Graeme and Tico,
That video looks pretty good to me, but maybe I don't know what to look for. Can you please point out where you see aliasing (or other problems)?
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
5D II Zone Plate...
- Thread starter Jannard
- Start date
Graeme and Tico,
That video looks pretty good to me, but maybe I don't know what to look for. Can you please point out where you see aliasing (or other problems)?
Tico Llaurador
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Messages
- 819
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Redondo Beach, CA
- Website
- twitter.com
The hotel's signage... top of the boat's hulls... the bread tray carts at the bakery... lines around the trolley advertising... the fur-clad mannequin... purses behind the store display window... it's everywhere.
Chris Newman
Well-known member
All you need to fix it is an aftermarket blur filter (aka Optical Low Pass Filter).
Graeme Nattress
RED Problem Solver
Put in an extra OLPF in front of the existing one to make video mode function correctly? It would have to be set very different vertically than horizontally, which is doable, but certainly not optimum. Maybe if you just de-focus the lens a bit?
Graeme
Graeme
Sanjin Jukic
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 8,929
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 36
- Location
- Vienna, Austria
- Website
- www.sanjinjukic.com
Forget Canon 5DMKII,
it's a nice photo FF35 camera and HD video gadget that advertising Canon L glass
with a low quality HD motion pictures at 30p that could sometimes break "minds and hearts" of "hardcore" cine lens users.
But upgradeable mother board with upcoming new sensor and additional universal mount would be successful for R1 at longer run.
Don't forget that nobody can make camera like a R1 for about 3K USD.
You can only get something hybrid or crippled HD video like in a Canon 5DMkII.
Also whole world entered a recession just before Christmas.
It's about 12 hours before December 3rd, 2008.
it's a nice photo FF35 camera and HD video gadget that advertising Canon L glass
with a low quality HD motion pictures at 30p that could sometimes break "minds and hearts" of "hardcore" cine lens users.
But upgradeable mother board with upcoming new sensor and additional universal mount would be successful for R1 at longer run.
Don't forget that nobody can make camera like a R1 for about 3K USD.
You can only get something hybrid or crippled HD video like in a Canon 5DMkII.
Also whole world entered a recession just before Christmas.
It's about 12 hours before December 3rd, 2008.
FMG battery
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2008
- Messages
- 200
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
what have you been smoking tonight sj?
Sanjin Jukic
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 8,929
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 36
- Location
- Vienna, Austria
- Website
- www.sanjinjukic.com
I quit smoking long ago.
Not healthy.
I was ordinary Laphroaig 10 years old.
Not healthy.
I was ordinary Laphroaig 10 years old.
FMG battery
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2008
- Messages
- 200
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
there will be thousands of sales next days.. for sure.. hope Jannard may understand he can take advantage w/ a similar offer powered by Graeme.
hey.. similar offer.. it includes form factor, sensor size & price.
Eddy Robinson
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 106
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Yes, but...
Yes, but...
...it would be more than acceptable if going out to DVD. Blu-Ray no, unless you did some work on the post processing; Nikon D90 fans over at dvxuser.com worked out the pixel spacing on that camera which was causing ugly jaggies and developed an automated post fix which would work in any editing package.
By the way, I'd like to say I quite like this footage. I live in San Francisco and I've been to all these locations, and sometimes shot there too. I'm quite impressed by how good this all looks, considering that it was shot 'as-is'. When I say good, I'm thinking of the lighting and color etc., as opposed to the aliasing. I've been on night shoots all over the city with everything from a crappy 1-chip (me messing about and wondering what I could get) to 35mm with maxi-brutes (huge 5 kilowatt lights). And I must say, I'm pretty amazed at how nice this looks.
Here's a blog post about the shooting. The 'secret weapon' used on some shots is an f/2.0 200mm lens which is pretty damn fast. These are not cheap (I found one for about $5500 on EBay, which is almost 3x the cost of the camera...) but then it's insanely long as well - I found several equally fast but shorter lenses for much less.
There's definitely some ugly going on, and I'm sure I'd see a lot more if I piped this over to my TV (42"). Plus I disliked the video feel, especially around 21/22 seconds (2 shots). On the other hand, the wide shots of the Castro theater (34 seconds) and Macy's (1:00, last shot) look gorgeous. Even at 30p, I got that little 'Ooh...movie!' shiver. And the shots of the reporter around 0:30 were similarly cool. I even liked the lens flare.
Because I know all these locations well, it ties in immediately to that feeling of 'this looks great, I wish I could shoot this right now' - when the reality is that it often takes much time and effort on lighting to get that 'as-is' look, due to the limitations of cameras. Let's be honest folks, if I showed you the nicest shots from this clip as a sequence of still photos and said 'this is my my photostory board, I want to shot this on s16 or 35', 5 minutes later we'd be discussing permits and 3 ton grip trucks. Hey, if you showed me the same photos, I'd be drawing up the same requirements.
So despite all the flaws and so on I'm still really quite amazed at what is going here. Being able to get such good-looking night footage with just a DSLR, a tasty lens and a tripod is frankly rather startling. Cinema/Hollywood quality, no way. But for low/no budget indie filmmaking, suddenly every location scout is a b-roll acquisition opportunity.
And the reality is that 90% of the general public wouldn't really be able to tell the difference if they were watching it on TV, or much care. Of course we care, but let's not allow our educated eyes to focus too much on the pixels at the expense of the picture, and I'm including Jim here. The zone plate picture does matter, but that's still some tasty-looking footage acquired with very, very low overhead which is nothing to sneeze at. Irony of ironies, if you took Canon's ~$10k XL-H1 out around town for the evening at 30p, it probably wouldn't look anywhere near as good...which might explain why they're not offering 24/25p frame rates on the 5dm2 :sarcasm:
When you don't have any real money for a film budget, it becomes important to ask where you hit the point of diminishing returns in terms of image acquisition - which is why super 16 has survived as it delivers 'good enough' results for many purposes at a vastly more affordable price point than the same project on 35mm (unless your shooting ratio is so low that the saving is less than the cost of the blow-up). On a decently budgeted picture you negotiate for the prices of property and talent, establish the upper limit for your VFX budget (if needed at all), and other line items you just accept union or going rates for most needs. At the low end the non-key staff and talent are making maybe $100/day, and at the bottom you're into FFF (food, friends, and favors). So if you can find a location that looks great at night - and carrying around a DSLR and a laptop is something you'd do anyway - then cameras like this offer the possibility of shooting something good with just your actors and 2 or 3 crew, instead of 10 or 15 plus a truck. 'Taking some pictures' in a restaurant scene (where your biggest thing is a DSLR + lens) is maybe doable for $100 instead of the $500 or $1000 needed if you want to bring in c-stands and HMIs and a crew. Comparing the costs on various small-budget shoots I've been on (where the project was destined for or ended up on video) I can see cost savings of anywhere from 50-80%. That's peanuts for some filmmakers, but for someone trying to put together their first feature (for example) it might be possible to reduce costs from a few thousands of dollars a day to several hundred, which is a massive difference (and can go into things like hiring better actors with some marquee value, music, paying the post team properly, and even doing some marketing).
I'm going to ask for the moon here and say that this is approximately what I would like to be able to do with the Scarlet Fixed and/or C-mount model - that is, get good quality images using available practical light. I appreciate the limitations of the sensor and also the t-stop (eg T 2.8 on the fixed lens model, where the slower speed is offset by the constant T benefit). 'Good quality' as in 7 out of 10 - it doesn't have to win awards, but with some advance planning you could shoot a straightforward night scene on a well-lit street, in a doorway or medium key restaurant lighting and have it be good enough to tell the story without the audience straining to see what's going on, and without the film production having enough of a footprint to require a grip truck or permits for every shot.
The Big Deal about the RED One was that you could suddenly work at or close to 35mm quality with a camera package priced more like 16mm, not to mention saving a vast amount of money in lab fees. Jim and the rest of the RED team are doing a lot to democratize filmmaking and put really high quality into the hands of people at prices that would previously have relegated them to shooting on digibeta or suchlike. Scarlet promises to do much the same for the market between DV and 16mm, and the rest of the product line offers an upgrade path that serves a big variety of budgets all the way up to high end.
The point of this post is to observe that whether planned or not, and acknowledging the significant quality trade offs, some of the other manufacturers are going to be competing with RED at the low end of the price spectrum too; and while their products are decidedly inferior on a technical level, they are adequate and deliver very clear bottom-line advantages to low-budget filmmakers.
Yes, but...
...it would be more than acceptable if going out to DVD. Blu-Ray no, unless you did some work on the post processing; Nikon D90 fans over at dvxuser.com worked out the pixel spacing on that camera which was causing ugly jaggies and developed an automated post fix which would work in any editing package.
By the way, I'd like to say I quite like this footage. I live in San Francisco and I've been to all these locations, and sometimes shot there too. I'm quite impressed by how good this all looks, considering that it was shot 'as-is'. When I say good, I'm thinking of the lighting and color etc., as opposed to the aliasing. I've been on night shoots all over the city with everything from a crappy 1-chip (me messing about and wondering what I could get) to 35mm with maxi-brutes (huge 5 kilowatt lights). And I must say, I'm pretty amazed at how nice this looks.
Here's a blog post about the shooting. The 'secret weapon' used on some shots is an f/2.0 200mm lens which is pretty damn fast. These are not cheap (I found one for about $5500 on EBay, which is almost 3x the cost of the camera...) but then it's insanely long as well - I found several equally fast but shorter lenses for much less.
There's definitely some ugly going on, and I'm sure I'd see a lot more if I piped this over to my TV (42"). Plus I disliked the video feel, especially around 21/22 seconds (2 shots). On the other hand, the wide shots of the Castro theater (34 seconds) and Macy's (1:00, last shot) look gorgeous. Even at 30p, I got that little 'Ooh...movie!' shiver. And the shots of the reporter around 0:30 were similarly cool. I even liked the lens flare.
Because I know all these locations well, it ties in immediately to that feeling of 'this looks great, I wish I could shoot this right now' - when the reality is that it often takes much time and effort on lighting to get that 'as-is' look, due to the limitations of cameras. Let's be honest folks, if I showed you the nicest shots from this clip as a sequence of still photos and said 'this is my my photostory board, I want to shot this on s16 or 35', 5 minutes later we'd be discussing permits and 3 ton grip trucks. Hey, if you showed me the same photos, I'd be drawing up the same requirements.
So despite all the flaws and so on I'm still really quite amazed at what is going here. Being able to get such good-looking night footage with just a DSLR, a tasty lens and a tripod is frankly rather startling. Cinema/Hollywood quality, no way. But for low/no budget indie filmmaking, suddenly every location scout is a b-roll acquisition opportunity.
And the reality is that 90% of the general public wouldn't really be able to tell the difference if they were watching it on TV, or much care. Of course we care, but let's not allow our educated eyes to focus too much on the pixels at the expense of the picture, and I'm including Jim here. The zone plate picture does matter, but that's still some tasty-looking footage acquired with very, very low overhead which is nothing to sneeze at. Irony of ironies, if you took Canon's ~$10k XL-H1 out around town for the evening at 30p, it probably wouldn't look anywhere near as good...which might explain why they're not offering 24/25p frame rates on the 5dm2 :sarcasm:
When you don't have any real money for a film budget, it becomes important to ask where you hit the point of diminishing returns in terms of image acquisition - which is why super 16 has survived as it delivers 'good enough' results for many purposes at a vastly more affordable price point than the same project on 35mm (unless your shooting ratio is so low that the saving is less than the cost of the blow-up). On a decently budgeted picture you negotiate for the prices of property and talent, establish the upper limit for your VFX budget (if needed at all), and other line items you just accept union or going rates for most needs. At the low end the non-key staff and talent are making maybe $100/day, and at the bottom you're into FFF (food, friends, and favors). So if you can find a location that looks great at night - and carrying around a DSLR and a laptop is something you'd do anyway - then cameras like this offer the possibility of shooting something good with just your actors and 2 or 3 crew, instead of 10 or 15 plus a truck. 'Taking some pictures' in a restaurant scene (where your biggest thing is a DSLR + lens) is maybe doable for $100 instead of the $500 or $1000 needed if you want to bring in c-stands and HMIs and a crew. Comparing the costs on various small-budget shoots I've been on (where the project was destined for or ended up on video) I can see cost savings of anywhere from 50-80%. That's peanuts for some filmmakers, but for someone trying to put together their first feature (for example) it might be possible to reduce costs from a few thousands of dollars a day to several hundred, which is a massive difference (and can go into things like hiring better actors with some marquee value, music, paying the post team properly, and even doing some marketing).
I'm going to ask for the moon here and say that this is approximately what I would like to be able to do with the Scarlet Fixed and/or C-mount model - that is, get good quality images using available practical light. I appreciate the limitations of the sensor and also the t-stop (eg T 2.8 on the fixed lens model, where the slower speed is offset by the constant T benefit). 'Good quality' as in 7 out of 10 - it doesn't have to win awards, but with some advance planning you could shoot a straightforward night scene on a well-lit street, in a doorway or medium key restaurant lighting and have it be good enough to tell the story without the audience straining to see what's going on, and without the film production having enough of a footprint to require a grip truck or permits for every shot.
The Big Deal about the RED One was that you could suddenly work at or close to 35mm quality with a camera package priced more like 16mm, not to mention saving a vast amount of money in lab fees. Jim and the rest of the RED team are doing a lot to democratize filmmaking and put really high quality into the hands of people at prices that would previously have relegated them to shooting on digibeta or suchlike. Scarlet promises to do much the same for the market between DV and 16mm, and the rest of the product line offers an upgrade path that serves a big variety of budgets all the way up to high end.
The point of this post is to observe that whether planned or not, and acknowledging the significant quality trade offs, some of the other manufacturers are going to be competing with RED at the low end of the price spectrum too; and while their products are decidedly inferior on a technical level, they are adequate and deliver very clear bottom-line advantages to low-budget filmmakers.
Tom Lowe
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 8,520
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
The thing that is so amazing to me about the 5DII is that I could basically put this camera and lens in an oversized coat pocket, pull it out and shoot 1080p Vista Vision format for hours and hours in ridiculously low light, with nothing but a couple of tiny CF cards and spare batteries in my other pocket.
Then you get home, pop the CF cards in the reader, and there are all your 1080p clips ready to go in .mov format, which seems very similar to Bluray specs.
Yes, there are image tradeoffs. But this technology is really something.
Then you get home, pop the CF cards in the reader, and there are all your 1080p clips ready to go in .mov format, which seems very similar to Bluray specs.
Yes, there are image tradeoffs. But this technology is really something.
Luis de la Cerda
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2007
- Messages
- 132
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I like the images (not charts, actual footage) I've seen so far. Ok, the sensor reading is being "cheated", the OLPF is adjusted for the high res stills, canon's engineers wear women's underwear, whatever. I'm excited anyhow. In my own humble opinion, the 5dmkII is the most perfect tag along, travel companion, take it anywhere, anytime, small camera available as of today. I don't know about tomorrow, but today I want one 
Michael Ragen
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 515
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 44
- Location
- NYC
- Website
- www.michaelragen.com
http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/12/02/for-image-quality-buffs-dslr-video-is-off-the-table/#more-56512
Check out the Metroid example. Hilarious.
Check out the Metroid example. Hilarious.
Anders Zakrisson
Member
So the fixed lens 2/3" Scarlet and 5D Mk II will get head to head when the Scarlet becomes available, one coming from the world of moving pictures and the other from stills. High resolution, high frame-rate video vs. large sensor, high-resolution stills.
What'll happen is that we'll have a choice and competition just makes these two companies work harder. I applaud Jim and Red as well as Canon.
What'll happen is that we'll have a choice and competition just makes these two companies work harder. I applaud Jim and Red as well as Canon.
Michael Hastings
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- Messages
- 4,191
- Reaction score
- 21
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Florida
- Website
- www.aquavideo.com
I like the images (not charts, actual footage) I've seen so far. Ok, the sensor reading is being "cheated", the OLPF is adjusted for the high res stills, canon's engineers wear women's underwear, whatever. I'm excited anyhow. In my own humble opinion, the 5dmkII is the most perfect tag along, travel companion, take it anywhere, anytime, small camera available as of today. I don't know about tomorrow, but today I want one
My feelings exactly, I will almost certainly upgrade my red to an epic x, and purchase some version of scarlet, but the 5d MKII is a sexy beast in its own right and probably a worthwhile investment until a comparable scarlet comes next fall/winter.
Joseph Ward
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
- Messages
- 1,144
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
That's funny since they don't even have Scarlet FF35 OR Epic FF35 to compare? Did they even try RedOne?