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 :)

ASC and BSC camera tests ...

miha said:
What links? I did not see them online. I saw 2K projections on a large screen.
Click to expand...

Ok, i didn't know we were supposed to guess that.

I haven't seen the tests but i can tell you straight away that observing more spatial resolution in film (2K scan) and 1080p camera footage than RED is impossible. Someone messed something up.
 
I was at the BSC tests and they went to extreme lenghts to be fair to every manufacturer as Tony stated each manufacturer set up their own cameras and all the actions were documented.
I then went to the NFT1 to see the finished tests and Sue Gibson stated that they had done the best job they could in post again being unbaised and within the budget they had which had come via a UKFilm Council grant and free time of two post houses.
Sanjin I doubt someone as blinkered as you could ever pull off tests like this and if you think they are not valid to do tell that to the 600 people so far that have personally seen screenings in the UK (the BSC had to show the tests across the UK to get the funding)
Manufacturers will always show cameras in there best light, so will those with a vested interest who own them or specialise on a certain workflow etc. Putting cameras through a single channel actually throws up the stupid position digital acquisition puts us in, proprietary software should have been outlawed and a common standard adopted either by SMPTE, MPEG, or one of the other professional bodies now every manufacturer thinks they know best quite frankly being a DOP or an assistant has never been harder so digital has serious drawbacks for those in the field having to learn so many variations.
The tests were grouped into three sections 35mm type film or digital which included Red, 2/3" and 16mm and finally smaller sensors or digital stills cameras. The Canon had serious aliasing issues and noise in the blacks, the SI-2K was frankly badly rendered, and what we saw with Red was a dynamic range that couldnt compete with 35mm film or with Genesis & the F35. The F35 had a strange red reproduction using S log and whilst the D-21 images were pleasing again it suffered in dynamic range.
Will any of this mean these cameras will not be used? no but as Tony stated they also threw up some interesting observations namely how good the F900R looked and how good the EX3 looked given its price point.
If the BSC did no more than spark debate then the money was well spent and I for one hope they do it again in the future.
 
As a further footnote in this debate Sue Gibson the BSC President has published in the British Cinematographer the following statement
"Although we diligently strive to be unbiased in the appraisals and presentation of the results, it has sometimes proven difficult to persuade some of our audiance that we have been so" She goes on to say " We have decided to offer the manufacturers or rental companies access to their own cameras raw files and / or negative. They can then process the results in their own way and publish the workflow route taken. Hopefully this will bring some much needed clarity"
This will only remain transparent if those manufacturers or rental companies re-submit this material to the BSC so once again it can be compared to its peer group as originally deemed in the original screenings at the NFT1, Sue is suggesting this takes place in theatre 7 Pinewood Studios in October 2009.
So what complaints can anyone have to that?
 
Nova Invicta said:
As a further footnote in this debate Sue Gibson the BSC President has published in the British Cinematographer the following statement
"Although we diligently strive to be unbiased in the appraisals and presentation of the results, it has sometimes proven difficult to persuade some of our audiance that we have been so" She goes on to say " We have decided to offer the manufacturers or rental companies access to their own cameras raw files and / or negative. They can then process the results in their own way and publish the workflow route taken. Hopefully this will bring some much needed clarity"
This will only remain transparent if those manufacturers or rental companies re-submit this material to the BSC so once again it can be compared to its peer group as originally deemed in the original screenings at the NFT1, Sue is suggesting this takes place in theatre 7 Pinewood Studios in October 2009.
So what complaints can anyone have to that?
Click to expand...

It'll be very interesting to see who takes that option, or more to the point, who doesn't.
 
Apples to apples???

Apples to apples???

Correct me if I have this wrong but I am under the impression that the tests mandated putting all the image data into a DPX container and by extension the Cineon log space therein. Further, that all processing of the camera original be done after that transcoding step. IF that is the case, then some of the raw sensor information that might have been intelligently interpreted by human intervention prior to decoding by the debayering algorithm is tossed aside giving away one of the RedOne's strengths up front.

As one of the lucky folks who regularly processes the 12 bit linear data from the RedOne in Scratch with specific intent I have been able to send an image to the next stage of post with greater emphasis placed on parts of the image (often shadows) that need to play in the finish. This is the "virtual telecine" step that the "digital negative" allows - without it, electronic cameras with on board processing applied prior to landing in the DPX container have an advantage.

In some respects the RedOne is just the front half of an electronic camera system. For example, an F23 has a great deal of high bit depth signal processing done internally before any image data is piped out for recording. In my way of thinking, the Scratch system is the missing "back half" of the camera where I can "paint" the image to suit the material and get the best results for that specific profile.

I contend that the manner in which the tests tried to level the playing field achieved the opposite in regards to the RedOne camera system. I further question whether a log curve like Cineon that was carefully crafted for a log acquisition medium like film can offer true fidelity for a natively linear data set like the one created by the RedOne.

Cheers - #19
 
Nova Invicta said:
As a further footnote in this debate Sue Gibson the BSC President has published in the British Cinematographer the following statement
"Although we diligently strive to be unbiased in the appraisals and presentation of the results, it has sometimes proven difficult to persuade some of our audiance that we have been so" She goes on to say " We have decided to offer the manufacturers or rental companies access to their own cameras raw files and / or negative. They can then process the results in their own way and publish the workflow route taken. Hopefully this will bring some much needed clarity"
This will only remain transparent if those manufacturers or rental companies re-submit this material to the BSC so once again it can be compared to its peer group as originally deemed in the original screenings at the NFT1, Sue is suggesting this takes place in theatre 7 Pinewood Studios in October 2009.
So what complaints can anyone have to that?
Click to expand...

Great,

they are listening.

Unfortunately I didn't attend to the BSC event at IBC on Sunday, Sept 13 because I was still at one party that started on Saturday.

It's a pity.

But I picked up British Cinematographer, Issue 35 from IBC desk and was reading about it.

Looking forward to get Blu-Ray about that BSC Evaluation Test.

Also to mention that with a digital is not so easy because those type of the tests can be pretty fast obsolete just because of technology (software & hardware) that changing and evolving almost on daily basis.


BCS_2.jpg

British Cinematographer on my desk, Issue 35, page 3.
 
The DPX route does not explain the missing spatial detail. Where was that lost?
 
Next time they should directly project RED footage using REDROCKET with a bit of grade (if needed) in ROCKETcineX and then sit to judge, discuss about it and later have a good meal with gorgeous (RED) wine after all that.
 
Sanjin Jukic said:
Next time they should directly project RED footage using REDROCKET with a bit of grade (if needed) in ROCKETcineX and then sit to judge, discuss about it and later have a good meal with gorgeous wine after that.
Click to expand...

Hopefully Red will have another go & reprocess the footage, assuming they think it will look better.
 
It would also be nice to project it at 4K, i'd imagine.

Isn't it giving the 2K and 1080P cameras an advantage by projecting and grading everything at 2K?

I imagine that things would be a little different if instead of shrinking the 35mm shots, and Red shots down to 2K, they worked on them at 4K, THEN projected everything up against them again.

I'd imagine the difference between 35mm, Red, and everything else would be significantly more apparent if they'd done that. It just seems to me that projecting it at 2K is by default giving an advantage to the cameras that are 2K or less already.
 
Stephen Williams said:
Hopefully Red will have another go & reprocess the footage, assuming they think it will look better.
Click to expand...

Could be good that RED take this offer and get back those footage to "tweak it" and then sent back to BSC for upcoming Blu-ray BSC Camera Evaluation release.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top