Arri Alexa and Mysterium-X...

[Deanan]

One could also say that Michael is being practical and sensible, and the statements being made are needlessly arrogant. I've found time and time again that most people - but in particular, working cinematographers - much prefer the former to the latter.

But each to their own. :closedeyes:

That much like saying "linear" when you really mean "video gamma". Professionals in our industry do it all the time including some at the biggest post facilities, but that just leads to more confusion.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

The incorrect use of the word "linear" has lead to much confusion that would not occur if we all worked together to ensure correct use of terminology. As an industry we all need to be able to communicate effectively not just in files and codecs and images, but in the language we use to discuss them.

Graeme

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Obviously that the present transition from film to digital is entering in its Renaissance period where we getting

sort of "rebirth" of older film terminology that finally should be PROPERLY unified with the latest scientific language used.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

When we test the camera we test using our DRTC to determine what that range is, so that they can use this as their reference.

But your DRTC, as evidenced by it's very name tests Dynamic Range, not Latitude.

Im not criticizing your possibly more precise definition, just advocating for talking with professionals in their language.

Or is it that stating "Latttude" in marketing sounds an awful lot more impressive than the more accurate "Dynamic Range"? When you state "13.5 STOPS OF LATITUDE", you really saying "13.5 stops of Dynamic Range".

Graeme

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but Graeme was educating me, and I can say that he understood what I meant perfectly. I like to look at the exacting details and derive my own practical methodology. This is the only path to mastery. And it is pretty obvious I was searching for those intricacies.

At the same time, we understand Micheal's point. There is nothing you can do if on a set everyone is miss-speaking. The last thing you need to do on a set is pull out a dictionary. And there is a lot more to communication than words. We know this all too well as we are filmmakers. If a point needs to get across, people will most likely find a way to get it across and get back to creating.

Those using latitude in the technically incorrect way may in fact be correct if they meant to use it a non-photographical sense... latitude does also mean [Extent; breadth]. Though it is also obvious that, for photography, if two people clearly knew the technical differences between both, they would be able to communicate more effectively.

This whole thing is a big noodle where we all obviously agree, whether we say so or not. Everyone is right.

I especially thank Graeme for taking the time to explain to me exactly what I was asking. Thanks to his explanation I was able to think about setting exposure in a more effective way.

that just leads to more confusion.

The incorrect use of the word "linear" has lead to much confusion that would not occur if we all worked together to ensure correct use of terminology. As an industry we all need to be able to communicate effectively not just in files and codecs and images, but in the language we use to discuss them.

Graeme

Exactly. And the fewer snowballs that are out there, the sooner we'll be able to focus on more complex and involved practices such as 3D.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Winky winky

Winky winky

To really make it work you need frame accurate start and stop so that the files are a frame to frame match to the raw files and you need that box to be much smaller. A third party module on Epic would be the real answer.

IBloom

...Or a Red module, as it turns out! ;-)

OK, I'm just assuming, but if h.264 is announced a ProRes module is almost certain to follow.

 

[M Most]

That much like saying "linear" when you really mean "video gamma". Professionals in our industry do it all the time including some at the biggest post facilities, but that just leads to more confusion.

There is a general understanding that "linear" when used in its most common context is referring to something that is "not log," and since there is that general understanding, the only real confusion is among people who insist that the terminology be perfect, not those who actually use it. I would say that the most heinous and destructive use of terminology right now is the term "lossless," which doesn't seem to mean anything these days other than "it looks the same to me." The invention in recent years of what is essentially a marketing term like "visually lossless" is far more confusing and counterproductive than the misuse of "linear" when referring to gamma encoded material.

BTW, since you know me, you also know that I don't personally use the incorrect terminology. But a lot of people I deal with do, and rather than correct them, I would rather just understand what they mean, and move on. It makes life a lot easier.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

At the same time, we understand Micheal's point. There is nothing wrong with going along if everyone is miss-speaking. The last thing you need to do on a set is pull out a dictionary. And there is a lot more to communication than words. We know this all too well as we are filmmakers. If a point needs to get across, people will most likely find a way to get it across and get back to creating.

It's very appealing to talk to people using an incorrect usage of language to ease communications, but we're meant to be professionals, and we should strive to be better than using slang in our professional dealings. The example of "lin" and "linear" is a good one, as repeated use of poor terminology has lead to utter confusion, whereas if we'd stuck to correct language usage and educated those using the wrong terminology, we'd be in a much better situation.

Graeme

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

But your DRTC, as evidenced by it's very name tests Dynamic Range, not Latitude.



Or is it that stating "Latttude" in marketing sounds an awful lot more impressive than the more accurate "Dynamic Range"? When you state "13.5 STOPS OF LATITUDE", you really saying "13.5 stops of Dynamic Range".

Graeme

ARRI desperately wants to sell and also earn money with its latest digital acquisition system that is called A L E X A.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

BTW, since you know me, you also know that I don't personally use the incorrect terminology. But a lot of people I deal with do, and rather than correct them, I would rather just understand what they mean, and move on. It makes life a lot easier.

I'm all for an easy life, but we're in a technical field where words have precise meanings, and when we don't use words to mean what they say it leads to confusion. I don't see it wrong to educate people on proper usage because at the same time you're not just educating on language, but how the whole process works, and increased understanding there has to be good for everyone. But then again, I used to be a math teacher and I do think that technical terminology should be used correctly.

Graeme

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

Sorry Graeme. I edited my post, slightly.

It's very appealing to talk to people using an incorrect usage of language to ease communications, but we're meant to be professionals, and we should strive to be better than using slang in our professional dealings. The example of "lin" and "linear" is a good one, as repeated use of poor terminology has lead to utter confusion, whereas if we'd stuck to correct language usage and educated those using the wrong terminology, we'd be in a much better situation.

Graeme

I absolutely agree. There is only one thing to do in life, grow. If you don't you are technically dead. If it wasn't for this unrelenting drive some posses, we wouldn't have EPIC.

 

[M Most]

ARRI desperately wants to sell and also earn money with its latest digital acquisition system that is called A L E X A.

Sanjin, I really wish you'd just stop this incessant bashing of everything that isn't Red. It doesn't contribute to any kind of intelligent discourse and it doesn't encourage anyone to see things your way. Every company in existence "desperately" wants to sell their products and earn money. That's why companies exist. That's why Red exists, it's why Apple exists, it's why Arri and everyone else exists, regardless of what you may want to believe. You like Red. You dislike everything else. Fine. We get it.

Personally, my solution is to put you on my Ignore list, which I've just done.

 

[Deanan]

BTW, since you know me, you also know that I don't personally use the incorrect terminology. But a lot of people I deal with do, and rather than correct them, I would rather just understand what they mean, and move on. It makes life a lot easier.

Except when you think they mean video gamma and they actually mean linear light.

Happened to me last week when two people in a facility were together asking for linear and talking about it like video gamma ("not log") but they actually did mean linear.

It's similar to many other areas where the general audience is getting more savvy, more and more people are using the terms correctly. Hopefully that applies to lossless also. (visual or mathematical)

 

[Graeme Nattress]

The whole point of developing technical terminology is to aid communication without having to waste time going into long monologues when a simple, commonly understood word would suffice. All professions have their own terminology that may seem obtuse to outsiders (think medical or legal terminology), but they use their words precisely for the same reason we should - ease of communication.

Graeme

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

and it doesn't encourage anyone to see things your way.

Yes. Quite the opposite in some cases SJ, and especially among those who RED would like to win over the most.

The whole point of developing technical terminology is to aid communication without having to waste time going into long monologues when a simple, commonly understood word would suffice. All professions have their own terminology that may seem obtuse to outsiders (think medical or legal terminology), but they use their words precisely for the same reason we should - ease of communication.

Graeme

I absolutely agree. I guess I didn't put that much emphasis on it because I thought this was obvious, self evident...

 

[Blaire Johnson]

...as repeated use of poor terminology has lead to utter confusion, whereas if we'd stuck to correct language usage and educated those using the wrong terminology, we'd be in a much better situation.

Well isn't this a Pot and Kettle situation... Red is known for creating/redefining terminology/methods that we have all come accustomed to.

-Before Red we ALWAYS spoke in Mb when talking about bandwidth, not MB. -Visually/mathematically Lossless... what?
-Backfocus/Flange Focal Distance.. the latest redefined term per Red Focus.
-Mini BNC/XLR connectors on the camera and calling them "industry standard"... maybe for post production but last time I checked the camera body isn't apart of the post production.
-Gigapixels... again what?
-ISO... the ISO on the R1 didn't match upto the ISO on lightmeters, apparently because Graeme can't get his meters properly calibrated

Most of the confusion about the R1 was created BY Red and their "rebel" attitude towards everything. They feel the need to constantly re-invent the wheel, which is great in some cases but very annoying in most.

 

[Scott Crawley]

I'm all for an easy life, but we're in a technical field where words have precise meanings, and when we don't use words to mean what they say it leads to confusion. I don't see it wrong to educate people on proper usage because at the same time you're not just educating on language, but how the whole process works, and increased understanding there has to be good for everyone. But then again, I used to be a math teacher and I do think that technical terminology should be used correctly.

Graeme

It's admirable. We should all strive to be more precise.

We also need to be careful not to confuse an individual with the communications of a collective.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

-ISO... the ISO on the R1 didn't match upto the ISO on lightmeters, apparently because Graeme can't get his meters properly calibrated

1) there is no definition of ISO for a RAW only shooting camera.
2) If you exposed via a light meter you get a good exposure with good highlight headroom.
3) pre build 30, that would look a bit dark on screen
4) B30 onwards it is correct on screen.

The issue of light meters not being accurately calibrated out of the box is a reason why people disagree on things, nothing to do with actual camera calibration.

Graeme

 

[Deanan]

Well isn't this a Pot and Kettle situation... Red is known for creating/redefining terminology/methods that we have all come accustomed to.

-Before Red we ALWAYS spoke in Mb when talking about bandwidth, not MB. -Visually/mathematically Lossless... what?
-Backfocus/Flange Focal Distance.. the latest redefined term per Red Focus.
-Mini BNC/XLR connectors on the camera and calling them "industry standard"... maybe for post production but last time I checked the camera body isn't apart of the post production.
-Gigapixels... again what?
-ISO... the ISO on the R1 didn't match upto the ISO on lightmeters, apparently because Graeme can't get his meters properly calibrated

Most of the confusion about the R1 was created BY Red and their "rebel" attitude towards everything. They feel the need to constantly re-invent the wheel, which is great in some cases but very annoying in most.

MB = MegaByte
Mb = MegaBit
(that's standard abbreviation)

REDFocus is product name not a term.

MiniBNC and MiniXLRs exist, we didn't make them up.

Gigapixels, again a commonly used term.


Reading your past posts, you're clearly a troll. What's your real name?

 

[Blaire Johnson]

3) pre build 30, that would look a bit dark on screen

This is mostly what I am talking about, I'm glad to hear that it's been fixed. I hope it's really been fixed because there's been more than one occasion when I've heard that a particular problem was fixed when it really wasn't.

I just remember you ranting a bit on how you don't like lightmeters because you don't believe they can be calibrated or atleast you couldn't get yours to line up with the internal meters on the camera... I'm sure I misunderstood you but it was something to that degree.