Filming 100-Megapixel Aerials Over New York(phfx.com)
phfx.com
Filming 100-Megapixel Aerials Over New York
http://www.phfx.com/articles/Filming100MegapixelLargeFormatAerialsOverNewYork/
48 comments
Yet the ultra-high resolution video looks somehow artificial and like it's rendered instead of filmed because of all the sharpness that is not normally seen by the eye because of focusing.
It's how sensor and post-processing play together. You probably won't enjoy the look that is coming straight out of camera (ordinary and ugly), so an artistic license is applied in "cooking" colors, noise removal, sharpening, remapping of light dynamic range etc. to make it look better. If you do pro photography, you might be amused how much artificial some photos look straight out of camera, especially if you are using off-camera flashes; sometimes you get candy-like photos with accentuated edges that look unnatural, but that comes straight out of camera in the RAW file already.
It's pretty common for new higher quality video to look fake, simply because we're not used to them. It happens every time we go up in resolution or framerate, until you eventually get used to it.
Probably a false positive but this site triggered my anti-virus (Malwarebytes)
same here
Pretty rad setup! I love this kind of marriage of technology and art! Very nice work! Thanks for an inspiration!
Did you think about doing the same above Kīlauea these days?
Did you think about doing the same above Kīlauea these days?
That video is crazy. It looks surreal on my 4k monitor.
So whats the target audience? Who wants this video?
Who can even play it?
Who can even play it?
> So whats the target audience? Who wants this video?
I imagine that downsampled and tweaked to seem even more vivid, this is the sort of thing that appeals to television manufacturers so that they have cool demo videos to play in a loop in the shop.
I imagine that downsampled and tweaked to seem even more vivid, this is the sort of thing that appeals to television manufacturers so that they have cool demo videos to play in a loop in the shop.
I was trying to think of a purpose for this kind of resolution, too. Other than surveillance. It reminded me of that line from Real Genius where Mitch says, "Let the engineers figure out a use for that, it's not our concern."
Then I remembered the awesome video for Imitation of Life that R.E.M. put out back in 2001. It was necessarily blurry, but with this kind of gear, it could have been crystal clear HD.
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vqgdSsfqPs
Then I remembered the awesome video for Imitation of Life that R.E.M. put out back in 2001. It was necessarily blurry, but with this kind of gear, it could have been crystal clear HD.
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vqgdSsfqPs
Anyone who could offer a big video wall installation?
I hope to watch this one day on my own monitor, or at least any 8k capable screen.
The cameras used are absolutely insane...
for anyone interested...http://www.red.com/store/products/dsmc2-brain/710-0303
It's a neat camera, but it's really unfortunate that you can't put industry-standard cinema glass on it (eg, Master Prime, Summilux, Cooke etc).
Spending all that money on body and rigging, then having to use a Tokina or Sigma lens is kind of ridiculous.
Spending all that money on body and rigging, then having to use a Tokina or Sigma lens is kind of ridiculous.
I am certain that they could put "industry-standard" cine glass on them, given that the the cameras are PL mount, which is the industry standard.
Sigma and Tokina make world class glass these days. No longer is Sigma the "budget option", but a genuine alternative to the first-line lens manufactures.
Sigma and Tokina make world class glass these days. No longer is Sigma the "budget option", but a genuine alternative to the first-line lens manufactures.
I think it's hilarious that you assume they chose the Tokina lens because they "had to" and not because it might be the best technical choice for this project.
You're a brand snob.
You're a brand snob.
You would choose Tokina glass over high-end Arri or Zeiss for aerals if both were available in the Red FF35 format? Please walk me through your decision-making here.
I'd choose the glass which best fits the purpose; brand is irrelevant. There are dozens of characteristics of glass which can be critical or irrelevant; it depends on the application.
The choice of glass like Arri or Zeiss is often made to achieve a certain aesthetic which is desirable in creative film-making.
In this case, the only thing that matters is a specific subset of technical requirements, particularly due to their stitching workflow. I can only guess at their decision-making process but it clearly wasn't "hey let's get the cheap stuff". I suspect they considered properties like:
— Corner sharpness
— Distortions
— Fringing
— Spherical, lateral and axial aberrations
— Chromatic aberrations
— Flare
— Coma
— Haze / local contrast
— Vignetting
— Aperture blade configuration
— Diffraction
— Mechanical stability
— Focus rigidity in the face of extreme g-forces
— Copy-to-copy consistency
That said, I suppose it's possible that the people who actually pulled off this incredible feat, and produced the objectively stunning output shown in the article, know less about what they're doing than l33tbro on Hacker News.
(By the way, did you know that for astrophotography, some of the best glass is made by Samyang, Tokina and Sigma? These brands make exceptional glass, even if their marketing department isn't as well staffed as Zeiss.)
The choice of glass like Arri or Zeiss is often made to achieve a certain aesthetic which is desirable in creative film-making.
In this case, the only thing that matters is a specific subset of technical requirements, particularly due to their stitching workflow. I can only guess at their decision-making process but it clearly wasn't "hey let's get the cheap stuff". I suspect they considered properties like:
— Corner sharpness
— Distortions
— Fringing
— Spherical, lateral and axial aberrations
— Chromatic aberrations
— Flare
— Coma
— Haze / local contrast
— Vignetting
— Aperture blade configuration
— Diffraction
— Mechanical stability
— Focus rigidity in the face of extreme g-forces
— Copy-to-copy consistency
That said, I suppose it's possible that the people who actually pulled off this incredible feat, and produced the objectively stunning output shown in the article, know less about what they're doing than l33tbro on Hacker News.
(By the way, did you know that for astrophotography, some of the best glass is made by Samyang, Tokina and Sigma? These brands make exceptional glass, even if their marketing department isn't as well staffed as Zeiss.)
> That said, I suppose it's possible that the people who actually pulled off ... know less about what they're doing than l33tbro on Hacker News.
Well, I guess it makes sense that you'd be interested in lenses, as you obviously project onto people a lot in your life.
IE, not once did I say the lens choice was incorrect. I simply lamented the fact that to shoot in 8k Full Frame you're limited to handful of what are widely considered to be sub-optimal cinema (no, not astrophotography) lens manufacturers.
Well, I guess it makes sense that you'd be interested in lenses, as you obviously project onto people a lot in your life.
IE, not once did I say the lens choice was incorrect. I simply lamented the fact that to shoot in 8k Full Frame you're limited to handful of what are widely considered to be sub-optimal cinema (no, not astrophotography) lens manufacturers.
Mounts are changeable to PL, Leica, PV, EF, Nikon on those Reds.
Correct. Master Primes, Cookes and Leica Summilux are all PL-mount, with which the Red is completely compatible. Seeing such a bullshit attack as the top comment is really unfortunate.
No. This is a full-frame 35 mm sensor. Few of the industry-standard super-35 lenses fit without vignetting at 8k.
What makes Tokina and Sigma lenses worse? Serious question.
They don't stay consistently sharp at all apertures. They introduce chromatic abberation at different T stops. The out-of-focus area is less pleasant. I could go on ...
Master primes aren't right for every job, but they're the closest we have to an optically flawless lens in filmmaking.
Master primes aren't right for every job, but they're the closest we have to an optically flawless lens in filmmaking.
Please go on. This alternate universe you've constructed in your brain where you're a lens expert is sincerely fascinating.
You'd be far less cringey if you could back up your wild hand-waving with actual points or arguments.
I actually own lenses by both of these manufacturers. I have Sigma's GL optics cine glass. I have some vintage Tokina glass that Angenieux made, which is considered their best lens (though it's not modern).
They're fine lenses, but only a goofball would think about comparing them to a $20k lens.
I actually own lenses by both of these manufacturers. I have Sigma's GL optics cine glass. I have some vintage Tokina glass that Angenieux made, which is considered their best lens (though it's not modern).
They're fine lenses, but only a goofball would think about comparing them to a $20k lens.
See the 8K movie at youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN3uF3990Q0
For the daytime shots especially, I see lots of weird aliasing artifacts on the buildings. Is it like that for everyone, or is that just a sideeffect of watching a 4320p video on a 1440p monitor?
It’s aliasing. You don’t see it on stuff filmed with most consumer cameras because they have an anti aliasing filter over the sensor. If you want maximum resolution, you remove that filter. They could have removed it in post but again it would reduce the effective resolution.
That's incorrect. You're thinking of a low pass filter, for which the Red supports a variety of filters that you can switch. What the parent most likely is seeing is bad nearest-neighbor downscaling (e.g bad selection of downscaling algorithm).
Maybe photo vs film terminology? On my canon 5DSr, it is definitely the physical antialiasing filter that is removed to allow improved sharpness per pixel at the expense of greater risk of moire.
It is an artifact of the down sampling being used, yes. It wouldn't be the same if you were watching the 8k source directly, but few people are probably able to do that.
I have a high definition monitor and TVs. It looks gorgeous on them.
TIL that 8k is too much for a 2015 MBP to render in software.
I only have 3x 4k monitor, would need to buy another one to watch it in 8k ;-)