Comparative Palm Beach Videos: BMPCC RAW, Canon EOS M, Panasonic FZ200 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 22 Old 01-28-2014, 07:45 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Taken at different times, each exploiting the advantages of the camera: BMPCC - resolution, DR; Canon EOS M - shallow DOF, color; Panasonic FZ200 - long lens.

Same photographer, same place, same conditions (sunny and windy).

BMPCC RAW:

Vimeo:

https://vimeo.com/85224792

Downloadable original file (72 Mbps, 108030p).

Youtube version:



Select 1080p.


Canon EOS M:

Vimeo:

https://vimeo.com/71142643

Downloadable original file (50Mbps, 108030p).

Youtube version:


Select 1080p.


Panasonic FZ200:

Vimeo:

https://vimeo.com/58316168

Downloadable original file (21 Mbps, 108060p).

Youtube version:


Select 1080p.
markr041 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 22 Old 01-29-2014, 12:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
flintyplus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: yeovil somerset
Posts: 1,229
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 21
The EOS M takes superior footage IMO,i have a FZ150 and do not use it for video due to the low resolution and video look colour,i like my EOS M video but personaly find my cams easier for run and go video.
flintyplus is offline  
post #3 of 22 Old 01-29-2014, 12:33 AM
Member
 
P&Struefan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 121
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 24
No surprise! To me the BMPCC's clips overall looked the best by a mile. I, however, saw noticeable variations in sharpness among several of the clips and jitters in many of them too. Did you turn the OIS off? I think the lenses you mentioned have an OIS system that works with the BMPCC via the active contacts, don't they?
P&Struefan is offline  
post #4 of 22 Old 01-29-2014, 06:04 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by P&Struefan View Post

No surprise! To me the BMPCC's clips overall looked the best by a mile. I, however, saw noticeable variations in sharpness among several of the clips and jitters in many of them too. Did you turn the OIS off? I think the lenses you mentioned have an OIS system that works with the BMPCC via the active contacts, don't they?

OIS works and was on - everything is handheld. Try holding steady a tiny camera using a 300mm lens (equivalent) in a gusty wind! Any difference in sharpness might be due to lack of proper focus - the 35-100mm lens has only manual focus (the 12-35mm has AF) -and sometimes I was too hasty. Focus peaking (and push-button image magnification) works well for manual focus if you pay attention. One other point: because of the high resolution from RAW, it is much easier to see small deviations in focus in the video. If everything is soft, focus does not matter as much.
markr041 is online now  
post #5 of 22 Old 01-29-2014, 06:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bsprague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the Road
Posts: 2,879
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

..... Try holding steady a tiny camera using a 300mm lens (equivalent) in a gusty wind! ......
You tackled a big project! Thanks. I promise to watch all of them when I can get a decent internet connection!

Regarding the camera shake and tiny cameras, try anything that increases the distance between your hands. There seems to be less "shoulder shake" than "wrist shake" in the human body. One interesting example I found was a guy made a "rig" out of a discarded "Wii" steering wheel by putting a tripod mounting bolt in it. Another built a 1 foot square out of PVC with a mounting bolt in it.

My favorite is a monopod with a mini-ballhead on it. I frequently leave it fully retracted with the ball head set at 90 degrees. My HX9V or RX100 will be in my right hand and my left hand will hold the end of the stick about 20 inches away. The effect is like holding a steering wheel with both hands.

One might think that a monopod on a small camera might defeat the purpose of having a small camera. Mine is made by Opteka out of carbon fiber, is cheap and retracts short enough to fit carry inside carry on luggage. In use, it attracts no attention from anyone except other photographers. Nobody ever seems to be aware that I'm using it to stabilize video.

I've also got a cheap Sony tripod that is very small and light. Sony aims it at HandyCam buyers. Depending on the travel photography/videography mission, the tripod can be used retracted like the monopod. Or, it can be set up rock steady. Again, it is never noticed I'm shooting video. I still look like a tourist camera geek and am ignored.

I'll never say I'm a good videographer. But, the worst thing I can do is make shaky video. The single thing I've done to reduce shaky video is using a monopod, even though the foot rarely touches the ground.
bsprague is offline  
post #6 of 22 Old 01-30-2014, 04:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
flintyplus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: yeovil somerset
Posts: 1,229
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 21
After watching the downloaded films on tv i cant agree about BMPCC clips being better by a mile,not the color dept for me anyway,in humans eating & talking the color is good but natural scenes with grass etc worst of the 3 imo ,for color the EOS M was best for me and the FZ200 looks a bit better than my 150.
flintyplus is offline  
post #7 of 22 Old 01-30-2014, 07:34 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by flintyplus View Post

After watching the downloaded films on tv i cant agree about BMPCC clips being better by a mile,not the color dept for me anyway,in humans eating & talking the color is good but natural scenes with grass etc worst of the 3 imo ,for color the EOS M was best for me and the FZ200 looks a bit better than my 150.

I agree the greens - grass especially - in the BMPCC video are not quite correct. I love the green you get from the EOS M.

This is my fault in grading - from RAW, the colors have to be brought out in post (there is no inherent green issue in the sensor). I am still learning, and presumably eventually the BMPCC video from RAW will clearly dominate in all dimensions. Once one gets it right, it becomes easy to grade from RAW to finished video
markr041 is online now  
post #8 of 22 Old 01-30-2014, 07:01 PM
Advanced Member
 
fishywishy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 532
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

OIS works and was on - everything is handheld. Try holding steady a tiny camera using a 300mm lens (equivalent) in a gusty wind! Any difference in sharpness might be due to lack of proper focus - the 35-100mm lens has only manual focus (the 12-35mm has AF) -and sometimes I was too hasty. Focus peaking (and push-button image magnification) works well for manual focus if you pay attention. One other point: because of the high resolution from RAW, it is much easier to see small deviations in focus in the video. If everything is soft, focus does not matter as much.

off color, out of focus and shaky. thx i think ill stick with a camcorder tongue.gif
fishywishy is offline  
post #9 of 22 Old 01-30-2014, 08:47 PM
Member
 
P&Struefan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 121
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 24
One way of looking at the BMPCC is treating it as a raw sensor module with some rudimentary add-ons. To get footage worthy of the true capability of this module much will depend on the peripheral equipment and the shooter's ability to handle the whole package. Then a good understanding of the post production workflow and experience in color grading techniques are needed to extract the most out of that footage. It's one tiny piece of device that demands a lot before you can see the final results that look truly right.

I gave it a try some months ago to see if I could somehow make it work for me as either a vacation cam or part of my work projects and I have to agree with you it's not a camera for us.
P&Struefan is offline  
post #10 of 22 Old 01-31-2014, 03:59 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,655
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 743 Post(s)
Liked: 835
I've looked at the first two examples and of those two the detail is better in the BM. With that said, I do not agree that the detail would be class leading (for 1080p). I see the same level of detail in the RX10 and the 3-chip Panasonics.

As for color, when it's good, it's excellent. Nice job Mark. There's still too much variability for my taste, but I appreciate the learning curve you're going through. However, and most importantly, here again I see this as nothing more than struggling to simply get back to what good OOC color gives you anyway, when using a quality DSLR/camcorder.

As for my favorite, dynamic range, once again throughout the video I saw nothing particularly challenging that a good conventional camera would have much problem with.

The most distracting issue with the footage is the very obvious jitter. This, for me, really ruins what is otherwise very nice material. I am all too familiar with this issue since I have that same problem with the RX10 at the extreme end of the zoom range. As a result, I try to stay away from that as much as possible.

However with the BM, it's obvious in shots of any focal length. I'm sure this is a combination of not having OIS with some lenses and the generally poor ergonomics of the camera itself. Honestly, for me, that alone would be a deal break even if there wasn't the hassle of grading. There is no way I'd carry a tripod around with me.

Mark, with all that said, you still have the best looking footage from this camera that I've seen. Not having to suffer through the inevitable look of 'stylized footage' (whether accidental or intentional wink.gif) is a big plus. smile.gif
Ken Ross is offline  
post #11 of 22 Old 02-01-2014, 06:08 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Example of high dynamic range video clip:

markr041 is online now  
post #12 of 22 Old 02-01-2014, 06:36 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,655
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 743 Post(s)
Liked: 835
Thank you Mark, this again proves my point since it looks exactly like the kind of samples that my friend would always post (a piece of furniture sitting in front of a window).

In the above frame grab, we must know what the subject is. Is it the watches in the showcase? Is it the people sitting outside? Is it the trees? It's highly doubtful it's both the watches in the case and the people sitting outside. That would make little sense. That's why the above scene is both distracting and confusing. The viewer has no idea what the videographer/photographer wanted to show.

Typically, given the vantage point, it would be the watches and the store interior. That would pose no problem for a typical camcorder/camera. If it's the exterior, that too would prove little problem for the typical camera. Either way, the subject would be properly exposed (which the interior is not).

This is why I say that many who continuously talk about 13 stops of DR seem to pay little attention to the actual job of a photographer or videographer, drawing the audience's attention to the subject. You would typically not find a scene exposed like this in a Hollywood movie.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #13 of 22 Old 02-01-2014, 08:26 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Liked: 124
If you watched the video you would have remembered the high dr clip was a framing introductory scene for introducing the chess players in the window, who are highlighted and properly exposed. They were then seen close up from a number of perspectives. So the sequence is:





A video clip is part of a sequence. That is why it cannot be artistically evaluated by itself. The point is you claimed there were no high dr shots in the video. This is incorrect.

The notion that a dark room is underexposed because it is dark is also incorrect. Night scenes are dark, as are closed stores. The clip recreates more realistically what the scene looked like - bright outdoors through the window and dim shop. A low dr camera would either blow out the window, which would have made the scene pointless to introduce the chess couple above, or would have given an unnaturally muddy and dark foreground. High dr means more realism, just like higher pixel counts. Surely you are not arguing that high dr is pointless? Anything that helps with realistic depictions is useful, and I know we both agree on that.
markr041 is online now  
post #14 of 22 Old 02-02-2014, 12:23 AM
Senior Member
 
Tugela's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 435
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 63
The indoor shot has a lot of noise in it, which means the sensor is approaching it's detection limits. As a result the shot is not really useable from a quality point of view, dynamic range or not. By ramping the lowlights up you have made the inherent noise more obvious. Just because something can be done does not mean that it should be done, since in the process you can introduce different artifacts.

There is also sensor level light scattering among the leaves in the background, which is always a problem for those sorts of shots (although it is less likely to be noticed in a BMPCC compared to a small sensor camcorder).
Tugela is offline  
post #15 of 22 Old 02-02-2014, 06:53 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,655
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 743 Post(s)
Liked: 835
Mark, to be fair, this shot is highly unusual and I certainly wouldn't use it to defend the efficacy, in typical use, of high DR video. My remarks were based on the frame grab, which is what I assumed you were looking for comments on, as there was no associated video in your post to watch. I'm sorry, but I honestly don't recall the video if it was previously posted.

As far as the shot itself goes, artistically, I think it's a poor shot to show the benefits of high DR. Others may feel differently. If the subject is the chess players, I just don't see the benefits of the muddy indoor scene used as an introductory scene. More importantly, it simply underscores to me that there are few cases where those 13 stops of DR actually benefit typical videos. I'm not saying there can't be a benefit from time to time, but to me it's surely not worth the extra effort that goes along with trying to get RAW video, from a color standpoint, back to where good OOC color already exists with typical cameras. It certainly isn't worth it for me to struggle with a camera that, IMO, is simply not fun to use and is ergonomically, a poor design. It's almost like comparing manual transmissions to automatic transmissions these days. In many cars, the automatics are every bit as efficient as manuals and in some cases, more so. However some still prefer manuals because they feels it's more fun. Choosing it for that reason makes sense for that person, but the argument that it's more efficient no longer holds much water these days. Likewise, based on almost very RAW video I see, the best you can hope for is to simply get back to the starting point that a good camera with a good sensor can get you when properly white balanced.

The bottom line for me is the benefits derived from getting much more consistent color, effortlessly, even with MWB (forget AWB, which can work well in many cameras most of the time) from a traditional camera, far outweigh the very few times I'd really benefit from the added DR. Just look at the myriad of RAW videos posted, and there are very few where you can see the benefits of the additional DR, or more importantly, where it was actually part of a coherent scene rather than a contrived 'hey look what my 13 stops of DR can do'. My buddy used to post those all the time and personally I thought they were nothing more than amusing, as they were totally unrealistic.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #16 of 22 Old 02-02-2014, 09:17 AM
Advanced Member
 
thedest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 618
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Thank you Mark, this again proves my point since it looks exactly like the kind of samples that my friend would always post (a piece of furniture sitting in front of a window).

In the above frame grab, we must know what the subject is. Is it the watches in the showcase? Is it the people sitting outside? Is it the trees? It's highly doubtful it's both the watches in the case and the people sitting outside. That would make little sense. That's why the above scene is both distracting and confusing. The viewer has no idea what the videographer/photographer wanted to show.

Typically, given the vantage point, it would be the watches and the store interior. That would pose no problem for a typical camcorder/camera. If it's the exterior, that too would prove little problem for the typical camera. Either way, the subject would be properly exposed (which the interior is not).

This is why I say that many who continuously talk about 13 stops of DR seem to pay little attention to the actual job of a photographer or videographer, drawing the audience's attention to the subject. You would typically not find a scene exposed like this in a Hollywood movie.

Thank you Ken, for showing once again why video shooters are YEARS behind still shooters.

Let me teach you something. When you take a picture, or a video, you dont expose only for the main subject, you expose for the ENTIRE SCENE. Having a subject well exposed and the rest blown out or crushed is NOT acceptable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

This is why I say that many who continuously talk about 13 stops of DR seem to pay little attention to the actual job of a photographer or videographer, drawing the audience's attention to the subject.

WHAT? Wait... WHAT? Are you saying that the exposure is important to draw attention to the subject?

Let me teach you another thing. If you want to draw attention to something, use shallow DOF. Having a scene that is properly exposed is NOT distracting. Our eyes can see more than 20 stops of dynamic range.

I will say this once again. Having the subject ALWAYS in the middle of the exposure is an AMATEUR way of shooting. Thats what you get on boring amateur family movies or boring news videos. Proper videos can have the subject in the shadows or in the highlights, but to be able to do that you need cameras with a lot of dynamic range.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tugela View Post

The indoor shot has a lot of noise in it, which means the sensor is approaching it's detection limits. As a result the shot is not really useable from a quality point of view, dynamic range or not. By ramping the lowlights up you have made the inherent noise more obvious. Just because something can be done does not mean that it should be done, since in the process you can introduce different artifacts.

Wrong! Thats a RAW shot. It doesnt have in-camera noise reduction like the average consumer camera. Getting rid of that kind of noise is EXTREMELY easy. That shot is definitely usable. You can easily keep all the highlights and midtones and just decrease the gain of the shadows. That way you will keep all the information getting rid of the noise.

So yes, you can use ALL the available dynamic range of that shot.

That happens all the time with stills. Remember: metadata (that noise is present on every single shot, just like in every other camera), dynamic range, post processing!
thedest is offline  
post #17 of 22 Old 02-02-2014, 12:50 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,655
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 743 Post(s)
Liked: 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedest View Post

Thank you Ken, for showing once again why video shooters are YEARS behind still shooters.

Let me teach you something. When you take a picture, or a video, you dont expose only for the main subject, you expose for the ENTIRE SCENE. Having a subject well exposed and the rest blown out or crushed is NOT acceptable.

Of course that's 100% wrong and virtually every photographer knows that. Apparently thedest, you know more than every camera manufacturer out there. I suggest you call them and tell them to immediately remove all the options other than 'average metering' immediately. No need for spot metering. No need for center weighted metering. Enough already thedest, I'm so tired of your know everything, condescending attitude. At least if you were correct it would be one thing, but you're wrong. There are times for everything to be properly exposed and times for selective portions of the frame to be properly exposed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedest View Post

WHAT? Wait... WHAT? Are you saying that the exposure is important to draw attention to the subject?
Exposure IS important to draw attention as is DOF. BOTH are important. Gone to any movies lately? Say what you will, but the vast majority of movies DO have blown out skies, windows etc. where there is a need to draw attention to the subject and AWAY from unimportant things like clouds. How many times are we going to go around on this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedest View Post

Let me teach you another thing. If you want to draw attention to something, use shallow DOF. Having a scene that is properly exposed is NOT distracting. Our eyes can see more than 20 stops of dynamic range.

That's wonderful but those are YOUR eyes and you know what YOU want to look at. Someone else looking at something you shot has no idea what your subject is IF you don't call attention to it. Having your infamous couch in front of your infamous window tells the viewer NOTHING about what your subject is. All that is pounding your chest and saying 'lookey lookey, I've got 13 stops of DR'. I'm not impressed thedest, I'm really not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedest View Post

I will say this once again. Having the subject ALWAYS in the middle of the exposure is an AMATEUR way of shooting. Thats what you get on boring amateur family movies or boring news videos.

Say what? Who said anything about centering or not centering the subject???? Sometimes it's called for and other times it's not. There is no 100% rule on this or did you invent this one too?

As I said, enough. I have no idea why I unblocked your post, but it was a mistake. Respond if you like, but trust me, I will not read it. I am so tired of reading the same thing from you over and over and over...........
Ken Ross is offline  
post #18 of 22 Old 02-02-2014, 02:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bsprague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the Road
Posts: 2,879
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedest View Post

......

Let me teach you something. .........

Let me teach you another thing.........
Do you lay awake at night, think up rude ways of writing things and memorize them for the next days use?

I may be wrong, but I think Ken was paid by clients to use video to teach employees skills and procedures.

Good luck "teaching" anybody anything when you start with gross insults.
bsprague is offline  
post #19 of 22 Old 02-02-2014, 02:53 PM
Advanced Member
 
thedest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 618
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Apparently thedest, you know more than every camera manufacturer out there. I suggest you call them and tell them to immediately remove all the options other than 'average metering' immediately. No need for spot metering. No need for center weighted metering.

They already know what im saying. And they also know how to fool the average consumer to make money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Exposure IS important to draw attention as is DOF.

Again... what? Where? When?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

As I said, enough. I have no idea why I unblocked your post, but it was a mistake. Respond if you like, but trust me, I will not read it. I am so tired of reading the same thing from you over and over and over...........

You always unblock me because I bring useful information. And Im glad that you learn reading my posts, even when you pretend that you are not reading and give indirect answers. wink.gif
thedest is offline  
post #20 of 22 Old 02-02-2014, 07:16 PM
Member
 
P&Struefan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 121
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedest View Post

………….. for showing once again why video shooters are YEARS behind still shooters.

[/B][/U]

Maybe because in video people are more interested in the story, the FLOW of the story, rather than the perfection of the frames as viewed individually. Even in widely acclaimed movies, often they are not viewed by many industry experts as perfect, or even near it, technically.

- THE GODFATHER, noticeably under-lit in several interior scenes. Some experts agree, some don't. But this doesn't matter. People who see it remember it for what it is, a superb motion picture.

- THE FRENCH CONNECTION, an interior shot in a dark deserted warehouse near the end of the movie that was full of film grain because it was either severely under-lit, a high-speed film stock was used or the combination of both. That doesn't matter either. People obviously don't remember the movie because the film grain but because it's an excellent movie.

- THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and PARANORMAL ACTIVITY (Original), Can't count how many flaws there were in these two, technically speaking, yet they are impressive in their own ways and have no doubt become a sort of benchmarks in filmmaking arts . Even the ugly colors (some people call it "stylized"), non-existent secondary lighting and worse than bad camera handling helped enhance their theatrical values. Do I remember the bad DV looks, the shakes etc. Well yes, but I do remember them much more as good movies and so do many people out there.

Then, there's a saying the sound is half the movie. Not many people like to look at the sequence of motion pictures for perfect frame grabs but a lot of them sure do appreciate good sound.
Ken Ross likes this.
P&Struefan is offline  
post #21 of 22 Old 02-02-2014, 07:31 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,655
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 743 Post(s)
Liked: 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsprague View Post


I may be wrong, but I think Ken was paid by clients to use video to teach employees skills and procedures.

You are correct Bill. In these safety training videos that I produce for large corporate clients, sometimes the subject was not centered and sometimes...gasp...the subject was centered. If only I knew I should never have centered the subject! rolleyes.gif

I read this stuff and just shake my head. But I'm determined to one day own a camera where I can get perfect exposure of both a couch in front of a window and the scene outside the window. Once I've achieved that, I know I'll be in video nirvana and will no longer have to worry about what the subject of the scene is! biggrin.gif
Ken Ross is offline  
post #22 of 22 Old 02-02-2014, 08:04 PM
Advanced Member
 
thedest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 618
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by P&Struefan View Post

Maybe because in video people are more interested in the story, the FLOW of the story, rather than the perfection of the frames as viewed individually. Even in widely acclaimed movies, often they are not viewed by many industry experts as perfect, or even near it, technically.

- THE GODFATHER, noticeably under-lit in several interior scenes. Some experts agree, some don't. But this doesn't matter. People who see it remember it for what it is, a superb motion picture.

- THE FRENCH CONNECTION, an interior shot in a dark deserted warehouse near the end of the movie that was full of film grain because it was either severely under-lit, a high-speed film stock was used or the combination of both. That doesn't matter either. People obviously don't remember the movie because the film grain but because it's an excellent movie.

- THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and PARANORMAL ACTIVITY (Original), Can't count how many flaws there were in these two, technically speaking, yet they are impressive in their own ways and have no doubt become a sort of benchmarks in filmmaking arts . Even the ugly colors (some people call it "stylized"), non-existent secondary lighting and worse than bad camera handling helped enhance their theatrical values. Do I remember the bad DV looks, the shakes etc. Well yes, but I do remember them much more as good movies and so do many people out there.

Then, there's a saying the sound is half the movie. Not many people like to look at the sequence of motion pictures for perfect frame grabs but a lot of them sure do appreciate good sound.

You dont need a bad looking video to tell a good story. You can have both. We are not discussing wich one is more important. And yes, I would rather watch a hot girl shot with an iphone than a fat dude shot with a phantom.

The fact that the Godfather was under-lit is not a problem. I will say again: underexposed subjects are not a problem when you have a good camera. But to be able to do that you need dynamic range (in that movie they probably used films). Cameras with a great dynamic range (and films) will be able to render shadow gradation well, so they will allow the shooter to underexpose the subject.

And big Hollywood movies fail all the time. I see people talking all the time about how horrible "The Hobbit" looks. They like the story, but they hate the image quality.

And check that out:

Oscar cinematography and best picture nominees

You will read ARRI over and over again. Why? Because those guys care about the QUALITY of their pixels. The color science and the dynamic range. They dont care about pixel count and marketing. You wont see The Hobbit here, with those ugly shots and an ugly glowing blown out sky, no matter how good the story is.

Im not saying that the story is not important, but that forum is not about content. Specially because almost no one here post content. They only talk about camera science.
.


.
thedest is offline  
Reply Camcorders

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off