Digital Imaging Thread IV

Beamerped

@Len
Yes, I can see the flickering. I saw it before on the bike too, but I'm afraid that's where our agreement ends. I actively try to avoid the damn flickering, I think it's distracting. You were right about it being a product of shutter and the transfer (but mostly shutter I think). The Krasnogorsk-3 isn't exactly a top of the line camera, but it does the job. Same for the transfer house I send it to. If money was no object, I'd get it scanned in 4K and downsize to 2K at Cinelicious. Of course that's prohibitively expensive for me, but it doesn't hurt to drool every now and then. Some of that is Super 8mm, but most is 16mm. Looks cinematic as hell, with no flicker as far as I could tell.

Len:
It’s one of the things that makes film look like film when you simulate it.
I think what you mean are home 8mm/16mm projections, where this would probably be very visible. I can't speak from experience because I've never seen one in action. What I can say is that you'd never see this on a proper projection of 35mm film. As far as the D90 goes, I won't argue since you've obviously thought a long time about it, and it's been about 1 1/2 years since I played with it last. But I still think it's odd that compression would ever make anything look better.

Len:
Anyway, back to your filmmaking, hurry up and make an atmospheric Horror Film like Eraser Head, or a directorial masterpiece like Night on Earth. Oh, and stop trying to kill your sister on the hammock you evil bazzard (yes, I spotted the other video) :-D I know sisters can be a pain in the arse, but If you kill her, you’ll have less actors to film, peasant!

You'll be glad to know I'm planning a crime thriller for next summer. It will be black and white, with lots of influence from film-noir. It will be tricky to pull off with such a small crew (2-4 people), but I'm super excited. The main thing I haven't decided is if I should go for a feature-length (80-90 minutes), or not tire myself out and keep it to 15 minutes max. Anything in between is an awkward length, and unlikely to be accepted to film festivals.

Wait, you actually thought that was me in the video? Haha, that's my younger brother. Even he wasn't trying to kill her, I just directed him to. Oh, I guess that doesn't help my case either. :red:

pumeco

Beamerped said:

But I still think it's odd that compression would ever make anything look better.

It does sound odd, but liking something doesn't mean it's better. The visual effect the D90 codec gives could be likened to the audible effect that tape gives. People often describe analogue sound as "warm", when actually, it's the tape format that makes analogue sound warm. The defining characteristic of analogue is "smooth", not warm. Both vinyl and tape are analogue formats, both sound "smooth", but one sounds warmer than the other (tape).

The reason tape sounds warm is because, believe it or not, it's a natural form of "compression" caused by the tape it's recorded to. There are plugins, for example, that claim to mimic the warmth of tape, and guess what, those plugins are basically specialised compressors. So, we know that something can sound better by taking something away (compressing it). The D90 codec could loosely be said to be doing to visuals what tape does to analogue sound - it looks better by taking something away. It's human instinct to prefer things that are organic because we are organic, it's also one of the reasons you like real film (it's organic).

You'll be glad to know I'm planning a crime thriller for next summer. It will be black and white, with lots of influence from film-noir. It will be tricky to pull off with such a small crew (2-4 people), but I'm super excited. The main thing I haven't decided is if I should go for a feature-length (80-90 minutes), or not tire myself out and keep it to 15 minutes max. Anything in between is an awkward length, and unlikely to be accepted to film festivals.

Wait, you actually thought that was me in the video? Haha, that's my younger brother. Even he wasn't trying to kill her, I just directed him to. Oh, I guess that doesn't help my case either. :red:

No, I knew it wasn't you, but yes, I suspected you'd told him to do it :-D

Bloody hell, so you're deciding between 15 to 90 minutes then, that's quite a gap in between! Don't know what to suggest other than just decide on the story and allow it to take a natural progression, let it end where it ends, because that's the only way the story will be exactly how you wanted it to be.

One thing I will say, and something I hope you'll consider seriously, is that you must avoid doing what everyone else is doing. As you're starting out in this I think the worst thing you can possibly do is to produce something unoriginal. If you do so then you won't get anywhere with it, I mean why would you if everyone else before you has done the same?

So, I hope you'll put most of your energy into a clever plot, something different and unexpected. It's a fact that good writing is the key, the cinematography is second. Think clever, not fancy!

pumeco

Did everyone die or something?

Bloody hell, you have to admit this Digital Imaging Thread lark has got really boring since I stopped making those "Big Reveals". Not trying to be big-headed or anything, but I'm beginning to think it's the one thing that kept the old thread going. I mean I might have gone through a few cameras, but at least the process begged questions that required you to debate, which in turn made for a fun thread. Look how much useful information was posted, for example, because I was clueless about lenses!

The only difference now is that you are still peasants with crap cameras, mine is still the most bestist, but the conversation has got boring because you have nothing to debate any more. Haven't even seen a Christmas Pic from Peter yet, and I was hoping to see him pulling girls in his Snowman suit again, only this time putting his new Olympus OM-D to the test :-P

Beamerped

pumeco said:

The only difference now is that you are still peasants with crap cameras, mine is still the most bestist, but the conversation has got boring because you have nothing to debate any more.

That's because we've been too busy shooting photos. Trolling again? Two can play at that game, muahaha. Seriously though, I've got 5 rolls of B+W developed and just sitting around, plus some MF Velvia 100. Haven't got it scanned yet because paying for spring semester left me with $90 to my name. I'm definitely taking a year off from school after spring; I've got to have a life besides that!

pumeco

Well now you know why, despite my incurable love for all things analogue, I don't use real film even though I wish I could :-)

I look forward to seeing them when the time comes then, but in the meantime why not play around with the P300?

Was tempted again to buy one myself some months back, it has a major advantage in that it can always be with you (and at least AE lock in video mode). Despite all that stuff in the previous thread about me not knowing what I wanted, I really always did know and I said so (I just wanted a genuinely compact camera with a fast lens and manual video), the trouble was no one made such a camera until I gave up and bought a DSLR, then of course they all started appearing like magic out of nowhere!

Typical.

Anyway, you probably already guessed what's coming, and yup, I have got another camera although I'm not prepared to do a big reveal unless there is some excitement among the photo peasants here (you're all far too boring lately). I was ready to nip into town the other week and take some photos because I thought the snow would have stayed and might have made for some mildly picturesque photos, but no, didn't even last the bloody night out, stupid snow.

bjorn.lovoll

Gedd said:

Beautiful pictures Bjornlo, Horo, TheSavage64, and Hokulea. I have to voice a different opinion then that of pumeco, Bjornlo... I think the images are not overdone. This is a matter of taste and I tend to like a lot of color and impact in my images. I also like Van Gogh so...

I remember a long time ago seeing prints done from Ektachrome where the colors were so hyper-saturated... I had never seen anything as amazing and I've never forgotten it. I tend to hyper-saturate my images often, it is an artistic statement by me to produce the desired effect, so I obviously go way beyond what pumeco is referring to in your images. A lot of the most popular images going around in the public sphere (like fb etc..) are like this also, which shows that a lot of people like images where the color pops much more than if one was actually 'there.'

There is one thing I notice. The gravel in the tractor scene is hyper-sharpened. That can add energy to a scene or be jarring. It is the type of thing people react to without even realizing what they are reacting to. I have noticed that type of effect especially with a high 'clarity' in camera raw. I don't think the effect is good or bad, just one needs to be aware that like hyper-saturation, it can effect different people differently.

Thanks for the feedback, sorry for the much delayed response. I've had a lot on my plate and haven't been around much.

The tractor was shot in RAW with a fairly small aperture, focus just in front of the first tractor (intentional front focus). I did this because the rocks being in super sharp focus was my goal. The smaller aperture was because I was so close to the first tractor (lens used was a 20mm on a full-frame camera) and without a f-stop of f/16 nothing much would have been in focus even with such a short lens.
I did not boost the saturation in the shots. I instead shot slightly underexposed and then lifted the exposure slightly (roughly 1/2 stop) in post processing which has a side effect of slightly boosting the colors.

bjorn.lovoll

StuartB4 said:

Been looking at old black and white photos that people have colourized lately and thought I'd go the other way.
Using the colour replacement tool in Photoshop.

I quite like that effect. I have previously used it myself in this spring scene to show how a dog sees the world... Amusingly different technique.