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 :)

Resolution, IBC and 4K +

Since a lot of people prefer that look, I guess it wasn't a bad idea on Arri's part to include it.
 
I think it's bad philosophically to build in a certain look. It very much goes against the RAW way of thinking which is all about giving creative control to the user. There's some fantastic ways you control the image optically with filters and lenses of all kinds, and although they can look fantastic, I'd never actually think of putting them in as a permanent part of a camera.

Graeme
 
Capturing low-con image data offers more options via the ability to apply contrast in post (compared to "de-contrasting" an image that has more contrast to begin with.)

It sounds like you're condemning a low-contrast filter by saying that you can reduce contrast via RAW (to get a low-con effect) and then re-add it to taste? Might be true in theory, but in actuality the results suggest that's not the case; a low-con capture offers a certain look that isn't easily replicated via post (and apparently helps the highlight range while it's at it.) PLUS, being that the camera also has the ability to capture to a baked-in codec (prores) they're merely hedging their bets, since baked-in low-con offers more options in post.

Or not.
 
A low con filter doesn't just lower contrast. It as you say does effect the image in a way that cannot be duplicated in post. That means if it's the look you're going for then you should use a filter. However, it's not my place to dictate it's the look that you should choose for your project. I'm not condemning a filter choice, just condemning a fixed filter choice.

Graeme
 
But it is a "fixed filter choice" that the Epic can not do at all. There are no behind the lens filter options offered by Red, any rental house that I am aware of, or any 3rd party vendor. Has Arri confirmed the low-con filter btw? Sure there are behind the lens net options but those are a very distinct look and are very difficult to use. Plus the way Arri has implemented this filter has such a low impact on the overall image it doesn't create a stylistic look at all, it helps smooth the roll off of high lights extremely nicely.
 
i love the 2k, 4k battle about quality, differences, looks and how RED Stays on top of it (4k and above) without looking back....soon 2k will look like ATARI against Dragon, and that' not because in reality it ll look bad at all, but because once you see and have 4k and 6k and hell yes 8k as well, why in da' hell will you settle for a 2k res camera?

Hell No!!! LOL

Alain
 
Graeme Nattress said:
I think it's bad philosophically to build in a certain look. It very much goes against the RAW way of thinking which is all about giving creative control to the user. There's some fantastic ways you control the image optically with filters and lenses of all kinds, and although they can look fantastic, I'd never actually think of putting them in as a permanent part of a camera.

Graeme
Click to expand...

If you wanted to emulate an Alexa look on Epic. Im not saying its a good idea or its a good thing. Given the same lens, What would you add optically and or set RC-X.

Getting an Alexa to emulate Epic is another issue all together.
 
Graeme Nattress said:
However, it's not my place to dictate it's the look that you should choose for your project. I'm not condemning a filter choice, just condemning a fixed filter choice.

Graeme
Click to expand...

In the same sense, why should a camera be limited to one sensor? Why should 5k be baked in? What about native color balance? Or native ISO? All this before you permanently bake in your settings in the lab.

Extending this idea of modularity and full control of the image, it would be really really great if there was some way of swapping out different imagers in a single camera; an easy way of switching imaging technology on the fly within your camera. You'd think with all these modern plastics, there'd be a way to do this! Like with acetate or polyester or something...

:emote_couch:
 
Adam S said:
But it is a "fixed filter choice" that the Epic can not do at all. There are no behind the lens filter options offered by Red, any rental house that I am aware of, or any 3rd party vendor. Has Arri confirmed the low-con filter btw? Sure there are behind the lens net options but those are a very distinct look and are very difficult to use. Plus the way Arri has implemented this filter has such a low impact on the overall image it doesn't create a stylistic look at all, it helps smooth the roll off of high lights extremely nicely.
Click to expand...

I think Arri's filter infront of the sensor is pretty common knowledge. They are pretty upfront about it on their website. If you want that softer, Alexa look I think it's certainly achievable on the Epic. I'm going to quote Mark Toia, who has frequently said (from experience) that he's found it very easy to have Epic footage match Alexa, but not so much the other way around. If you want a "clean" look, I think that's probably much harder with the Alexa, because of that filter.

But I for example love an organic look, and am having lots of fun trying to create that on the MX sensor (both on Scarlet and Epic). Its very achievable. You just have to go out, explore and try new wonderful things.
 
Nick Morrison said:
I think Arri's filter infront of the sensor is pretty common knowledge. They are pretty upfront about it on their website.
Click to expand...

That page doesn't saw anything about if they use a Low-con filter. It talks about how they have a Lowpass filter, IR filter and UV filter. A Lowpass filter, a OLPF, is not the same as a Low-con filter. Graeme has written extensively about OLPF so if you want clarification on what they do you should be able to find it here on the forum.
 
An area we are constantly exploring is lenses which perhaps be described as having an Organic look. I think the Alexa and Zeiss looks is nice, its a great look if thats what you are looking for in an image, no criticism at all. Id think of this as organic camera and neutral but very sharp lens, our approach is using high resolution camera and 'organic' lens, in our case Epic and Leica R lenses, we can of course use other glass, Super Baltars, Cooke, Angenieux and so on, there's no news there of course. What we are finding is the character of the glass is much more apparent on a very clean high resolution camera than a camera that imparts it own look that is built in and can't be removed.

Im interested in any filtration or other techniques that allows the look of a particular camera to be added to Epic to emulate the look of others. Any one any thoughts on this ?
 
Adam S said:
Plus the way Arri has implemented this filter has such a low impact on the overall image it doesn't create a stylistic look at all, it helps smooth the roll off of high lights extremely nicely.
Click to expand...
- if that was truly the case we'd not have noticed the overall Alexa softness, and we'd not have noticed the way a strong light in shot behaves spreading it's glow over almost the entire image. That is a very distinct look and it's not my decision to impose it.

Dan - we try to bake in as little as possible. Swapping out "just" a sensor isn't practical because of all the other circuitry associated with it, but the concept of what you suggest is what has brought the monochrome Epic. I see what you're getting at with your choice of plastics though..... :-) Are you thinking of swapping in a new sensor every frame perhaps? Maybe joining all those sensors together into one long strip on a thin "film" of plastic?

Dave- I've heard that a 1/4 soft works well.

Graeme
 
The softness of the alexa compared to RED could be due to the fact that it's 2.8k (or 2k prores) instead of 4k+... It's the other properties that I think offer more benefits than hinderances (particularly in the highlights and with overall latitude distribution?) While one is quick to say "that's a subjective/stylistic choice", I'd say it's the more "filmic" choice, which is definitely not a bad thing (and partly why Alexa is doing as well as it's doing even though its a technologically inferior product)... More over, with RED we've got resolution to spare, so if giving up even 10% in resolved resolution helps achieve a more film-like response via a low-con/ir/uv filter, I bet the vast majority would opt to put one in...

As for glowing highlights, personally I find I to have to add bloom in post in order to lessen blown-out looking highlights (as it better replicates a film look). Besides, if I don't want that to happen, I could flag off/reduce said light more easily than having to light to produce a lower-con scene (which would require more light).

All this moot anyway; based on cost alone I'd rather have two Epics (or ~6 Scarlets) than one Alexa... I just dislike the 'it uses fixed filters which weakens the image and isn't in-line with RAW' argument, because "weak" Alexa images objectively look (and respond) more like the industry standard (film). You can't realistically argue with that, you can only try to lessen the divide.
 
Mike, I can understand that you like what you see with such filters, but you're missing my point that filter choice is a DP choice, not a camera company choice (which is why Sony, Canon, Nikon, et.c etc. all keep the OLPF neutral and don't have this low-contrast effect). Film doesn't have the kind of flare we see on this kind of filter. It's not a highlight glow, but a "haze" for want of a better description over most of the image if a strong light source gets in shot. The only way to get film to look like that is with an additional filter. But my argument is not about what things look like, it's about who gets to make the choice - is it me or is it you?

Graeme
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Mike, I can understand that you like what you see with such filters, but you're missing my point that filter choice is a DP choice, not a camera company choice (which is why Sony, Canon, Nikon, et.c etc. all keep the OLPF neutral and don't have this low-contrast effect). Film doesn't have the kind of flare we see on this kind of filter. It's not a highlight glow, but a "haze" for want of a better description over most of the image if a strong light source gets in shot. The only way to get film to look like that is with an additional filter. But my argument is not about what things look like, it's about who gets to make the choice - is it me or is it you?

Graeme
Click to expand...

I Completely agree it should be the DoP's choice of filtration used.
 
Graeme Nattress said:
But my argument is not about what things look like, it's about who gets to make the choice - is it me or is it you?
Click to expand...

What people are saying, though, is that with the Epic, you don't have that choice, since there's no way to have a behind-the-lens filter. Which may not be a big deal (I don't think it is), but it's not like the Epic offers a perfect range of choices either.
 
The "choice" is always that of the user. What seems to be missing from this conversation is that all digital cameras have a visual signature, just as all film stocks do. That signature is not limited to optical path effects, sensor effects, or processing effects. It is a combination of all of the above. For most projects that aren't using a camera simply because of crew or producer ownership of said camera, the choice is made in large part based on that signature. Alexa has a signature. So does Red. So does F65, ikonoscop, Blackmagic, and every other digital camera from any manufacturer. How that signature is created, and what is used to create it, is up to the manufacturer. Choosing to shoot with a camera because of that signature, or choosing not to, is the choice of the cameraman or whomever is making that decision. Stating that the manufacturer is somehow removing choices from the table is twisting semantics a bit.
 
Sorry for jumping in to this conversation a little late.

Graeme or someone else who knows, please point me to the source of information regarding low contrast filter in front of the ALEV sensor. I cant seem to find any information about that other than here on the REDUSER forum

Johan
 
It's part of how their OLPF stack functions. A number of people noticed the effect when shooting into a light source and the flare you got was very different to other cameras. I don't think Arri talk about it...

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