261–270 of 315 posts
Gotta re-read Rodriguez' "Rebel without a crew" (and try to forget his way subpar episode of the next Disney Star Wars humiliation).
[0] http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/scotland/commissioning/TechnicalD...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nikon does video cameras?
Not much separates high end still cameras from video cameras besides taxes and a bit of firmware (some other stuff too, but all minor issues). The big reason all high end cameras aren’t video cameras are mostly taxes in some regions and lazy product differentiation.
- Cine zoom lenses must provide a fixed point of focus when you are zooming. This leads to a more complex mechanism.
- Different cine fixed lenses in one project usually must have identical image quality. That is why they are produced in series (for example 'XEEN PRO Cinema Lenses') with the same technologies.
- Anamorphic lenses... They should exist. They complicate lens production because a stable quality (for series) of an aspherical lens can be achieved only from a central part of a large glass.
- Focusing is the process that often requires a separate person (focus puller) and additional machinery (follow focus system). All cine lenses have exactly the same standard focus wheel. There is no such standard for a photo lens focus wheel.
Nikon F has very few cine lenses and has no series of lenses. Nikon Z has nothing. Thanks to the closed very secret, unique, perfect, bla-bla specification of Z mount and zero collaborations with other manufactures.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely legacy lenses can be reproduced (or modelled digitally!) so that it is impossible to tell the difference. For the component lenses don't you 'just' use the same refractive index and make it the same shape? We can make microchips for a few quid but a metal tube with a few small lumps of shaped glass costs 10,000 times as much? Seems unlikely. Is it a fashion thing, like unless it has the right logo on the lens…
The lenses are expensive because they're made to very exacting standards but also they're a low volume product line. A cinema lens is hand-assembled from hundreds of components that must be aligned to extremely fine precision, with a lot of human-in-the-loop workflows requiring trained technicians. Why optics are expensive is a long and deep conversation. As for quality, the highest of high end lenses are much sharpe…
I would like to see the film industry focus on not only increasing resolution, but frame rate as well. 24fps has remained a standard for too long mostly because of legacy and stylistic reasons, but with the switch to digital productions and projections, and internet bandwidth increases across the board, there's no reason why shows and movies couldn't be produced and delivered at 60fps and beyond. The main argument ag…
[0]: https://www.pixelworks.com/en/truecut [1]: https://twitter.com/Vincent_Teoh/status/1479507421546622977
I'd like to see their guidelines for the social content of their productions. Every Netflix production I've seen seems to feature commonly themed social commentary, in some cases more subtle than others.
Why would you like to see it? (Assuming any such thing exists, which I can't imagine)
I've had the opportunity to work on two short productions for ESPN in the last two years. My role is writing the code for the screen overlays and real time scoring system. I have very little knowledge in cameras but did have to review all the production guidelines. Netflix doesn't mention image sensor size (CCD) but ESPN requires 2/3" or more. I'm guessing every camera they list as approved would meet that spec even…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Say that I need a 300x400 image for a webpage. Does it make sense to set my camera to take 300x400 pictures? What happens when we crop and postprocess? If we want the best quality end product, free from low-res artifacting, we need to preserve an excess of resolution all the way through production until the final export. Exactly how headroom much is enough? Enough that artifacts arising from insufficient resolution a…
Yes, I understand the reasons to have enough dynamic range and enough headroom. My question is about what specifically is enough .
The technical quality of Netflix originals is really high. One thing that annoys me though is for some reason despite having rigorous standards for the camera it seems a common trend through numerous Netflix Originals to use the Vantage Hawk V-Lite Vintage '74 line of anamorphic lenses. I guess it's a stylistic choice but it results is some (for me at least) annoying image distortion that can really distract from the…
Might be related but I'm finding recent TV shows and film to have a really narrow field of focus while the rest of the screen is either blurry like your example or a depth of field effect. My eyes generally wander to look at the surrounding scene or detail but I get the feeling I'm not supposed to be looking there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know recording live music can get hairy, but yikes! How was 16bits not enough? Were all the preamps set to max? Who records at -12db - -6db? Record at a way lower level and boost at the amp stage?
My understanding is that 24-bit source material (the standard when I was last recording which was several years ago) provides enough dynamic range that you can bring up the desired volume without overly muddying quiet sections with noise, especially when mixing multiple sources where that noise adds up quickly. My own personal experience recording at 16 bits was… “I must play louder and overstate my song’s understate…