?

                        Comment


                        • No offense, but anyone who would knowingly shoot a scene with that jacket needs more than an OLPF <g>.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by jimagine View Post
                            No offense, but anyone who would knowingly shoot a scene with that jacket needs more than an OLPF <g>.
                            So you've never done a corporate shoot where the CEO walks in and has five minutes to be in front of camera? Sometimes life is slightly more complicated than you're giving it credit for.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Alex.Mitchell View Post
                              So you've never done a corporate shoot where the CEO walks in and has five minutes to be in front of camera? Sometimes life is slightly more complicated than you're giving it credit for.
                              Haha totally. Brings back a memory of an interview I shot with Pat Ryan (CEO of Aon Co) and Chicago legend. He had on a checkered shirt that was giving some killer moire. He's an intimidating guy. No way I was going to say "Hey Mr. Ryan can you take off your shirt and put on a plain one?"

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by soupkitchen View Post
                                Wondering if any of the peeps arguing against vic actually have Ursas or are just talking about things they've read.

                                Townio what is it that you shoot that the moire on the pocket (or any camera) is an issue for you? Is it client feedback or is it just you?

                                If you are just pixel peeping and it's for your own satisfaction you may not find a Scarlet any more satisfying. On the whole they are WAY more noisy than the pocket or the original BMCC. So are Epics.

                                I don't really know what you shoot but to get results cleaner than the pocket on a scarlet you will have restrict yourself to ONLY lighting with daylight balanced sources. Even then they need to be proper daylight balanced, cheap fluoros don't do the job. If you don't you'll have insane levels of noise in the blue channel. Red has said ever since the Red ONE that you need to shoot with daylight lights to get the best results. I've been there, done that. I've had better success keying and working with footage from the pocket than I have Red ONE, Epic, Scarlet, Alexa's.

                                Anyway that's my two cents worth.

                                Cheers,

                                Toby
                                Fascinating... anybody blogged about this in more detail anywhere? Would be handy for when explaining to clients BMD vs RED!
                                https://www.youtube.com/c/SoundSpeeding

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X