Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

Noise, sharpness and resolution...

Kemalettin Sert said:
dont come up with hdrx please its stupid
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call cinematographers successfully using HDRx +3 with luma key and appropriate motion blur applied to X track stupid, to be honest. Then again, of course these people aren't as famous as some cursing ones *rolls eyes*. Extended native DR of Dragon will be much better than that, I agree. Also, talking about the EVF + LCD problem, the Meizler module will solve this or not? I thought it'd be possible to have both LCDs and EVF using it.
 
Keeping within the " Future proof" implications:
Yes, math is important, but what is less important is when one math is pitted against another perfectly serviceable math, with the opinion, "if one uses A over E , then one must be misinformed, stupid, and/or ignorant of E".


The beauty of 1080 and all things "inferior" in the math end of the equation, is the unique challenges they offer to those who are interested. This is not an us Vs them issue, this is not about whether E is better than A, this is about choices. Again, with all the finishing sizes now being offered, there is room for everything from lowbrow to highbrow. The only thing that matters is the art, the movie, the flick, whatever you call it. Using 1080 on monday, does not preclude using 5K during the rest of the week.
 
Jarred Land said:
You stole my the words out of my mount Alex. You can blow up and sharpen.. and get lucky sometimes.. but it doesn't look nearly as good as if you just started where you needed to be in the first place.. and lucky is the key word.. most often you discover that you get pushed in a corner..specially if you are pushing your stops.. high ISO or Low light.. forget about it. Just like when you would try and blow up 16mm to 35mm.. the noise ( or grain ) turns into golfballs.
Click to expand...

So as an indie filmmaker, I just used my EPIC on a test shoot. Low light, large windows, sky, you name it. And no time/resources to manage them all the way a big budget production would. I mess with that image in post more than most. And this is why I'm bought into the idea of shooting 5K RAW, even when my deliverable is the web/HD. I TOTALLY WANT those tools Jim is referring to. Davinci Resolve 9 has been a blessing. But need more tools in the post pipeline to ease the workload and time required.
 
Again the biggest complain about .r3d workflow that I hear is the fact that it's so CPU intensive (and hence slow to render). Give us the ability to use the power of today's GPUs to use for debayering and speed up workflow tremendously as an alternative to costly redrockets
 
Right now I'm grading remotely in Moscow two 25 minutes shorts, that were shot on Alexa and it's scary easy. Anyone who had worked with film scanned material will immediately feel at home with Alexa material. Film esthetics were developed over a long period of time. We're all used to it and we appreciate it's artistic value. Film is imperfect, painterly and organic. Film is forgiving and the images are pliable. Well, in my opinion, the same goes for Alexa images, even with Prores.
Of coarse resolution is important, but I'll take the image esthetics over the resolution any time.
 
Peter Moretti said:
ProRes does if you want to limit yourself to the Mac platform and all that comes (or doesn't come) along with it.
Click to expand...

Hi Peter, that was what I thought until this weekend, when an editor from a major post-prod house told me that ProRes works great on PCs too.
He is getting me an Atomos to record from my Epic's HD-SDI port soon, so I will test and report back...
 
Peter Moretti said:
ProRes does if you want to limit yourself to the Mac platform and all that comes (or doesn't come) along with it.
Click to expand...

There is a slow but steady progress on a PC and even Linux side to being able to work with Prores as easy as on a Mac. For example, Nucoda was the first company, that had implemented an ability to write any flavor of Prores on Windows within it's applications. I believe, since, Baselight on Linux does the same. There are ways now to write any flavors of Prores on Windows using open source software-ffmpeg.
As far as reading Prores on Windows, you could do that for a while now on a system level with an installation of an Apple QT windows driver. For example Resolve on Windows works with Prores just fine. It's just can't write it, yet.
 
Antony M said:
Hi Peter, that was what I thought until this weekend, when an editor from a major post-prod house told me that ProRes works great on PCs too.
He is getting me an Atomos to record from my Epic's HD-SDI port soon, so I will test and report back...
Click to expand...

Antony,

Jake has this exactly correct. ProRes does play well on the PC...as long as you want to only play it. You usually can't render new ProRes files on the PC. Some workarounds do exist.

I was also too harsh on ProRes by not mentioning two other advantages: 1. ProRes in resolution independent, while DNxHD is limited to HD 1080. 2. ProRes 4:4:4:4 is 12-bit and has alpha channel support, while DNxHD 4:4:4 is 10-bit and has no alpha.

All that said, I would love to hear about your experiences with the Atomos. Thanks!
 
Peter Moretti said:
ProRes does play well on the PC...as long as you want to only play it. You usually can't render new ProRes files on the PC. Some workarounds do exist.
Click to expand...

As I already had said, that is no longer the case. Mechanism for writing Prores on certain apps had been well established and writing Prores on Windows otherwise is not really that complicated anymore. I suspect, at some point, Resolve will be able to do it on the Windows side as well.
 
jake blackstone said:
Right now I'm grading remotely in Moscow two 25 minutes shorts, that were shot on Alexa and it's scary easy. Anyone who had worked with film scanned material will immediately feel at home with Alexa material. Film esthetics were developed over a long period of time. We're all used to it and we appreciate it's artistic value. Film is imperfect, painterly and organic. Film is forgiving and the images are pliable. Well, in my opinion, the same goes for Alexa images, even with Prores.
Of coarse resolution is important, but I'll take the image esthetics over the resolution any time.
Click to expand...

Yes, completely agree. RED's color science is not up to par with Arri's, IMO. I work with both all day long and ill take 1080p ProRes 4x4 over 5k because of the natural color science and color rendition that Alexa produces.
 
jake blackstone said:
As I already had said, that is no longer the case. Mechanism for writing Prores on certain apps had been well established and writing Prores on Windows otherwise is not really that complicated anymore. I suspect, at some point, Resolve will be able to do it on the Windows side as well.
Click to expand...

LOL! Jake! I said you were "exactly correct." How much more right do you want to be? :001_smile: :001_smile:
 
Lee Saxon said:
It was like this when still photography switched to digital/raw workflow, too, guys. Don't worry, one day editors will understand.
Click to expand...

Lee, I'm not debating the need for high rez masters. I'm debating the need for them at the cutting stage of the film.
 
Jannard said:
Shooting 1080P masters makes as much sense as recording to tape...

Recording RAW and simultaneous DNX-HD, ProRes or H264 for editorial makes sense. Recording one of those for your master... doesn't. (rolls eyes)

Let me think. What else doesn't make any sense whatsoever?

Jim
Click to expand...
Three 1920 x 1080 50" Plasma Screens being fed with composite video from a Digital Set Top with 50c Red-Yellow-White AV cables!

Me: "Why don't you use an HDMI cable? A $5 one would work fine."
Dingbat Pub employee: "Because there's only one HDMI output on the box. If we use the PAL output, we can daisy-chain them using the 'A-V loop-through' "
Me: "Well, why don't you just use the antenna sockets?!"
Dingbat Pub employee: "Aw, because then people go changing the channel..."
ME: "Well, can't you at least set the thing up properly? You've got the box set to letterbox mode and the TVs set to 16 x 9, so you're basically looking at 576i PAL letterboxed and squashed to 2.35:1!"
Dingbat Pub employee: "Whaddya mean...?"

Yes, folks, this conversation actually happened. Unsuspecting people watched the NRL grand final on that very setup last Sunday. Would you like the Google Maps co-ordinates?
 
... in regard to editing in high res ... or even in a theater style editing setup (which i would suggest, if possible) ...

depending on the material, if it is cinematic/emotional/action (add at will) ....

working at max rez in delivery format ....
will trigger different editing decisions ...


cheers,
Detlev
 
Me: :gun: Me: :cry:

Honestly, I can't take it anymore.
 
Hahahaahaahahaha


Honestly, haven't seen much editing at 4k in cinemas yet.

1080 seems to be a good proxyformat, though and used widely even for tv
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Steven - you could do this, and you could try it, but the results are inferior to doing a full demosaic first, then your downsample. Remember we use good optical low pass filtering ahead of the bayer sampling to make for negligible aliasing in the final image. If you did as you suggested you'd also need the software equivalent of that optical low pass filtering too, and although electronic filters can be much more efficient than optical ones, that now you're having filter to a lower frequency still outweighs the benefits of the electronic approach.

Graeme
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response. Maybe I'm misunderstading, but as long as you are taking the full-res bayer pattern as the input source for down scaling each of the R, G, & B chunks, aren't you still taking advantage of the OLPF to deliver nicely non-aliased monochrome bitmaps to the algorithm for the downscale?

I certainly think that the de-bayer/downscale approach is probably ideal with no other constaints. I was simply thinking about the cases where some folks want the FOV advantages of shooting non-cropped sensor, but would like the storage/bandwith advantage of storing lower-res RAW (as opposed to full RGB). I had heard "you can't downsample RAW" previously, and just wondered what I hadn't considered in my approach.

Thanks a always for being willing to delve in to technical issues here... always learn something. (Wish I had something intelligent to ask you at NAB other than "Hey Graeme, how are you? :) )

-Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top