Will 2010 (Finally) Be Blu-ray's Year?

ZenOps said:
Most creators are pretty stuck in the way they capture content. Everything needs more light however from a coders perspective, there isn't a single movie that is "oversaturated". There is no camera on earth that cannot compensate for a high noon outdoor shot. However its near impossible to correct inadequate lighting.

Most 3D texture artists tend to use very dark artistry when making 3D textures for videogames too. Its most definitely the wrong thing to do. When scanned and then placed into the computer - the black levels usually have to be turned up to ridiculous levels - or else the whole thing starts to become a "Daikatana" when you lose 90% of the light because its at an odd angle to the ambient ingame lights.

Its often a complaint that content capturers and artists complain that their final digitized product looks "washed out". There are finite limits to what a coder can do - so all I'm saying is that if you want it to look the way you want, you must use plenty of light.

What you see in the eyepiece is never what you see on the DVD/Blu. Use about 3x more light and give the coders something to work with.
Click to expand...

You are confusing "dark" with "muddy". There can be a dramatic image with a wide range of luminance values that places important information in the low end, and there can be "muddy", which is an underexposed negative with no range of values at all. This means that the whole image has to be lifted, resulting in washed out grays, no highlights since they weren't there in the first place, and no blacks. You see this a lot with shlocky low budget films, and even with big budget films shot by people with no eye.

What you're asking for is flat soap opera lighting, but that's ok, there are plenty of "professionals" out there that think that style of lighting is ideal. Good for them.

Maybe you think Caravaggio's paintings are too dark as well.
 
Serpico said:
Just checked your profile, you in central Cali now? How do you like it?
Click to expand...

It's much calmer in the area I live, it's about 40 minutes south of Fresno. Lets just say I'm glad I don't have to deal with bullets flying through my house on a weekly basis anymore. :p
 
stop!theradio said:
It's much calmer in the area I live, it's about 40 minutes south of Fresno. Lets just say I'm glad I don't have to deal with bullets flying through my house on a weekly basis anymore. :p
Click to expand...

Dang dude, you lived in South Central?
 
Oh lord, I lived everywhere in southern California from San Diego up to Rosamond and everywhere in between during my 24 years of life. Lets just say I'm MUCH happier where I am now lol. But I suppose that's for a whole different thread. :p
 
stop!theradio said:
Oh lord, I lived everywhere in southern California from San Diego up to Rosamond and everywhere in between during my 24 years of life. Lets just say I'm MUCH happier where I am now lol. But I suppose that's for a whole different thread. :p
Click to expand...

That sucks. My family moved to Laguna when I was 8 (boring), went to college in NYC (awesome), been living in the Miracle Mile for the last thirteen years, been very happy since. Glad things are better now though.
 
GORANKAR said:
As a PC storage media, flash is the better choice for speed, portability, durability, and physical media size imo. Bluray really can only win on price and density right now against flash, but that is changing.
Click to expand...

nilepez said:
I generally agree. About the only thing that holds me back from 100% agreement is the lack of cheap 32GB (or larger) flash drives. Alternatively the lack of SD readers on every PC (including those that you don't own).
Click to expand...

Cheap 32GB and larger flash is closer than you might think, but we won't be using USB, rather SDXC.
 
I kinda like digital only, but I still want a blu ray player for avatar and bsg series collection. I only have a 22" eips, but I know it still looks better.
 
ZenOps said:
Most creators are pretty stuck in the way they capture content. Everything needs more light however from a coders perspective, there isn't a single movie that is "oversaturated". There is no camera on earth that cannot compensate for a high noon outdoor shot. However its near impossible to correct inadequate lighting.
Click to expand...

Its funny you mentioned this- I was watching a short video in regards to "Angels and Demons" with lots of behind the camera shots swapping back and forth with actual footatge.

What was telling was the lighting from "what you see on the big screen" and what was actually going on. I noticed much higher brightness levels compared to the actual product.
 
gdonovan said:
Its funny you mentioned this- I was watching a short video in regards to "Angels and Demons" with lots of behind the camera shots swapping back and forth with actual footatge.

What was telling was the lighting from "what you see on the big screen" and what was actually going on. I noticed much higher brightness levels compared to the actual product.
Click to expand...

Two reasons. One is that once you decide on a working f-stop for depth of field reasons and one that will accommodate the practical lighting if you are on a location (ie - a city skyline in the background that you want to appear properly), then you need to light to accommodate that. If you want a deeper stop for greater depth of field, it will require more light to get to that level, like if you want to shoot at a T4 instead of a T2.8 then you will need a brighter key light.

What appears "bright" in person will look darker by the time its passed through the lens iris and hits the negative. Also, its very common to expose more for the shadows and then print things darker in postproduction. Film has less exposure latitude in the shadows than it does in the highlights, so its usually sensible to give it a little more exposure and then darken things later. It doesn't require much, especially given how fast film is these days, but its a nice little bit of insurance. I overexpose by 1/2 to 2/3 of a stop by habit at this point, even though it usually isn't that necessary. The time I don't do that is when I'm shooting high-definition, because it acts more like reversal film in that it has more exposure latitude in the shadows but much less in the highlights. This is why with HD you need to protect for highlights and why it is liable to look like crap in broad daylight with the way highlights clip out, etc etc, so instead I expose for highlights and then fill in the shadows if necessary (ugh, another reason I don't like HD outdoors, with film those are so much simpler and faster).

The other reason that behind-the-scenes footage is so bright is that those behind the scenes video crews regularly shoot video cameras with the sensitivity jacked way way the hell up. It would be equivalent to pushing the film one or two stops. This opens everything up and makes things brighter than they actually do with film. That behind the scenes stuff functions to promote movies, so they're bright and you can see everyone. The point of them isn't drama where there is more light and shadow in the frame.

Boy that post was meandering, hope it makes sense. :)
 
Why is so much behind the scenes footage shot in 4:3 instead of 16:9? HD video cameras are pretty cheap now so why don't they just use those for the behind the scenes stuff (that I rarely watch anyway unless it was an exceptional movie)?
 
Udo said:
Why is so much behind the scenes footage shot in 4:3 instead of 16:9? HD video cameras are pretty cheap now so why don't they just use those for the behind the scenes stuff (that I rarely watch anyway unless it was an exceptional movie)?
Click to expand...

I wonder the same thing, although I've noticed that with the more recent movies, the extras are more and more also in HD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top