Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

1st 24 hours with an Epic

Andreas Herzog said:
Awsome images gunleik! Was just wondering if you have found a sweetspot for compression rate. I tend to go minimum compression always, but my raid systems does not agree with me:p
Click to expand...

Thanks Andreas!

I gather you haven't played with it yet?

I don't really know yet.
Just started post and this is definitely part of the test.

I have a hard time getting used to the flexibility and versatility of the Epic images compared to the R1 images.
It's a totally different beast. They can take severe beating in allmost all directions and still stay intact.
My guess is that the bit overhead and float operations throughout contributes a lot to this.
They are just soooo fat and smooth compared to anything I have ever touched.


It seems to me that the 5:1 advice as a "best" and rational is very good.
I have shot some 3:1 and some 12:1 and of course a bit of 8:1 for HDRx and highspeed.
Actually haven't had issues with any of the compressions so far.

I am starting to lean towards that some of the "issues" I have with the R1, has more to do with the internal processing "underhead" than the compression itself. Given that the Epic is supposed to have (joke) the same sensor, but the extreme difference in results from the two.
I have yet to see an Epic image seriously harnessed by compression.

Another thing is that I truely immediately fell in love with shooting 5k
the extra pixeloverhead seems to get priority over lesser compression, when I have to decide.
And that is cool in post too.

But these comments have to be read as "notes as I work" and not "final analysis"...


The Epic images are just so incredilbly "stretchable", due to their full exposure-range workability that I am a bit puzzled at the moment...
I'll eventually post some single r3d's with alternate grades, when I am doing the writeup, but gee...

You just want to play with and find out:

Wow... And I can do this! And I can do this! And I can do this!

Childish fun! :-)


garn_01.jpg
 
We got our baby 4 weeks ago:) so we can test 3d setup now with Eirik. (got the cables)

Another question. Will it be a bad idea to shoot 2 cam and mix r1 and epicm in the same scene? I would belive not, but due to your findings it seems you would get two different estetic moods out of them.
 
NRK had its on Monday
Maybe we shold do 4D?

LOL

Carefull here... :-)
Still testing.

And this is one of the things I am testing for, as this is a possible scenario if the X's don't start showing up sooni'ish...

I think they can be matched as long as you shoot on the MXs premises.
The preview will look very different , and the extremes of the exposurerange.
But if you dig into the "fat" part of the R1 MX exposure, you'll probably be fine.

The R1 MX falls off a bit in the low end.
The Epic does not.
Images like this:

593912_1280x1024.jpg


would not make R1 MX very happy in either side of the range, in my experience.
While with the Epic, it's just fun and enjoyment.

Problem I see is that you'll have to trust and test post a bit, as currently you don't have RG2 or RLF on the R1
If one had a "view RLF @ 320/5600" button instead of "view RAW" on the R1 MX, one could match them more securely.

Stuff like this:

601766_1280x1024.jpg


also would match poorly, due to the way the R1 MX handles overexposure and high exposured skintones under tungsten. Like here:

http://www.gunleik.com/tests/tungbrack/bracket/095.html

The Epic just rolls in without any really huge post issues, while the R1 goes flimsy (that is compared to Epic...) at the top.

BTW, the last of these images have a fresnell fired off focused directly into the lens...
The first it directly at her hair... One source and quite stopped down...

This image is also quite interesting as to the Epics "fatness"

591947_1280x1024.jpg


One 650 at her back/head as widely /unfocused as I could in a cellar...
Her face is lit from the reflections from the cars only.
But the image is so stretchable in post that... well I hardly can notice the harsh treatment...

I cannot really think of any part of this last image I would be able to match with the Epic if I shot it on the R1 MX...


So...

You'd have to have a very "secure" plan, but then I guess it's ok.

You'll still have some extra time in post matching them.

Actually I think the R1 M and MX are quite simple to match.
I am a bit in the thinktank as to R1 MX and Epic.
Not that it cannot be done elegantly.
Just that THAT needs a high level of conciousness on set on stuff I am unsure I want DP's to be concious about...

Again the normal disclaimer and reservation:
These are not coclusions, just initial thouhghts
And whatever they are read like, I am just thinking out loud on what I see...

I will be posting some images from both cams eventually... Just wanna have some time with them first...



That said:
Have you gotten around to play with it?

Cheers

G
 
Not too much. I'm spending time getting it ready for production, I've never been worried about the quality of the images. The few tests I've done just shows me that its never been easier to shoot digital film for the big screen. No fuzz, no suprises, no anoying bugs. Just hope to get the evf soon and the camera will be in constant production.

It does seem to happier when i blackshade before highspeed images tho.
 
Gunleik Groven said:
NRK had its on Monday
Maybe we shold do 4D?

LOL

Carefull here... :-)
Still testing.

And this is one of the things I am testing for, as this is a possible scenario if the X's don't start showing up sooni'ish...

I think they can be matched as long as you shoot on the MXs premises.
The preview will look very different , and the extremes of the exposurerange.
But if you dig into the "fat" part of the R1 MX exposure, you'll probably be fine.

The R1 MX falls off a bit in the low end.
The Epic does not.
Images like this:

593912_1280x1024.jpg


would not make R1 MX very happy in either side of the range, in my experience.
While with the Epic, it's just fun and enjoyment.

Problem I see is that you'll have to trust and test post a bit, as currently you don't have RG2 or RLF on the R1
If one had a "view RLF @ 320/5600" button instead of "view RAW" on the R1 MX, one could match them more securely.

Stuff like this:

601766_1280x1024.jpg


also would match poorly, due to the way the R1 MX handles overexposure and high exposured skintones under tungsten. Like here:

http://www.gunleik.com/tests/tungbrack/bracket/095.html

The Epic just rolls in without any really huge post issues, while the R1 goes flimsy (that is compared to Epic...) at the top.

BTW, the last of these images have a fresnell fired off focused directly into the lens...
The first it directly at her hair... One source and quite stopped down...

This image is also quite interesting as to the Epics "fatness"

591947_1280x1024.jpg


One 650 at her back/head as widely /unfocused as I could in a cellar...
Her face is lit from the reflections from the cars only.
But the image is so stretchable in post that... well I hardly can notice the harsh treatment...

I cannot really think of any part of this last image I would be able to match with the Epic if I shot it on the R1 MX...


So...

You'd have to have a very "secure" plan, but then I guess it's ok.

You'll still have some extra time in post matching them.

Actually I think the R1 M and MX are quite simple to match.
I am a bit in the thinktank as to R1 MX and Epic.
Not that it cannot be done elegantly.
Just that THAT needs a high level of conciousness on set on stuff I am unsure I want DP's to be concious about...

Again the normal disclaimer and reservation:
These are not coclusions, just initial thouhghts
And whatever they are read like, I am just thinking out loud on what I see...

I will be posting some images from both cams eventually... Just wanna have some time with them first...



That said:
Have you gotten around to play with it?

Cheers

G
Click to expand...

Thank you for yet another useful and thought-provoking post. Your sensitive attention to detail is a quality I find admirable and I try my best to do the same in my work.
 
Thanks Rob!
Apprechiated!

I wish some of the more experienced Epic users around here would jump in with thoughts.
Becomming a strange monologue at times.

But looking at the interest, I guess there is something to it.
I'll continue to jot down notes as the tests run their path through edit and online.

They'll be cut in FCP. re-conformed to AVID (long story, but it is part of the purpose) and conformed back to resolve as raw and EXR. VFX will happen in Nuke.
And I'll continue pushing out images I like
Or find interesting.

But comments from other more experienced users, and general questions, like from Andreas is appreachiated.
I too learn from having to think through them :-)

And that exchange of angles on subjects is what has made this site such a wonderfull resource at times...

Cheers
G
 
I am so proud to see all the wonderful images you got out of my beloved #646, and I just love to read all your analysis and feed them into my brain, much appreciated!

Building a new house, and generally being very busy lately, I have only shot one music video and some tests, but I very much agree on the Mx sensor feeling completely different in the Epic, and soo much better!
 
I just shot with the Epic and a Red MX all week and to my eye, they are very, very similar in look if exposed properly.
 
Rick Darge said:
I just shot with the Epic and a Red MX all week and to my eye, they are very, very similar in look if exposed properly.
Click to expand...

Yes, I don't doubt that as long as you hit the "fat" part of the MX, they'll look very good together.
It's when you start to challenge the exposure, I think you might get into issues.
Or you are not in the posision to controll the light.

Under controlled light and shot on the R1 MXs premises, they will match.

To get the exposures "similar" you have to take into account the current gamma difference in the camera setups.
I have shot some side by side, and think there are things to look for. :-)

Not trying to make this a big issue. That's also why I posted some examples... :-)
 
Actually, let's give this the positive angle I want to keep this in.
Bot R1 and r1 mx are cameras I have used a lot and like a lot,
THAT is not the issue.
And they have their individual charracterristics.
Which I have learned to love and like.

The Epic is a totally different story, as it so far has taken close to all challenges I have thrown at it.
That is kind of addictive... As it opens up a whole new potential of fun imagery, particularily as to over- and underexposure, and to me I see that I can make "rougher" images look the way I want them too. The palette is widely extended, compared to the Epics older relatives.
I like that!

But that difference is important to have in mind. If you start to shoot the R1 like you can with the Epic, you might get into trouble.
I might post some examples, but I sort of think it's cool to have nice images in this thread. :-)

"Hitting the exposure" is by no means an absolute term...
It's a bit related to knowing your kit/stock/lights, what is possible and what are the limits and knowing what you want to achieve and how to get there with the kit you have.

For example I think it may be partly possible to achieve some of the looks of some of the higher DR images I have posted on the R1. But I would need to expose the image much more gentle, and then plan a post process for the rest.

If you expose for what you want and you get that result, then you "hit the exposure"
If you get a different result, then you did not....
The difference between R1 MX and Epic can def be a factor in whether you "hit it" or not.
And even more: how you expose to "hit" it.

So what I am suggesting is more like:

Do your own tests in the shootingstyle and lightingstyle you intend to use and take it through post before shooting a mixed setup.

What I will post is some match examples later on.
Where they will match well... :-)

This thread is all about making stuff work. :-)

All in all it is a good thing, isn't it?
That the Epic is such a giant step in cameradevelopment as it seems to be.
Even if the consquence is that you cannot neccesarily match any other camera with it in some circumstances
Isn't that why we all line up to buy it?
If it was just a shrinked R1, I wouldn't have bothered, and I would not be half as enthustiastic.

But the flip side is of course:
Nope. Matching with the R1 (M/MX) won't allways work...
But as I see it:
That is good!

Cheers

G
 
Thanks Brice (and Eirik!!!) :-)

I shot a lot of HDR.
But I haven't posted anything of that except for the initial tests.

A bit of a self-pedagogic thing here
Want to see what I can force out of the box as it is first.

Have slightly played with the new HDRx/MagicMotion settings, and I find them very impressive.

But HDRx is soon up in the images. For sure.
We shot a lot from a car in natural light with day exteriors to test for that.
And also quite a few other shots.
Even in the fishing-net
HDR + highspeed.


But, before I recjoice all the "extras" I wanted to familiarize myself with the "straight" cam.

And gee, do I like what I see! :-)
It's also good that one can choose when one wants double exposures on the Epic, which isn't the case for all cameras.
I like that a lot, too!
Sometimes... Like: Quite often - single exposures is what I want.

But I'll get there!

Gunleik
 
Considering what I'm seeing on that thread I don't think I'll use HDR alot so.
Really impressive indeed!
Now I'm scared to see your extras :-)
Best
 
Thanks brice.

fun that the two images you chose are both daylight/natural light... :-)

More to come
Including greenscreen with unfiltered tungsten

Cheers

G
 
Here's two more from the " a day in the countryside" paraphrase...

The first without HDRx
The second with +3 stops

Just quickies out of RCX, still
If you see any trace of lightroom in it, it is because I took the tiffs in there to convert to jpg...

Nothing is matched up/graded yet... :-)


car_02.jpg




car_03.jpg
 
Ah.

Girls with pink umbrellas. :)

Seriously, if this is the imagery out of the box I'm experiencing thread envy right now.

As a side note, this is some of the nicest, art directed, storytelling imagery I have seen from the EPIC to date.

It's nice to see people in some shots and to see them set in scenes which tell a story.

This stuff screams "film" to me and it looks really great.

Thanks Gunliek.

David
 
Thanks guys!
It sure is more fun testing doing "real" stuff... :-)

More to come... As I jot down my notes and work through the material.
you'll eventually even see moving images! .-9

Thanks

really appreachiate it!

G
 
David Battistella said:
Ah.

Girls with pink umbrellas. :)

Seriously, if this is the imagery out of the box I'm experiencing thread envy right now.

As a side note, this is some of the nicest, art directed, storytelling imagery I have seen from the EPIC to date.

It's nice to see people in some shots and to see them set in scenes which tell a story.

This stuff screams "film" to me and it looks really great.

Thanks Gunliek.

David
Click to expand...

Agreed - I'm not that into wildlife and this stuff is very interesting to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top