July 25, 2014, 12:02:16 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - HurtinMinorKey

Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 28
361
EOS Bodies / Re: D4 AF vs 1d X AF
« on: January 05, 2012, 12:36:30 PM »
neuroanatomist, teaching people as usual. How do you have so may smites? Do people hate the truth that much?

362
EOS Bodies / Re: C 300 is not an alternative to 35mm motion picture film.
« on: January 03, 2012, 05:07:25 PM »
Looking further through this :

http://learn.usa.canon.com/app/pdfs/white_papers/EOS_C300_Sensitometric_Characteristics_WP.pdf

It appears that the camera is capable of parallel outboard recording over a 10-bit carrier (if desired). Does this mean 10-bit is just a firmware upgrade away?


363
EOS Bodies / Re: C 300 is not an alternative to 35mm motion picture film.
« on: January 03, 2012, 01:04:31 PM »
Codec, SHmodec. What i see from the C300 on the screen compared to RED makes it look worth it. I just saw Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, and was again reminded how muddy the RED makes images look.  I can always tell when a commercial was shot with a RED, and that's not a good thing.  Right now, it looks like the c300 is best thing available for the price, so.....

364
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Super-35mm Cinema Sensor Explained
« on: January 03, 2012, 12:55:12 PM »
Could someone explain why they didn't go for a larger sensor that maintains the 1.78 aspect ratio, but would still be compatible with their lenses? For example why not a 35X20mm sensor?

It seems like the industry has settled on this size (super-35) why?

365
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon C300 C-Log vs Sony F3 S-Log
« on: December 23, 2011, 01:14:14 PM »
Here's how i calculate 10 bit uncompressed @ 24p. I could totally be wrong, someone please correct me if I am.

1080*1920*24p*(10bit)=(447Mbs)

8 bits per byte so.

(447/8)=49MBs

Either way, it's a beast.

366
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon C300 C-Log vs Sony F3 S-Log
« on: December 22, 2011, 11:41:38 AM »
130MBs. Surely you must mean 130Mbs. Even if the recorder can handle 130MBs, there is no way that camera can output that much, is there?

I'm thinking uncompressed 4:4:4 vs 4:2:2  means 4x35Mbs=140Mbs max.

367
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon C300 C-Log vs Sony F3 S-Log
« on: December 21, 2011, 11:25:52 AM »
Anyone know the bitrate on the Sony with S-Log?

368
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon C300 C-Log vs Sony F3 S-Log
« on: December 20, 2011, 06:11:21 PM »
All in all a useless article. I'm not sure there has ever been a more boring test, ever.  At least choose a test scene with some color and more gradation. 

369
I told my wife I wanted a c300, and she replied, " you mean that shitty movie with Gerard Butler?".

370
EOS Bodies / Re: Why not 16bit?
« on: December 14, 2011, 12:52:06 PM »
I thought bits were determined by the number of byes of information stored by each pixel. But I'm a hack so...

371
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS C300 Price Drop Already? [CR1]
« on: November 28, 2011, 01:13:10 PM »

Great article here on the Scarlet and some pretty ugly truths about the camera

http://philipbloom.net/2011/11/20/scarlet/


That is no lie. This is a great article. Read it if you are on the fence about RED.

372
EOS Bodies / Re: Only 4.3 mil.
« on: November 21, 2011, 12:06:27 PM »
If someone had showed me this thrown into a random flickr account of someones ametuer photography I wouldn't have blinked an eye.  Rich people are assholes and must be stopped at all costs.

Hey if it wasn't for rich people and their "superior" taste, we'd never have known who Picasso was (see Gertrude Stein).  By this i mean, if it wasn't for rich people, recklessly bidding up the price of essentially worthless objects, there'd be no market for so called art.  So thanks to them, even hacks like me can hope to score it big, if all I have to do is impress a lonely, nursing-home heiress.   :P



373
EOS Bodies / Re: RED - Scarlet.....
« on: November 10, 2011, 02:13:55 PM »
Yup, Peter Jackson's latest blog on the Hobbit says the same - OTT colours on the scenery in Mirkwood, additional red on the actors faces because the Red Epic doesn't do colour in the same way...

There is so much misinformation on this site, it's ridiculous. I don't want to correct anyone though because then you'll all go buy Scarlets and oversaturate my market share. But. . .I can't help to correct someone when they're wrong.

Regarding the makeup in LOTR: the extra red makeup has nothing to do with the camera color science... the mirrors in the 3D rig desaturate magenta from one eye ( tints green ) so instead of boosting back saturation in just one eye in post, they prefer to lift both eyes in saturation then remove it as necessary. The exact same thing would happen to any camera through the 3D rig beamsplitter. one eye goes green , one eye goes magenta. Many ways to compensate for that, this is just one.

Regarding the "reject" processors from Epics being used in Scarlets: each and every camera gets a high quality sensor. Just because you buy a Scarlet doesn't mean your sensor is any less worthy than if you bought an Epic. What is different on the Scarlet is the processing speed of the ASICs. That limits functionality (high fps, high redcode), not sensor image quality. All else being equal, you will get the exact same quality images from Scarlet; it just can't make as many of them each second. Hence the same resolutions, but lower frame rates. Slower processor doesn't mean degraded image.

The internet is a vast and wonderful place to do research, so. . .do it.

So instead of doing it in post, they alter the actors makeup and set design because that's much easier :o...  that cannot be the only reason.  Other directors have brought up issues with the color before, it's just funny as hell that Jackson outed Red in that manner.  If he wanted to blame it on the 3d rig, he would have.

I don't believe that RED would use "reject processors".  But this doesn't change the fact that RED hasn't yet mastered things in 2k yet, let alone 4k, because of color issues (see my earlier comment  comparing  "Fight Club" to the "The Social Network").

RED makes some good cameras (I still might buy one), but people need to stop judging the C300 based on just resolution and fps.

At the end of the day, I'm surprised people are giving RED so much credit for Scarlet. They went with the simplest solution possible: use the same sensor and nerf the processor. That should have taken 2 days not 2 years.   






 

374
EOS Bodies / Re: Mobius by Vincent Laforet on the EOS C300
« on: November 09, 2011, 05:52:08 PM »

You think wrong then...

As I said on another thread. Compare the "Social Network"(RED) to "Fight Club"(FILM).
It's the same Director, and same DP on both. The Social Network looks like sh*t in comparison.

That's a bit of a simplistic comparison is it not? Just looking at production costs alone, the Fight Club when adjusted for inflation in 1999 cost close to 30 million dollars more than the price tag to put out the Social Network.

I don't think it is.

1. Sure, shooting on RED can save you a bunch of money(especially since Fincher likes to do 100 takes for everything), but my point was that even thought RED is 4K, the picture doesn't look so hot, especially when compared to film.  So since they haven't proved they can make 1080p look like film yet, let's not get ahead of ourselves and call anything that doesn't output in 4k "obsolete".

2. The budget disparity is exaggerated by the fact that Fight Club had Brad Pitt and Edward Norton, whereas the Social Network had Jessie Whatshisname and Mara Whatsherface.  :)

375
EOS Bodies / Re: Mobius by Vincent Laforet on the EOS C300
« on: November 08, 2011, 03:28:21 PM »
Which one is the most disappointing? :) I think RED ONE is already almost 30% of mainstream productions.

You think wrong then...

As I said on another thread. Compare the "Social Network"(RED) to "Fight Club"(FILM).
It's the same Director, and same DP on both. The Social Network looks like sh*t in comparison.


Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 28