Thread: Avatar Sequels no longer on Red?

Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 456789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 83
  1. #71  
    Senior Member Brian Boyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    819
    Quote Originally Posted by Hrvoje Simic View Post
    Yup.
    Cool, and thanks for your insight on the matter.


    I'd say 15-16 are mathematical stops and we have usable 12-14 stop cameras these days. Were there actual 16 practical stops available without severely molesting the material, digging into shadows and NR, we wouldn't have this conversation right now.
    Fair enough. I went with manufacturer claims to avoid my point getting lost and derailed in a squabble over whose claims are true and "If X has more, why does it show less than Y?" type questions.


    You are using stops as a reference to theorize about possible sensor performance.
    It should be the other way around.
    I thought I was doing both, actually. The main reason for talking in terms of theorizing sensor performance relative to stops is because of how people tend to discuss DR.

    When I say I want substantially better highlight performance, as we've gone over already, it requires more DR up top. The question then becomes does the new sensor add stops to the total DR over the amount a previous gen sensor could already achieve? I think this is what most people assume.

    They start mentally adding that upper DR gain to the 14-16 (or 12-14) stops that are already available in sensors, which leads them to say, "They'd have to design a sensor with 20 stops of DR for what you're asking and we already have 16, which is more than film ever had. Stop your whining."

    So, I'm trying to frame the conversation in terms of designing a sensor that captures a shitload of light intensity, but that also fits within the range of dynamics we already have now and know to be achievable (14-16 stops), if such a thing is possible. Does that make sense?


    If instead of "saturation performance" you mean "better highlight performance with the available DR", yes that is possible. And Arri has been doing that for 10 years by mixing two parallel analog gains.
    I'm pretty sure I've only referred to it as "saturation capacity" so I'm not sure if that changes your statement any. The dual gain readout is ingenious and has done the trick for the last decade.


    I don't have an answer to that question which wouldn't use guesswork as ingredients.
    Again, fair enough.


    Highly unlikely.
    Too bad, really.


    Theoretically yes. Realistically...that necessitates handling 16 times higher light intensity.
    So not really up for picking in a feature store. :)
    True. But sensor technologies capable of greater saturation are almost certainly in our future. Otherwise, it's as good as it's ever going to get. That seems unlikely.


    You need substantially higher saturation capacity to get more stops.
    Yes, up top. As I tried to explain above, I say it the other way around to present the possibility of achieving the higher saturation without necessarily needing a substantial amount more stops than what cameras currently work with.

    It may keep people from thinking in terms of having to expand the total DR to like 20 stops (4 stops over what's currently claimed by RED, which still wouldn't necessarily mean an improved saturation capacity) to get the type of highlight performance I'm talking about.


    You can do that by yourself. Two ways:
    1) Put an ND on
    2) Rate the camera higher (imagine it was more sensitive and underexpose)

    :)

    I wouldn't say that matter is up for trade, many would have gladly traded it by now.
    Yes, I'm aware of these techniques. Both require you to restrict the amount of light hitting the sensor in order to grab those extra stops up top and then turn up the gain. It's effective in practice but it's the kind of solution that ends up hurting RED in the long run for features and tv because almost no one tests cameras like that.

    They gather up a bunch of cameras, use the same lenses and shoot the same subjects under the same conditions at the same settings. As long as tests are done this way, RED's highlight latitude results will always fall short of Alexa's and film's. And maybe now Venice's, too.

    No one is going to set all the cameras up the same except for the RED and use whatever settings are going to make it look good for the situation. Don't get me wrong. RED's have a lot to offer and are chosen for numerous projects over other cameras.

    I believe substantially better highlight performance will bring with it a host of perceived and actual pleasing image aspects that will help bring digital cinema closer to those qualities we love so much about film. RED could be at the forefront of that or they could keep chasing resolution and no light performance.
    Cutting out soft shadows in Photoshop tutorial
    YouTube | Vimeo

    www.harbonder.com


    Strand on Soundcloud
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Boyer View Post
    The question then becomes does the new sensor add stops to the total DR over the amount a previous gen sensor could already achieve? I think this is what most people assume.
    It may or may not. Depends on the sensor. :)

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Boyer View Post
    So, I'm trying to frame the conversation in terms of designing a sensor that captures a shitload of light intensity, but that also fits within the range of dynamics we already have now and know to be achievable (14-16 stops), if such a thing is possible.
    Why would it have to fit in same dynamics ? Why the approach in trading DR in the first place ?


    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Boyer View Post
    True. But sensor technologies capable of greater saturation are almost certainly in our future
    Yup.
    Close future. I'd say.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Boyer View Post
    It may keep people from thinking in terms of having to expand the total DR to like 20 stops (4 stops over what's currently claimed by RED, which still wouldn't necessarily mean an improved saturation capacity) to get the type of highlight performance I'm talking about.
    I'd say that range should cover what you are talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Boyer View Post
    Yes, I'm aware of these techniques.
    Both require you to restrict the amount of light hitting the sensor in order to grab those extra stops up top and then turn up the gain. It's effective in practice but it's the kind of solution that ends up hurting RED in the long run for features and tv because almost no one tests cameras like that.
    That was a joke. Because same principle you talked about. Same DR, highlights peserved, underexposed shadows. No need to do anything in the camera. :)


    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Boyer View Post
    They gather up a bunch of cameras, use the same lenses and shoot the same subjects under the same conditions at the same settings. As long as tests are done this way, RED's highlight latitude results will always fall short of Alexa's and film's. And maybe now Venice's, too.
    If we put film on the side for later, I'm having high hopes for Gemini @ 1600.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Boyer View Post
    I believe substantially better highlight performance will bring with it a host of perceived and actual pleasing image aspects that will help bring digital cinema closer to those qualities we love so much about film.
    Sensitivity is taken care of. "Resolution" as well. Spatial. Sort of. With computative colors.
    Motion and upper range DR are currently challenges for digital cinematography. Nothing still beats film in those parameters.
    http://i68.tinypic.com/drcb4y.jpg


    Analog > Camera feel optimization http://omeneo.com
    Digital > Camera performance optimization http://omeneo.com/primers

    imdb


    "Como delfines en el fondo del oceano
    volamos por el universo incentivados por la esperanza"

    "L'esperanza", Sven Väth
    "It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards"
    Jung/ Carol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #73  
    I feel like the lower range of digital is so much better that overall in nicely exposed shots, digital tends to have a softer contrast. Maybe you like it or not, but it's a different choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #74  
    What do you mean by "softer contrast" ?

    There is no inherent typical "contrast" in digital, it all depends on how the data is processed in camera and post.
    Rich, well exposed log image, recorded in higher bit depth can be shaped in contrast in different approaches and outcomes. Depending on scene contrast crafted by the cinematographer, of course.
    http://i68.tinypic.com/drcb4y.jpg


    Analog > Camera feel optimization http://omeneo.com
    Digital > Camera performance optimization http://omeneo.com/primers

    imdb


    "Como delfines en el fondo del oceano
    volamos por el universo incentivados por la esperanza"

    "L'esperanza", Sven Väth
    "It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards"
    Jung/ Carol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by Hrvoje Simic View Post
    What do you mean by "softer contrast" ?

    There is no inherent typical "contrast" in digital, it all depends on how the data is processed in camera and post.
    Rich, well exposed log image, recorded in higher bit depth can be shaped in contrast in different approaches and outcomes. Depending on scene contrast crafted by the cinematographer, of course.
    It just feels like there's more DR in an even distribution, giving you good info in the shadows too vs. just a smooth highlight rolloff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #76  
    Senior Member Brian Boyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    819
    Quote Originally Posted by Hrvoje Simic View Post
    Why would it have to fit in same dynamics ? Why the approach in trading DR in the first place ?
    It might not have to fit in the same dynamics. I'm just saying if it did, I'm cool with it.

    I'm trying to make it clear that I'm not proposing a sensor that's 20+ stops because anything less is inadequate for my superior needs. So, I say I'll take 14 or 15 and give up three stops of Gemini's low light prowess for 9 stops at the top, if it's necessary.

    If they can keep the low light performance and significantly increase the highlight latitude, even better.


    That was a joke. Because same principle you talked about. Same DR, highlights peserved, underexposed shadows. No need to do anything in the camera. :)
    I see.


    If we put film on the side for later, I'm having high hopes for Gemini @ 1600.
    I'm wondering about Gemini @ 3200. I don't mind a little noise in my images.
    Cutting out soft shadows in Photoshop tutorial
    YouTube | Vimeo

    www.harbonder.com


    Strand on Soundcloud
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #77  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by Aris_Gavriilidis View Post
    - Variable ND might be a stretch if they keep the same body size but I'm sure they would be a welcome addition.
    Doesn't the Mini have variable ND's?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Boyer View Post
    I'm wondering about Gemini @ 3200. I don't mind a little noise in my images.
    Analog (actual) gain = trading highlight range.

    1600 digital push would keep it.

    Quote Originally Posted by emil_h View Post
    Doesn't the Mini have variable ND's?
    Nope.

    "Variable ND" as in a single ND which you can tune and just dial-in perfect exposure.
    http://i68.tinypic.com/drcb4y.jpg


    Analog > Camera feel optimization http://omeneo.com
    Digital > Camera performance optimization http://omeneo.com/primers

    imdb


    "Como delfines en el fondo del oceano
    volamos por el universo incentivados por la esperanza"

    "L'esperanza", Sven Väth
    "It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards"
    Jung/ Carol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #79  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by Hrvoje Simic View Post

    Nope.

    "Variable ND" as in a single ND which you can tune and just dial-in perfect exposure.
    I meant a motorized ND, which it does.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #80  
    Senior Member Brian Boyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    819
    Quote Originally Posted by Hrvoje Simic View Post
    Analog (actual) gain = trading highlight range.

    1600 digital push would keep it.
    Um...huh? I know it's not generally your style but could you explain what you mean in more detail. Perhaps start by explaining, in detail, what you meant about having high hopes for Gemini @1600 - you know, the process. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant.

    Then, maybe you could explain, in detail, what you thought I meant by Gemini @ 3200 - you know, the process. Maybe you misunderstood what I meant.
    Cutting out soft shadows in Photoshop tutorial
    YouTube | Vimeo

    www.harbonder.com


    Strand on Soundcloud
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts