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 :)

CONFUSED WITH FINALL QUALITY....

E

Ershov Kirill

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2012
Messages
122
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Guys have a look please:
password QWERTY

https://vimeo.com/56299838


does this image look like scarlet image.... well i didnt have any lightning, it was a quick test, and i graded it a bit.... but i saw a lot of other people QUICK FIRST TESTS and they look really more filmic...(((
i think it looks like 5dmk2((((

iso 800, canon 16-35L, i used the sharpest algorithm and all debayer settings were full in redcine x....

i am testing my scarlet the whole month and always i have smth different from others and i don mean color correction.... maybe i dont know any important part in exporting from redcine x or sharpening the image or exporting to vimeo...:cry:

even this videos from BMC which is not 4k the picture seems to me softer and more detailed...((( i dont think this guys had some ultra primes or lights...

https://vimeo.com/56103384
https://vimeo.com/55912441
https://vimeo.com/56063722
 
Yes it looks like Scarlet footage. I think it's actually a very nice image.

BMC Links:
1st example link looks no more "filmic" than your footage. Not sure why you posted this example...do you really want your shot to look like that?
2nd example is back lit, very common practice in film lighting, and adds to the appearance or is more associated a "filmic" but doesn't have any extraordinary texture...although it has a better subject than your shot :)
3rd example uses longer focal lengths which can have a shallower depth of field which can be associated with a "filmic" look, it has also been very nicely graded.

-dane
 
The pass is qwerty with small caps.

To me it sort of looks like your shutterspeed is at 360 degrees (as in 1/24 for 24fps or 1/48 for 48 fps). And what kind of format and bitrate did you upload to vimeo?
 
Nothing wrong with the camera here, image looks sharp, exposure o.k., but thats only the first step. ;)
If you're after a specific look you'll have start playing with lights, different lenses (and their performances at various apertures) and of course color-grading, maybe with filters too.

Play with the R3D files to see how far you can go, if you want, post some .R3D-stills, people here like it to show you whats possible with them. Hehe.

And don't expect everything to look like a hollywood film, just because you have the right camera. It's only one piece of the puzzle.
 
Casper Warnich said:
To me it sort of looks like your shutterspeed is at 360 degrees (as in 1/24 for 24fps or 1/48 for 48 fps). And what kind of format and bitrate did you upload to vimeo?
Click to expand...
Good questions, especially the shutterspeed...
 
What was your Fstop and shutter speed? To me it does not look to shabby for what it is. As your background is almost as sharp as your foreground I guess you are quite wide on the lens and also at a quite high Fstop. To get closer to your pool table reference you would need to shoot more open on a slightly longer lens. And to get closer to the other reference you would need to shoot against the light and have a bouncer to get some light onto the guy.. and he would need to get his clothes off, still most would probably prefer the shot with the girl :)

put a link to a single frame r3d then it's more easy to say what is what as vimeo does not allow any detail comparison. Your camera is swaying, and you got an all quite sharp image which demands more from the vimeo compression. So as stated above your upload format would be important here. I assume that this is a 4k redcine downscale to HD and full HD HQ upload to vimeo, or?
 
You need to slap a 1.2 hot mirror on there and keep your aperture as open as possible to get that look your trying to achieve. You also have a lot of motion blur which kinda looks crazy.
 
I'm an amateur, but like Maik said, the camera is only a small piece of the puzzle.

In general, a good rule of thumb for a filmic look will be 24 frames per second with a shutter speed of 1/48th (also called "180 degrees" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_angle). Then you fill in the other values of the exposure equation with lights, filters, magic.

Check that you are shooting the same frame rate that the camera thinks is the project frame rate. Looks like Europe in the background? Is there a PAL/NTSC thing happening?

Are you shooting at 4K resolution? That doesn't look like the EF 16-35 on s35 to my eyes, but what do I know. If you are shooting at 1080p you are using only a tiny region of the sensor, which will accentuate the video-camera look. A big part of the filmic look is projecting the optics that you have onto something that matches the physical geometry of 35mm or 65mm film.

I just got a Scarlet and I was blown away by how good it looks compared to my 5d, so keep trying.

As others have said, post links to r3d files.
 
Maik Müller Menendez said:
Good questions, especially the shutterspeed...
Click to expand...

guys i really never thought about shutter angle!?

it was very sunny weather and i had only camera and lens so the iso was 800 - i put maximum aperture to make the picture well exposed....

24fps, 1/48 4k

than in redcine a made a 1080p clip apple pro res hq and sent it to fcp7 and there exported to vimeo: quicktime conversion-h.264. best quality restrict to download 10000kb
 
Dane Henry said:
Yes it looks like Scarlet footage. I think it's actually a very nice image.

BMC Links:
1st example link looks no more "filmic" than your footage. Not sure why you posted this example...do you really want your shot to look like that?
2nd example is back lit, very common practice in film lighting, and adds to the appearance or is more associated a "filmic" but doesn't have any extraordinary texture...although it has a better subject than your shot :)
3rd example uses longer focal lengths which can have a shallower depth of field which can be associated with a "filmic" look, it has also been very nicely graded.



-dane
Click to expand...

i really like the 2nd one... i want to archive a picture which is very soft but hahah also very sharp and detailed inside))) i hope you got me..)
 
Exporting to 1080p from RedCine-x in this day in age is just silly. Your cutting the 4k down right at the start.

Download final cut x and work with full res clips and export full res clips and then down res after for vimeo. O and this camera requires decent lighting and camera work to get decent results.
 
Ershov Kirill said:
does this image look like scarlet image.... well i didnt have any lightning, it was a quick test, and i graded it a bit.... but i saw a lot of other people QUICK FIRST TESTS and they look really more filmic...(((
Click to expand...
Ershov Kirill said:
i think it looks like 5dmk2((((
Click to expand...


Ershov Kirill said:
i really like the 2nd one... i want to archive a picture which is very soft but hahah also very sharp and detailed inside))) i hope you got me..)
Click to expand...

Ershov Kirill said:
guys i really never thought about shutter angle!?
Click to expand...

Don't be dissuaded by mean spirited wise cracks about your talent level. This isn't about talent. It is about basic skills and craft.

I think what you are looking for is the ability to control your contrast ratio and depth of field yet you don't appear to know what depth of field is. You need to study some basic photography and build up some skills before you can expect to achieve what you are after. The good news is that all of the info you need is free and at your fingertips, and the digital tools in your possession can enable you to learn these skills at a relatively rapid pace if you put in the effort.

A quick Google search turned up this on Depth Of Field: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm I only skimmed it so I don't vouch for the quality of the content but it appears to be a thorough explanation of the subject and it looks right. Get to know it intimately. This is just your beginning...
 
Actually Scott you are wrong.


Kiril really needs to be told that cinematography is a skill, that needs learning, studying the craft, lots of practice and requires talent, yes talent. Technical knowledge does not substitute for talent.


This is not the first time he is posting crying about the quality of the camera.
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?90098-BIG-PROBLEMS-WITH-PICTURE-QUALITY


We all chipped in, including me, trying to teach him a thing or two about color corection.
At some point he needs to be told that buying an expansive camera does not make you a good cinematographer.
The same way buying a typewriter does not make you a novelist, even if you get really fast at tying.




Look Kirill, the lens you pick, the f-stop you set, the shutter angle you choose, the way you frame the shot, the way you position your subject in relation to sun light at a given time in the day. All of this plays a role of telling a story with your image and is also known as cinematography.


I am not even getting into the choice of subject, what color wardrobe they are wearing and the fact that they have to have talent as well. Thats why they are referred as talent on set.


As hard as this is to tell you in a way that is constructive and not offensive. Its you Kirill not your camera.
There is experienced cinematographers that have shot feature films on way cheeper cameras than the one you own, and they all will look better than your shot.


My suggestion is spend some money on books about cinematography and photography. If you can find someone locale who is a good cinematographer, offer them to be there assistant, hopping they will let you assist and you can learn something from them.


People go to school for years studying cinematography and film history, don't expect to substitute for that by just asking question like CONFUSED WITH FINAL QUALITY, and BIG PROBLEMS WITH PICTURE QUALITY.


///
 
James Falco said:
Actually Scott you are wrong.


Kiril really needs to be told that cinematography is a skill, that needs learning, studying the craft, lots of practice and requires talent, yes talent. Technical knowledge does not substitute for talent.


This is not the first time he is posting crying about the quality of the camera.
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?90098-BIG-PROBLEMS-WITH-PICTURE-QUALITY/
Click to expand...

Thanks. I had read his other thread and applaud the efforts to help him out.

Learn your craft and develop your skill. That is what I wrote so the way I see it, we are in agreement for the most part. I was doing it in a nicer way though, I think.

You have to posess basic skills before talent (or lack of it) can become evident in most cases. There are those highly talented folks who seem to posses basic skills coming out of the gate, but most of us have to learn them.

Mr. Kiril may have talent that he is unable to show us because he is lacking basic technical proficiency and I haven't seen enough work to know anything about how talented he is. All I saw were some frames and short excerpts from music videos. To suggest to someone who hasn't even started his journey that he lacks the innate abilities to do anything right at all is hard and callous. An artist needs to be sensitive, and those who are sensitive or are trying to develop sensitivity need to be supported and nourished, not whacked with a stick. These are my opinions.

Mr. Kiril, If you expect to be able to do all of things Cinematographers do without even doing the basic work, many people are going to be insulted and you may be viewed as disrespectful. They may be inclined to return the favor. I think this is why you are being met with some hostility. Try not to take it personally. If you can accept it as a hard lesson learned, it may motivate you. Now get to work. ;-)
 
Last edited:
James Falco said:
Actually Scott you are wrong.


Kiril really needs to be told that cinematography is a skill, that needs learning, studying the craft, lots of practice and requires talent, yes talent. Technical knowledge does not substitute for talent.


This is not the first time he is posting crying about the quality of the camera.
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?90098-BIG-PROBLEMS-WITH-PICTURE-QUALITY


We all chipped in, including me, trying to teach him a thing or two about color corection.
At some point he needs to be told that buying an expansive camera does not make you a good cinematographer.
The same way buying a typewriter does not make you a novelist, even if you get really fast at tying.




Look Kirill, the lens you pick, the f-stop you set, the shutter angle you choose, the way you frame the shot, the way you position your subject in relation to sun light at a given time in the day. All of this plays a role of telling a story with your image and is also known as cinematography.


I am not even getting into the choice of subject, what color wardrobe they are wearing and the fact that they have to have talent as well. Thats why they are referred as talent on set.


As hard as this is to tell you in a way that is constructive and not offensive. Its you Kirill not your camera.
There is experienced cinematographers that have shot feature films on way cheeper cameras than the one you own, and they all will look better than your shot.


My suggestion is spend some money on books about cinematography and photography. If you can find someone locale who is a good cinematographer, offer them to be there assistant, hopping they will let you assist and you can learn something from them.


People go to school for years studying cinematography and film history, don't expect to substitute for that by just asking question like CONFUSED WITH FINAL QUALITY, and BIG PROBLEMS WITH PICTURE QUALITY.


///
Click to expand...

thanx for your message but you know i am not a person who is thinking that buying an expensive camera gonna make from me Tarantino etc.

I am just a person who is trying to work and earn money for living like many people here, thats my job. And i had been filming with my 5dmk2 3 years.... now i' ve just earned money and i want to make a step higher so i bought SCARLET! i want to improve my results, learn new way of filming etc...

AND I AM NOT CRYING - I AM ASKING FOR HELP AND ADVICE, and how you can speak about talent when we are discussing a different problem! and yes please read accurate - i am not telling that the problem is in the camera! i agree that quality depends on everything especially on the person who is filming...

you wrote that people go to school..... you know i couldn't afford to go to film school and the only way i was studying cinematography etc were such forums and some internet articles .... dude i am not asking a question like bla bla.... i am not expecting to substitute for that bla bla... I JUST DON'T GIVE A PIECE OF CAKE how to name new threads....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top