Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: It's not what you have it's how you use it ...

  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TimStannard View Post
    I was with you for a whole bunch of this (though found the "that sort of crap" comment weakened your credibility somewhat).
    I'd add that the big impressive scenes seem to be mostly done in CGI anyway (still qualifies as "gear").
    Yeah, the "crap" part was a bit harsh, wasn't in the best mood that moment.
    Fun fact - i had actually spent like 15 min writing a reply before that one, pressed Post and then nothing... the whole thing did not get posted and the written stuff disappeared. It's one of those feelings where you write some important document in MS Word, then your PC's crashes and the whole thing gets deleted I was boiling when i had to write it again.
    I don't know why but this happens a lot on this forum, that posts don't get posted after clicking "Post Quick Reply" and simply disappear.

    Exactly - CGI for example is also a tool, therefore it could qualify as part of the gear argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by TimStannard View Post
    Why is every man and his dog using modern expensive equipment trying to emulate a look caused by the limitations of the older tools?
    The same reason why traditions exists i guess. Sentimental value mixed with superstition and some notion that the "good old days" (or tools) were better.

    I actually posted this video in the reply that did not post - very interesting video about what cameras were used in all Oscars 2018 nominated movies.
    22 movies were filmed with ARRI Alexa, 6 with Film and 3 on RED.

    https://youtu.be/cHzTFkoKc1g

    The old film look is dying out and only used by specific directors or for specific movies. As expected, the majority of movies are shot with the Alexa simply for it's image quality, among other benefits.


    Btw, here is a very good comparison video of an iPhone 7 vs ARRI Alexa.
    https://youtu.be/t7N1BOqmVOw

    Now, how can anyone say that gear doesn't matter when there is such an insane difference in image quality between those two.
    Imagine a scenario where a movie is filmed with 2 drastically different cameras at the same time. Sort of like putting an iphone on top of an ARRI Alexa. So, essentially we would have the same movie - same scenes, same lighting, same everything, even edited the same, but as 2 versions.
    Now show both versions to an audience and i can guarantee that an overwhelming majority, if not everyone would prefer the better video quality version.

    Obviously no one is saying that gear should be more important then other aspects, but to say that it does not matter at all is just crazy to me.

  2. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RL_Sensei View Post
    Now, how can anyone say that gear doesn't matter when there is such an insane difference in image quality between those two.
    2 things:

    1. Most people can't tell enough of a difference unless forced to watch an A/B comparison.
    I was having this conversation with a photographer. We noticed that beyond a certain quality people couldn't tell the difference between a decent photographer and a great photographer. As long as the pictures are about 7/10, most people think a 7/10 photographer is about the same as a 9/10 photographer.

    In reality there is a huge gap in between. The 7/10 may be shooting APSC with available light. The 9/10 may be shooting larger format with $20k worth of lighting. Someone in the field of visual arts will notice the difference in a second. But the average person can't see the difference because they don't have a trained eye, they don't understand the technology, and frankly don't really care.


    2. The content matters way more.
    ed6f35b849b0838e45fd635f8efcf892.jpg

    That's "the box" scene from Se7en. Do you think it mattered to a single non-production viewer anywhere in the world what technology was used to shoot that scene? Sure, it was shot in 35mm film with a movie camera so it's good footage. But in the moment, with the intensity of the story, you could swap that footage with another copy shot with a modern iPhone an nobody would bat an eye. Most people wouldn't even notice that there was a change in quality from the previous scene shot in 35mm film.

    And even the Canon C300 today shoots better quality than that movie's footage. But I don't think anybody that rents that movie today would notice or care. If you showed them A/B footage they'd probably reply "so, what?"


    Also
    2 ideas regarding the forum content disappearing:
    1. I try to write my posts in a Word document. That way when the browser acts up I have a copy. It also helps with spelling and grammar checks.
    2. In the browser, copy the entire post to the clipboard before hitting "send". If something happens, you can just start a new post and paste from the clipboard.

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RL_Sensei View Post
    Btw, here is a very good comparison video of an iPhone 7 vs ARRI Alexa.
    https://youtu.be/t7N1BOqmVOw
    Also, not to be nitpicky, but it is relevant. That is NOT a good comparison of an iPhone vs Alexa.

    A proper comparison would be maximizing the iPhone footage. The Alexa is not shot in "default settings", it was customized, shot manual, with an external lens. So give the iPhone the same treatment. Shoot 4k in log (maybe 10bits, raw, etc) with an anamorphic lens. Then compare the footage.

    This is cinematic iPhone footage:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQ8ndUJNSuM

    I'm confident if you had made the comparison between that type of footage and the Alexa, most regular people would say "wait... so, which one is the Alexa"?

  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jochicago View Post
    Also, not to be nitpicky, but it is relevant. That is NOT a good comparison of an iPhone vs Alexa.

    A proper comparison would be maximizing the iPhone footage. The Alexa is not shot in "default settings", it was customized, shot manual, with an external lens. So give the iPhone the same treatment. Shoot 4k in log (maybe 10bits, raw, etc) with an anamorphic lens. Then compare the footage.
    Well, but how else will you shoot a proper camera? Without a lens or on full auto? That's the way it is supposed to be used. And a phone is supposed to be used like a phone.
    Adding a third party lens, stabilizer, custom camera app and so on to the iPhone is GEAR. It's just an attempt to make an inferior tool better by adding superior tools to it Therefore making those things an important aspect and confirming my point.
    In other words - to make iPhone footage look cinematic that would be good enough to fool the average viewer, we NEED a bunch of gear or tools.

    Quote Originally Posted by jochicago View Post
    This is cinematic iPhone footage:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQ8ndUJNSuM

    I'm confident if you had made the comparison between that type of footage and the Alexa, most regular people would say "wait... so, which one is the Alexa"?
    Possibly, if the entire film was shot outside, mid day in pretty much ideal cloudy conditions to get smooth light.
    It's a different story indoors tho - the sensor can't handle low light situations.

    But yeah, i get your point - you could, under ideal conditions and with additional gear, make an iPhone look decent enough for a fraction of the cost that would be associated with something like a Alexa setup. No one is denying that.
    Yet, there is a reason why we all buy new cameras, new lenses, new stabilizers, new drones, new everything else. Because gear matters for whatever reason

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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