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 :)

The Curse of Ultra Primes

David Ellison

David Ellison

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
335
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Manchester UK
I've been hearing lately that many DP's are actually using pro mist filters on their ultra primes and master primes because they're too sharp with the Red One at 4K.
They're dumming them down to more of a Superspeed sharpness because it starts to look less and less like film.

In fact I've heard more and more DP's are after classic lenses because you get a great look without the overly sharp cold looking imagery.

Anyone else heard of this?
 
digitalfx said:
the last time a DP asked us to pull a pro mist filter out of the case to put on our Ultra Primes it was 1990...wanna buy a set?
Click to expand...

Post of the week for sure.

I'm think, for the most part, people who say a lens is "too sharp" - haven't had the right demonstration of the possibilities in post production. Post is very much another tool for the cinematographer - just like a filter. There's a LOT more creative choices down the road when your footage is sharp and properly exposed.
 
I couldn't agree more, Mark. After all, its relatively easy to add the pro mist look in post, but you can't remove it without degrading the image. A clean, sharp image is the best place to start. There's nothing quite like creating a look in the RED as the DP, and then posting it yourself to perfect the look across the entire project.
 
Speed love

Speed love

I love the combination of SuperSpeeds with the RedOne. I consider the RedOne to be one of the least "video" looking D-cinema cameras out there. That said, I still think that for narrative work, particularly with tighter shots of human faces, a less contrasty lens like a 'Speed can get you a more mellow look pre-DI than something like an Ultra Prime.

I agree with Mark that starting sharp with the ability to manage the image in DI is fully workable. OTOH, there are characteristics of the 'Speeds that are associated with a "film look" that are more organic than typical post processing can produce. IMHO, if your intent is to make a piece with a RedOne that "feels" like it was shot on 35mm negative, the use of older lenses can help sell that.

Cheers - #19
 
Just my opinion, but I'm in complete agreement with Greg, Mark and David. A very sharp, clean images is the best place to start. I've met several DPs who have worked with my RED (and others) that don't feel this way. But I suppose it's their way of trying to get as close to their desired look in-camera.

Vintage glass, super speeds, etc.. all have their characteristic flaws that many people find appealing. I personally don't like the super speeds on RED, don't like them at all. I actually prefer the zeiss standards and even more so the Ultras and Masters, RPP's, S4's...

But sharp and clean is the best place to start, at least it is for me. Plenty of ways to rough up the image in post. Instead of softening the image or adding a pro-mist type effect, I much prefer to add in grain or noise.
 
One man's...

One man's...

The use of vintage lenses is one of many artistic choices on the table. I don't see it so much as bad vs good but horses for courses. Some projects would lend themselves to other lens choices, as well as many choices about post processing that ultimately will determine much of the "look".

Note: On many a project I follow the same path as Jeff, capture every bit of information you can at acquisition by shooting newer generation lenses and making a fat histogram so you have a rich data set for post. I also concur with the notion that you can "rough up an image in post" with great results - especially when the "flat" image is nicely spread across the middle of the histogram and critical focus is nailed :thumbup:

Obvious note dept.: if the lighting sucks you're stuffed.

Ultimately the real issue is can you deliver the intended look? If so, then the path you took worked = good job.

Cheers - #19
 
Personally I use the Schneider Classic Soft filters for pretty much all photography with humans except FX plates I know will have post work or compositing. They do not really degrade contrast but just soften fine line detail. They do this without affecting resolution much if at all, remember resolution and acute sharpness (micro-contrast) are not the same. I also prefer the standard speeds to supers though I feel ultras can actually too harsh is some situations.
 
Surprisingly Evin isn't alone.. Personally I agree with Mark and the rest of them that sharp is the best way to start, but I am surprised at how many of the big big DP/Directors are using fog filters and such..
 
Hm...

In my opinion there's no "right" way here.
I want a set of RPP's, but optical imperfections and "old" lenses are hard to make good in post, be it because of how "punchy" they are, or how soft.

I bought a totally messed up Angie 25-100 zoom from the 40 - 50-ies. And I barely would use it, because it is so - well - unuseable in technical terms.

But then I took this series of tests with it, and I started to love it for its sort of old B&W/ early color-film look. It hardly resolves 720p, and is impossible to really focus, but still... I have come to love it.

And it's been used for several shorts and big commersials as a rental.

Would I rather use this than a MP/RPP?
For most uses: No!

But when this is the right thing, I could hardly get this from MP's...

Here's a comparison with a D-50, which was the only thing I had around that day...

I really love the Angie... for its use. and think that the graininess and softness and punch/low-sat feeling it gives, would hard to mimic with a MP image...

http://byacserv.com/reel/elnaz/

But definitely - for its use...
 
Avoiding the modern lenses are too sharp or do it all in post debate/question!

I would say that the processing choices (and scaling algorithms) that are offered by Red should be examined in detail by anyone reading this thread.

I would start by turning down/off all sharpening options and choose a softer scaling algorithm. This combined with a FULL debayer produces a smooth organic picture devoid of most of the nastiness of modern false electronic detail. This approach with UP is normally great for my beauty work.

regards

Michael L

PS UPs (which I know very well) seem to be great modern, sharpish but still with a organic quality lens. A good all rounder in my opinion.
 
You're right, Michael. ...And that is why we have choices for various sampling filter methods when scaling the footage. When down-rezing 4K to 2K for example, using the Lanczos or Catmull-Rom filters produce a sharpening effect. A full debayer process should always be used to get the best image detail and best handling of noise / texture. IMO, that's why the RED Rocket is so significant, but that's another discussion.

I see way too much over-processed RED footage out there that adds in too much sharpening in post. Then we really start to see more undesired strobing and other effects that make it look less smooth or organic and more like over-baked HD video.
 
Evin Grant said:
Personally I use the Schneider Classic Soft filters for pretty much all photography with humans except FX plates I know will have post work or compositing. They do not really degrade contrast but just soften fine line detail. They do this without affecting resolution much if at all, remember resolution and acute sharpness (micro-contrast) are not the same. I also prefer the standard speeds to supers though I feel ultras can actually too harsh is some situations.
Click to expand...

Hi EVin,

Choosing the lens / filtering conbination always looks way better IMHO, not really a fan of fixing it in post, it's cheaper & easier to get it right on the day. I generally prefer Cooke lenses for beauty work.

Stephen
 
It's a matter of taste. Altering image texture in post by softening or adding grain is by no means a difficult task, nor should it have any impact on the cheap and easy factor. I prefer the post method because that's more of my domain, it also gives me more flexibility for the end look. If something is shot with a softening filter, that look is there to stay and then it becomes time consuming and expensive to try and "fix" it later. But like you say, it's often better to get as close to the final vision in camera. And digital alteration later often can't produce the exact same qualities of a specific lens or filter combination.
 
It's not occurred to me before but has anyone experimented with switching to 3K or even 2K just for their close-ups to take the edge off [obviously some actors need it more than others :zombie_smiley:]?
 
Depends on what you do with the footage. By shooting 3K or 2K, you're not gaining any softness or losing sharpness on a per-pixel basis. It's that you don't have as much image data to sample for output to your final format. 3K is still considerably bigger than 2K/1080p and has a sharpening effect when you scale down to 2K. IMO, for 1080p delivery, there's not much difference in image sharpness whether you shoot 3K or 4K. Shooting 4K obviously allows for the preservation of more apparent detail. Shooting 2K is going to have a softening effect any time you try to deliver at 1080p and higher resolutions. The debayer process tends to yield about 1700 lines of horizontal resolution in 2K mode, with a sharp lens and nailing your focus.

Once again, just another tool in the toolbox.

There's other little tricks that can be used besides softening filters, such as "netting" the lens.
 
It really does boil down to what your workflow is and your DP. If I knew I was going to be shooting a feature with a post budget and planned on going out to film at the end then I would want to acquire the sharpest image possible cause by the time it goes through the pipe and printed to film it will look like just that...film and you have control along the way. On the other hand for some lower budget run and gun indie or doc style shoots I might opt for older glass where I knew I would deliver a softer filmic image out the gate. All personal preferences in the end.
 
It's simpler to just use a diffusion filter on a close-up (or a softer lens) and keeping the production footage in the same file format than switching between different resolutions.

As a DP, I prefer using camera filters, partly because not every post even budgets for digital diffusion, either time-wise or equipment-wise. Plus if I want that effect, I don't necessarily want everyone in post to talk the producers and director out of it because they've become used to editing sharp footage for a couple of months and have never seen the movie with the diffusion effect.

There is always a tendency to fall in love with the way dailies look, even if they look incorrect. If a scene is too bright and blue in dailies and a director, producer, and editor spend the next six months looking at the footage that way, it's very hard to even get them to time it back to normal by the time the final color-correction happens. So it's important that the general look is there from the beginning, whether it's done with camera filters, or lighting, or some quick post trick in making dailies.

Yes, digital diffusion is endlessly controllable but it adds time to the final color-correction to get it right, judge it, etc. And it's far too easy for everyone except the DP to change their mind and drop the idea.

My general approach is IF the movie calls for a diffused look, not a sharp look, to do it in-camera with filters but at a lighter strength than what I really want, sort of go halfway there with filters. Because you can always add more diffusion in post but it's hard to take it away. But now everyone sees the diffused look on the set monitors and in dailies and gets used to it. And you don't have some angry actress coming after you because she saw some hyper-sharp close-up on an HD monitor and doesn't want to hear that "you'll fix it in post later" because she's afraid that it might NOT happen in post, just as the DP is afraid too that they might not be around for the final color-correction.

Now if the movie calls for a very sharp look, then obviously you'd shoot it sharp, and then just know that later IF a certain close-up revealed more than you thought once you see it on a big screen in a D.I. theater, you can always go in there and touch it up with some light digital diffusion. But this is assuming that 95% of the movie is meant to look as sharp as possible.

But if the whole project is meant to have a somewhat softened look, then I see no reason to not do it in-camera as long as you do it with a light hand and not overdo it.

Finally, for the cinematographer... camera filters and lenses are FUN. Doing it in-camera is FUN. Seeing how that filter interacts with hot spots and glints in the frame on the live monitor is FUN. I've had directors get more excited by a shot when they see that live interaction of the filter and the light ("did you see how her diamond necklace caught the light at that moment and glowed?" "Oh, I love the way that the white pages of the magazine suddenly flared back at us when he flipped the pages in the sunlight!")

I'm on a TV show right now, shooting on the Genesis, where I carry a number of really light grades of diffusion filters -- GlimmerGlass, Fog, and "Hollywood Black Magic" (HD Classic Soft + 1/8 Black Frost). Plus a homemade net. I play around with them depending on the lighting and the look and mood of the scene. It's FUN.
 
Hi David:

Are you getting bad color break up on thin grey wire mesh material? One of the problems I"ve heard with RGB strip sensors, is they start have problems due to the lack of co-sited pixels.
 
Do you mean mesh material in the scene or a net filter over the lens?

I see all sorts of issues with all digital sensors, aliasing being the most problematic / dramatic at times. Even in "District 9" you see some odd aliasing artifacts from the grills on the white military trucks during some of the action scenes.

I got burned on the first day of a TV pilot shot on the Genesis where by the time I moved into a close-up after three set-ups, I realized that the suit the actress was wearing was creating a crazy moire pattern and she'd be wearing that outfit for several scenes shot all week, so I no choice but to have her change her wardrobe and reshoot the first three set-ups in the new wardrobe, putting us behind schedule. It's something I should have tested, or remembered to warn the costume department to bring any clothes with patterns in them to me in advance to check for moire issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top