Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Viewing percentage  (Read 6507 times)
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« on: November 16, 2012, 03:20:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Ok silly question time.
When I'm editing a still image I have a rough idea on screen what 100% relates to as a print. I know what 20x16 print will look like from the file, I reckon viewed on screen at 50% is close.
How do I know what the final image on a TV will look like when I'm editing. A 100% on screen looks fairy $hit to me, then again when I get close to my TV it does not look to great either.
Blu-ray looks ok close-up the stuff coming from space looks all over the place. I'm struggling to know what is good and what is bad, I'm sure screen size viewing distance and conditions play as big a part in video as they do in viewing prints, I just can't get a handle on what is good quality regarding video when I'm editing. It all looks lacking in resolution to my eye.

Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2220


WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2012, 03:32:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Most video is indeed terrible!

Now you are sure that your NLE plays back at full resolution?

Some dont to load the computer less

I certainly had that in my early days of wandering the settings of FCP6

..and yes it does look ok from the sofa if the TV is on the other side of the lounge so how much quality do you need

I guess a typical lo end camera DSLR or sub $10k vid resolves around 500-700 LPI which would appear to be about half of the the true potential of hd1080

50% size viewed from desk distance would probably equate to a big TeeVee viewed from the sofa?

S
« Last Edit: November 16, 2012, 03:34:31 PM by Morgan_Moore » Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
billy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 275


« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2012, 04:36:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Ok silly question time.
When I'm editing a still image I have a rough idea on screen what 100% relates to as a print. I know what 20x16 print will look like from the file, I reckon viewed on screen at 50% is close.
How do I know what the final image on a TV will look like when I'm editing. A 100% on screen looks fairy $hit to me, then again when I get close to my TV it does not look to great either.
Blu-ray looks ok close-up the stuff coming from space looks all over the place. I'm struggling to know what is good and what is bad, I'm sure screen size viewing distance and conditions play as big a part in video as they do in viewing prints, I just can't get a handle on what is good quality regarding video when I'm editing. It all looks lacking in resolution to my eye.

Kevin.

not a silly question..... i struggle with the same thing, i think all of us primarily Stills shooters are used to good resolution.
Logged
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2012, 03:27:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Most video is indeed terrible!

Now you are sure that your NLE plays back at full resolution?

Some dont to load the computer less

I certainly had that in my early days of wandering the settings of FCP6

..and yes it does look ok from the sofa if the TV is on the other side of the lounge so how much quality do you need

I guess a typical lo end camera DSLR or sub $10k vid resolves around 500-700 LPI which would appear to be about half of the the true potential of hd1080

50% size viewed from desk distance would probably equate to a big TeeVee viewed from the sofa?

S


Yes I'm using FCP X and AE, it's not the playback preview quality that concerns me. If I pause the video and view at 100% I think it looks poor as does the final movie close-up. I can keep stepping backwards until I think it looks acceptable, I can't believe that's how I should be assessing it.
 The other problem I have coming from a position of ignorance is knowing the workflow to preserve quality. Should I be converting to something like Prores before importing into FCP X.
If I go straight into AE then output as Prores I think it looks better than straight into FCP X, then again I might be wrong.
................... and grading is driving me nuts, I suppose coming from working with a raw still image I was unprepared for the drop in what can be tweaked. But what really makes it impossible for me to get it like I would like (I shoot video very flat/ neutral) is the controls seam impossibly coarse and clumsy, often over complicated too.
A good workflow would be a start, because I do not have a foundation in video I don't know what the parameters are, how to change or keep them, what I should reasonable expect, where good becomes bad etc. I'm searching for a good beginners up to date book, any recommendations please!
And what does give you real HD? Does the latest GoPro give genuine HD or does it start at a 300C, video looks to have lots of meaningless figures attached to it that have nothing to do with what you think (the manufactures want you to think) they apply too.
I shot these clips to try and get an idea of what to expect http://vimeo.com/53594794

Thanks,

Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2220


WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 17, 2012, 05:08:27 AM »
ReplyReply

I watched the video - it seems to be every reason not to shoot with a DSLR!

DSLRs look great for headshots at F2 with an out of focus lamp behind.

--

Bascially how to evaluate 'quality' yes there are a lot of mumbo jumbo numbers. It IMO seems to come down to data rate - you will see a 1080HD camera like the Sony F35 seems to shoot a suitcase of data - im sure that is not a waste 880MBS or something http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/product-F35/ - what is the 1DX? 45mbs? - that is jpg compression 2 in stills speak?

Your camera shoots H264, 8bit
This is kind of the minimal,
Imagine you are allocating data around the frame you will see that complex subjects - trees waving in the wind - buildings - require a lot of data
Here the compressed formats really fall apart

Maybe a pro-res recorder would help for such scenes

Certainly a Black magic camera - the image is just a bunch of raw still DNG files - but the data rate is a double edged sword..
The BMC shoots 7GB per minute! which has its own serious issue set

As for shooting 'flat' this is IMO fools gold of the deepest nature when using a 'thin codec' (8bit camera)

You should look to cram the histo with data and concentrate on getting the colours in camera

As soon as you grade 8bit it collapses becuase there are no unseen intermediate tones to rely on.. it has to band/break up

Canon C300 - hmm - im not so sure

So..

Bin the flat profiles? (free)
Consider a recorder? ($1000?)
Consider a new camera? ($theworldisyouroyster)

My feeling is the BMC and Scarlet offer a great image in a quirky package and the upcoming Sony F5 and C500 offer a great image in a more practical package

Im unconvinced by the F3,C100,C300andAF100,FS100 and FS700 - they are a step beyond DSLR but only a step - the codecs are too thin for more IMO

S
« Last Edit: November 17, 2012, 05:18:07 AM by Morgan_Moore » Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2220


WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 17, 2012, 05:23:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Also remember cheap ND filtration, flare, stopping down into the defractive zone will degrade your image

My FS100 - looks great with a lit interview

But take it outdoors and point it at a complex wide at F11 with a VND filter and you get sludge..

S
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
billy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 275


« Reply #6 on: November 17, 2012, 09:38:21 AM »
ReplyReply

warning; I am gonna g slightly off topic here, sorry Kevin, I can start another thead if you prefer;

since we are discussing resolution i would like to get advice on this; i shoot shoulder rigged 1080p with my canon 5dmk3. i edit in fcpx and use a fair amount of image stabilization in the software. This forces you to crop in to the image. My solution is to output at 720p to avoid losing resolution, but I would prefer to just scale the output down to match the resolution that I have cropped to. How do I do that? Choosing 960 x 540 from the project properties? Or should I even worry about this and just output at 1080p? Most of what I am delivering is going to be seen on Vimeo at Fullscreen at its 'biggest'.
Logged
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1910



« Reply #7 on: November 17, 2012, 09:55:56 AM »
ReplyReply

My workflow maintains 1080P for as long as possible including using image stabilization. Yes, that means that the original is being resampled to maintain 1080P but I find that keeping the highest resolution possible through the complete edit process to the point of actual compression and output for the web (or whatever) maintains the best possible quality.

To the OP: you can drive yourself nuts looking for still or freeze-frame quality within video. Anything short of 4k is going to suffer in comparison to stills. But this is motion and the quality of motion does not really equate to stills. IMO - Judge by running footage at full resolution - not by still frames.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2012, 09:59:57 AM by Chris Sanderson » Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
billy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 275


« Reply #8 on: November 17, 2012, 04:36:44 PM »
ReplyReply


I shot these clips to try and get an idea of what to expect http://vimeo.com/53594794

Thanks,

Kevin.

on the vimeo page you state " Even a small amount of stabilisation in Final Cut X degrades to a noticeable degree. " Can you expand on this? Is it because you loose resolution due to the crop or is it something else it effects? I use image stabilisation in FCPX for almost everything but I am still trying to figure out its overall effect.
Logged
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1910



« Reply #9 on: November 17, 2012, 05:50:22 PM »
ReplyReply

If you want a better more 'intelligent' image stabilizer, check out CoreMelt's Lock & Load
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 18, 2012, 12:11:38 PM »
ReplyReply

I can see a drop in resolution between straight footage and footage with default stabilisation in FCP X, I think (not really done like for like comparison) that AE does a better job with stabilisation. I also think AE is better at adding sharpening. I might just of got lucky with the settings and someone that knows what they are doing could make each look like the other. This video is another game altogether, so many things to trip you up you did not know you had to consider.
You can look at great stuff shot with a 5DII and forget a team of experts well financed pull every trick to make it look lovely. A bit different to a one man band new to the game trying to get the best they can.

Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 18, 2012, 12:27:15 PM »
ReplyReply

I watched the video - it seems to be every reason not to shoot with a DSLR!

DSLRs look great for headshots at F2 with an out of focus lamp behind.

--

Bascially how to evaluate 'quality' yes there are a lot of mumbo jumbo numbers. It IMO seems to come down to data rate - you will see a 1080HD camera like the Sony F35 seems to shoot a suitcase of data - im sure that is not a waste 880MBS or something http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/product-F35/ - what is the 1DX? 45mbs? - that is jpg compression 2 in stills speak?

Your camera shoots H264, 8bit
This is kind of the minimal,
Imagine you are allocating data around the frame you will see that complex subjects - trees waving in the wind - buildings - require a lot of data
Here the compressed formats really fall apart

Maybe a pro-res recorder would help for such scenes

Certainly a Black magic camera - the image is just a bunch of raw still DNG files - but the data rate is a double edged sword..
The BMC shoots 7GB per minute! which has its own serious issue set

As for shooting 'flat' this is IMO fools gold of the deepest nature when using a 'thin codec' (8bit camera)

You should look to cram the histo with data and concentrate on getting the colours in camera

As soon as you grade 8bit it collapses becuase there are no unseen intermediate tones to rely on.. it has to band/break up

Canon C300 - hmm - im not so sure

So..

Bin the flat profiles? (free)
Consider a recorder? ($1000?)
Consider a new camera? ($theworldisyouroyster)

My feeling is the BMC and Scarlet offer a great image in a quirky package and the upcoming Sony F5 and C500 offer a great image in a more practical package

Im unconvinced by the F3,C100,C300andAF100,FS100 and FS700 - they are a step beyond DSLR but only a step - the codecs are too thin for more IMO

S
I would say at 1920 x 1080 on my retina display it looks better but I'm not convinced it's as good as I want/expected.
I tried some stuff with a 5DII and rolling shutter was a big problem, so from that point the X is a big improvement. One reason I have not jumped on the BMC was the reports of rolling shutter. In the air rolling shutter highlights any jumps or jars and makes it difficult to correct.
The goal for me is smooth video with the bear minimum or no post stabilisation. I'm refining various ideas for stabilised mounts, I'm getting closer but cineflex smooth looks a long way off. The system also needs to be easy to mount and dismount in the air, so stills and video can be shot on the same flight by myself.The system also needs to be capable of shooting smoothly with a tele lens, constant wide flyby views boar me to tears, they also look to be the norm for stills guys doing moving image in the air.
Thank
Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2220


WWW
« Reply #12 on: November 18, 2012, 01:45:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Well In not experienced in the air but have a bit of a thing with more affordable vehicles.

Really I dont think RS is a problem, RS is a problem as things pass through the frame

I think you need to work on the stabilisation technology

It might be worth considering an NEX5n as there is so much less mass to stabilise

Ive just bought a KS4 - playing continues..

60p is also a massive de-shaker!

S
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #13 on: November 18, 2012, 06:04:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Seems like your default approach to most things is 'buy more/different gear'.  This or that is never good enough. Must be nice having deep pockets.
Logged
billy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 275


« Reply #14 on: November 18, 2012, 07:03:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Seems like your default approach to most things is 'buy more/different gear'.  This or that is never good enough. Must be nice having deep pockets.

If you are a working pro then this is how it is in the digital era. Why not use the best tools? Begin flame war in 3, 2, 1 ........


Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2220


WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 19, 2012, 03:32:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Seems like your default approach to most things is 'buy more/different gear'.  This or that is never good enough. Must be nice having deep pockets.

I hate buying gear. video has been a deep money pit, that scares me no end.

Stills I use a 2008 D3 and glass I bought in 1992-8 in the main.

The OP wants to do something complex, that is considered in 'conventional world' to need a $100k rig

To 'cheat' that may need some smart thinking. Unfortunately the 1dx while a superb stills camera (possibly the best ever) may not be the right tool for this.

In video I have not enjoyed DSLR shooting and think it becomes a money hole fast especially if you come from stills where your expectations will typically be high or are expecting to be able to work for clients

There are certain bloggers who make these cameras look great and will tell you what they can do, but not really dwell on what they cant do.. people should spend video money with extreme caution

most cameras make wonderful films of ducks in the park

S



« Last Edit: November 19, 2012, 03:41:02 AM by Morgan_Moore » Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 19, 2012, 05:38:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Well In not experienced in the air but have a bit of a thing with more affordable vehicles.

Really I dont think RS is a problem, RS is a problem as things pass through the frame

I think you need to work on the stabilisation technology

It might be worth considering an NEX5n as there is so much less mass to stabilise

Ive just bought a KS4 - playing continues..

60p is also a massive de-shaker!

S
One gyro is not really enough and I'm not sure a ks 4 is big enough either.
 I've two KS6's, two KS 8's and a KS 12. My latest rig not quite finished yet is with the 12 and a 8 and the option to add the two KS6's. Balance is so important if you are making a rig.
When assessing gyro mount systems and gyro's, so much you see on the web has got post stabilising added.The new 4x4 Kenlab gyro look like they could be a good handheld answer providing you shoot wideish and allow for post stabilising. Where rolling shutter is a problem is any sudden movements from the vehicle you are travelling in, or if the rig gets a pendulum motion (not fully balanced) the image will ripple, or if the vehicle rocks in a way or direction the gyro is not stabilising.

Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #17 on: November 19, 2012, 06:17:47 AM »
ReplyReply

If you are a working pro then this is how it is in the digital era. Why not use the best tools? Begin flame war in 3, 2, 1 ........


It's really got nothing to do with the digital era.  It's always been that way.  But I disagree that just because someone is a 'working pro' means they need to be constantly buying new gear.  I know 'working pros' who've been working with 'old' gear for years.  Hell, Dave Burnett still shoots 4x5.  Yeah, yeah, stills vs. video.  I think movies are still being made with film though too.  Wink 

Morgan, I'm not disagreeing that Kevin is looking to do something complex.  Or that it can be done on a wing and a prayer.  But.... there is another solution that is often more economical.  That is to rent. 

WRT to video with DSLRs, there are certainly a lot of people making videos that way.  Do they have shortcomings?  Sure.  Everything has pluses and minuses.  But inadequacy for 'client work' is a generality that, I don't believe, is accurate.  I've made the statement before; when major studios are using DSLRs for high budget productions they can't be all that bad.  The cynic will say the studio has been paid to use the DSLRs.  I don't know that that's true.  I find it difficult to believe a major production company is going to compromise on production quality that much just because a camera maker pays them a few dollars.
Logged
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #18 on: November 19, 2012, 08:21:51 AM »
ReplyReply

It's really got nothing to do with the digital era.  It's always been that way.  But I disagree that just because someone is a 'working pro' means they need to be constantly buying new gear.  I know 'working pros' who've been working with 'old' gear for years.  Hell, Dave Burnett still shoots 4x5.  Yeah, yeah, stills vs. video.  I think movies are still being made with film though too.  Wink 

Morgan, I'm not disagreeing that Kevin is looking to do something complex.  Or that it can be done on a wing and a prayer.  But.... there is another solution that is often more economical.  That is to rent. 

WRT to video with DSLRs, there are certainly a lot of people making videos that way.  Do they have shortcomings?  Sure.  Everything has pluses and minuses.  But inadequacy for 'client work' is a generality that, I don't believe, is accurate.  I've made the statement before; when major studios are using DSLRs for high budget productions they can't be all that bad.  The cynic will say the studio has been paid to use the DSLRs.  I don't know that that's true.  I find it difficult to believe a major production company is going to compromise on production quality that much just because a camera maker pays them a few dollars.
Bob,
Complex yes, it might even be impossible to do what I want the conventional way. I think the easy answer could be a degree of gyro stabilising, plus shoot higher quality like 2k/4k and use post for smoothing and zooming to output at 1080.
Having said that the next mount I'm trying has some out of the box thinking (can you still say that or is that last decade?) I think it will do a good job.
Watch this space, I've spent many thousands getting to this stage.

Kevin
Logged

Kevin.
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #19 on: November 19, 2012, 09:05:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Bob,
Complex yes, it might even be impossible to do what I want the conventional way. I think the easy answer could be a degree of gyro stabilising, plus shoot higher quality like 2k/4k and use post for smoothing and zooming to output at 1080.
Having said that the next mount I'm trying has some out of the box thinking (can you still say that or is that last decade?) I think it will do a good job.
Watch this space, I've spent many thousands getting to this stage.

Kevin

I can see that given the number of gyro units you've got. Grin
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad