Of the three, Aperture has given the lowest quality results. This is due to a number of factors. While the basic conversion was seriously improved after the initial fiasco,
Of the test I've seen between Lightroom and Aperture. The one question I always ask is what does the picture look like originally before Lightroom or Aperture adds color space, noise reduction, or sharpening. The answer generally is that because they de-bayer differently its difficult to say what the picture original picture looks like.
My next questions is if you really don't know what the picture looks like from the sensor. How do you really know what Aperture was showing you isn't the picture your camera took. No one seems to ever have a simple answer to that one. But it appears no one was really interested to know what the picture really looks like from the sensor, only interested in de-bayering software that can make it look the cleanest.
Of the test I've seen between Lightroom and Aperture. The one question I always ask is what does the picture look like originally before Lightroom or Aperture adds color space, noise reduction, or sharpening. The answer generally is that because they de-bayer differently its difficult to say what the picture original picture looks like.
My next questions is if you really don't know what the picture looks like from the sensor. How do you really know what Aperture was showing you isn't the picture your camera took. No one seems to ever have a simple answer to that one. But it appears no one was really interested to know what the picture really looks like from the sensor, only interested in de-bayering software that can make it look the cleanest.
There is no simple answer. The sensor is providing a system of sampling, as such, any detail that's smaller than a photocell is lost, and not only that, any detail that hits a photocell but not in the cell's color is also lost. All that is interpolated, and it looks like there may be different interpolation algorithms.
The sensor data is actually pretty ugly, it's a pretty nasty version of pointillism:
Of the test I've seen between Lightroom and Aperture. The one question I always ask is what does the picture look like originally before Lightroom or Aperture adds color space, noise reduction, or sharpening. The answer generally is that because they de-bayer differently its difficult to say what the picture original picture looks like.
My next questions is if you really don't know what the picture looks like from the sensor. How do you really know what Aperture was showing you isn't the picture your camera took. No one seems to ever have a simple answer to that one. But it appears no one was really interested to know what the picture really looks like from the sensor, only interested in de-bayering software that can make it look the cleanest.
Trying to remember what the original picture looked like is an exercise in frustration. We don't have a good enough memory for visual and aural phenomena for that to work. In addition, no media can duplicate it. What we can do is to attempt to reconstruct that so it appears to our liking in a way that seems to be correct, and pleasing.
Therefore, what we attempt to do in our programs is to extract as much information from the file as possible. We can then work out how we want that information to appear.
Aperture extracts less information than does Camera Raw. You can tell by working on the same image file. It isn't magic. You don't have to know what information is encoded from the sensor. After you do enough files, and understand the programs well enough, you will find it to be easy to see the differences.
Until now, Aperture couldn't extract the "lost" highlight information that Camera Raw 4.+ could do so well. That wasn't difficult to know. Aperture didn't have the tools to do it. CR 4 did. This was a major advantage to CR 4 that pro's are well aware of, and use constantly.
We will have to see how effective the new one in Aperture is.
That is just a part of the toolset. CR 4 has many more.
This can't be qualified in a post. I can give you some links tomorrow, if you are interested.
Trying to remember what the original picture looked like is an exercise in frustration. We don't have a good enough memory for visual and aural phenomena for that to work. In addition, no media can duplicate it.
I'm not talking about how faithfully the camera recreated the original scene. I'm simply talking about the picture the camera did take.
Quote:
What we can do is to attempt to reconstruct that so it appears to our liking in a way that seems to be correct, and pleasing.
Consistency and predictability is very important. I come from the cinema way of thinking about this. In cinema we test all of our equipment to get to know its strengths, weakness, and idiosyncrasies. That includes the lens, filters, film or digital sensor, film lab, photochemical manipulation, digital scanning equipment, and any post digital manipulation.
We will test all of this equipment by starting with a neutral benchmark. Such as a pure white, pure black, and 18% grey charts. We also test color charts next to a neutral skin tone. To eliminate any bias and receive a fair evaluation each element is tested against these neutral benchmarks.
From there you find out if a filter is too green or too yellow, if a lens is too soft or has too much highlight flair, if a film stock has too much contrast or too grainy, if a digital sensor adds to much artificial sharpening or introduces noise, if a certain photochemical process gives you the final look you want or if a digital process gives you the final look you want.
Granted cinema is different from photography. In that cinema is a two hour movie that has been produced over a month or two. So consistency and predictability is extremely important. While a picture generally stands on its own and does not have to be consistent with anything else.
Quote:
Aperture extracts less information than does Camera Raw. Yo can tell by working on the same image file. It isn't magic. You don't have to know what information is encoded from the sensor. After you do enough files, and understand the programs well enough, you will find it to be easy to see the differences.
I don't see how you can eliminate the camera and lens as important variables. What Aperture and Lightroom interpret is directly from what the camera has captured.
When Aperture first came out the biggest complaint I remember hearing was about noise. You would see more noise in Aperture pictures than in Lightroom pictures. I would ask how do you know that noise is not really in the picture and Lightroom is covering it up. Because the evaluation did not start from a neutral place their was no way to know for sure. How do you really know this is not a problem with the camera or lens.
Quote:
Until now, Aperture couldn't extract the "lost" highlight information that Camera Raw 4.+ could do so well. That wasn't difficult to know. Aperture didn't have the tools to do it. CR 4 did. This was a major advantage to CR 4 that pro's are well aware of, and use constantly.
Back when Aperture first came out I don't recall this as a major complaint. Yes differences in dynamic range are a lot easier to discern than differences in color, exposure, or sharpness. Pictures from Lightroom have more highlight and shadow information than pictures from Aperture. Its true this would not be difficult to see.
But like I said I don't recall that being the major complaint.
I'm not talking about how faithfully the camera recreated the original scene. I'm simply talking about the picture the camera did take.
Consistency and predictability is very important. I come from the cinema way of thinking about this. In cinema we test all of our equipment to get to know its strengths, weakness, and idiosyncrasies. That includes the lens, filters, film or digital sensor, film lab, photochemical manipulation, digital scanning equipment, and any post digital manipulation.
We will test all of this equipment by starting with a neutral benchmark. Such as a pure white, pure black, and 18% grey charts. We also test color charts next to a neutral skin tone. To eliminate any bias and receive a fair evaluation each element is tested against these neutral benchmarks.
From there you find out if a filter is too green or too yellow, if a lens is too soft or has too much highlight flair, if a film stock has too much contrast or too grainy, if a digital sensor adds to much artificial sharpening or introduces noise, if a certain photochemical process gives you the final look you want or if a digital process gives you the final look you want.
Granted cinema is different from photography. In that cinema is a two hour movie that has been produced over a month or two. So consistency and predictability is extremely important. While a picture generally stands on its own and does not have to be consistent with anything else.
I don't see how you can eliminate the camera and lens as important variables. What Aperture and Lightroom interpret is directly from what the camera has captured.
When Aperture first came out the biggest complaint I remember hearing was about noise. You would see more noise in Aperture pictures than in Lightroom pictures. I would ask how do you know that noise is not really in the picture and Lightroom is covering it up. Because the evaluation did not start from a neutral place their was no way to know for sure. How do you really know this is not a problem with the camera or lens.
Back when Aperture first came out I don't recall this as a major complaint. Yes differences in dynamic range are a lot easier to discern than differences in color, exposure, or sharpness. Pictures from Lightroom have more highlight and shadow information than pictures from Aperture. Its true this would not be difficult to see.
But like I said I don't recall that being the major complaint.
Teno, I've been in this business since 1969. I understand the equipment and methodology pretty well. I developed some of it myself.
What you must keep in mind is that movies are very poor in quality or consistancy when compared to still photography. The mind is forgiving when watching "moving pictures" but not so kind when looking at prints.
Nevertheless, we are not talking about film and the chemical processes that they require. Digital is a very dfferent world.
Whatever lenses you are using don't matter to the program, except that CR 4 gives you some control over those lens defects, where Aperture doesn't.
The file is the file. It's as simple as that.
How that program treats that file is what we are talking about here. It isn't required to discuss all that you did, because it isn't relevant to this discussion. I'm not sure why you brought it up. The last time we discussed this you brought it up as well. forget about it.
All we are talking about is the file. Anything before that doesn't matter at that point. How the program treats the file is what does matter. The simple fact is that Aperture doesn't give nearly as much control as CR 4 does, nor has it's conversion been as good.
I can eliminate the camera and lens because we are comparing the same file amongst the programs. We are therefore starting out with equal quality. Use a camera with a better lens and body, and the file might be better, unless the photographer doesn't understand the requirements of digital shooting, which is different from that of film. But, even then, the differences between the programs will bcome apparent. The more difficult the file, actually, the more the spread between Aperture and CR 4 will become, as CR 4 has better control over the results.
The reason why highlight recovery wasn't mentioned about Aperture 1.0 is because Adobe hadn't yet developed it for CR 3. It began with CR 4.
Apple is acknowledging that their conversion was not up to the quality required by making a case for why it is improved now. As I said earlier, I'll see for myself tomorrow just how improved it is.
By adding a few more controls, they (Apple) are giving us some power over the process they didn't give before. This is good. But some other tools are still not up to snuff.
What you must keep in mind is that movies are very poor in quality or consistancy when compared to still photography. The mind is forgiving when watching "moving pictures" but not so kind when looking at prints.
Depends on the end product. A picture has to be flawless in the sense that one frame can be studied for a long period of time.
One frame of a movie doesn't have to be flawless. For every film a look as been agreed upon by the creative team. This look supports the mood and tone that has been set by the story. The lighting, colors, texture must remain consistent to the agreed upon look. That consistency must be maintained over a long period of time. This is not easy and requires a work methodology to achieve.
Quote:
Nevertheless, we are not talking about film and the chemical processes that they require. Digital is a very dfferent world.
It was just an example. Extensive testing is done whether its photochemical or digital.
Quote:
The file is the file. It's as simple as that.
Camera sensors and lenses are not all created the same and they all exhibit different characteristics, strengths and weaknesses. This is the first place an image is captured and the first to assign characteristics and limitation to what can be done later on.
Quote:
How that program treats that file is what we are talking about here. It isn't required to discuss all that you did, because it isn't relevant to this discussion. I'm not sure why you brought it up. The last time we discussed this you brought it up as well. forget about it.
I work with a lot of imaging experts who have been working in the industry (insert whatever number of years you find impressive). I've never heard any of them say that the equipment that captures the image (camera/lens) are not relevant to how an image can be treated in its finishing processes.
Quote:
I can eliminate the camera and lens because we are comparing the same file amongst the programs. We are therefore starting out with equal quality.
The flaw in this methodology is in not correctly tracking down where certain characteristics originate. If an Aperture picture is noisy while a Lightroom picture is not noisy. It has been assumed that Aperture has bad processing. If in reality Lightroom is covering the noise and Aperture is not, then Aperture isn't the problem the noise came from the camera.
In cinematography we would have examined every variable to eliminate exactly where that noise originated.
Quote:
Apple is acknowledging that their conversion was not up to the quality required by making a case for why it is improved now. As I said earlier, I'll see for myself tomorrow just how improved it is.
This could be Apple saying we didn't realize photographers wanted camera anomalies corrected and covered up.
This could be Apple saying we didn't realize photographers wanted camera anomalies corrected and covered up.
Of course photographers want that. That's why we have features like noise reduction, sharpening, highlight recovery, shadow recovery, white balance. Everything can be seen as covering up for camera flaws and photographer's mistakes.
Some people (even some pros) shoot straight to JPeg and print automatically. That's fine, but it's not what everybody does.
Depends on the end product. A picture has to be flawless in the sense that one frame can be studied for a long period of time.
Yes. That's the point.
Quote:
One frame of a movie doesn't have to be flawless. For every film a look as been agreed upon by the creative team. This look supports the mood and tone that has been set by the story. The lighting, colors, texture must remain consistent to the agreed upon look. That consistency must be maintained over a long period of time. This is not easy and requires a work methodology to achieve.
Despite all that, every camera seems to give a different "look". Color and contrast change, even within the same scene.
Quote:
Camera sensors and lenses are not all created the same and they all exhibit different characteristics, strengths and weaknesses. This is the first place an image is captured and the first to assign characteristics and limitation to what can be done later on.
The point to comparing programs is to see how they work with the SAME file. Considering that, what I said before is correct. If you give me a file, from wherever, my programs should be able to give me the identical results. They don't. Some are better than others, and this is all we're talking about.
If you want to discuss cameras and lenses, I'l be happy to do so. But for the purposes of this discussion, they are irrelevant.
Quote:
I work with a lot of imaging experts who have been working in the industry (insert whatever number of years you find impressive). I've never heard any of them say that the equipment that captures the image (camera/lens) are not relevant to how an image can be treated in its finishing processes.
Well, I may not have worked with you, but I was one of those experts. And every one would say the same thing I'm saying for the purposes of this discussion. I'm not saying that one camera, or lens, isn't better than another. In fact, I said the opposite. but, it's not what matters here, except for the reason I also gave earlier. You are ignoring those remarks.
Quote:
The flaw in this methodology is in not correctly tracking down where certain characteristics originate. If an Aperture picture is noisy while a Lightroom picture is not noisy. It has been assumed that Aperture has bad processing. If in reality Lightroom is covering the noise and Aperture is not, then Aperture isn't the problem the noise came from the camera.
I understand your point. but understand mine. Camera Raw doesn't do that at all. noise is in the file, to a certain extent. CR gives you a choice of what to do with it. Earlier versions of Aperture had a flaw in the concept of what to do with a RAW file when processing. I know exactly what the team at Apple was attempting to do, but it was a bad idea. They realized that after all the criticism, and backed off. That was evident.
What they were trying to do was to exume all of the shadow detail. But, if you do that, you bring up the noise level, and increase the shadow contrast, while losing levels. That's exactly what happened. They had to tone it down.
Actually CR has a bit more noise on some files, but there is more detail. Apple backed down a bit too much.
Quote:
In cinematography we would have examined every variable to eliminate exactly where that noise originated.
Believe me, when an image is going to an advertising campaign in high quality magazines, or going on the gallery wall, there is nothing else that is examined in more detail.
Quote:
This could be Apple saying we didn't realize photographers wanted camera anomalies corrected and covered up.
I doubt it. I've never seen "anomalies" covered up by Aperture, other that by luck. Apple would have no way to do that with Aperture. That's major work.
In fact, there are programs designed specifically to do just that. They don't "cover them up", but rather, eliminate them. Noise reduction programs, such as Noise Ninja, for example. Or DXO OPtics Pro. There are plenty more. CR itself offers adjustable lens correction controls.
Despite all that, every camera seems to give a different "look". Color and contrast change, even within the same scene.
With shooting movies its mostly the lens and film that determine the look. Film and lenses from the same manufacturer are all color matched. The camera is mostly a dark box that runs the film at a steady 24 fps.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by color and contrast changing in the same scene. Its a vague statement. But color and contrast do change to some degree when going from day to night or indoor to outdoor. As changing contrast and color are characteristics of these different environments.
Even in that the over all tone and mood of the film does not change. A high key brightly lit comedy such as a Adam Sandler movie is always high key and brightly lit through out the entire film. It never becomes low key and dark like a horror or thriller.
A movie like Saving Private Ryan maintains its deep shadows, blown out highlights, and grainy texture throughout the entire film. It never gains the high key bright look of a comedy or neutral look of a drama.
Quote:
The point to comparing programs is to see how they work with the SAME file. Considering that, what I said before is correct. If you give me a file, from wherever, my programs should be able to give me the identical results. They don't. Some are better than others, and this is all we're talking about.
I see what you are saying. Cameras and lens come into the discussion once you are talking about the amount of information available in the file.
Quote:
What they were trying to do was to exume all of the shadow detail. But, if you do that, you bring up the noise level, and increase the shadow contrast, while losing levels. That's exactly what happened. They had to tone it down.
That makes perfect sense. I heard no one explain that at all when Aperture was initially launched.
With shooting movies its mostly the lens and film that determine the look. Film and lenses from the same manufacturer are all color matched. The camera is mostly a dark box that runs the film at a steady 24 fps.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by color and contrast changing in the same scene. Its a vague statement. But color and contrast do change to some degree when going from day to night or indoor to outdoor. As changing contrast and color are characteristics of these different environments.
What I'm saying isn't vague. In a multi camera shoot, I can see differences in the color, contrast, and exposure, from camera to camera. I've always seen those differences. It's usually less today than it was in the past, but it still exists.
You do realize that even though film companies buy large amounts of stock to get the same emulsion number batch, there are still differences between the rolls. Kodak puts those differences on the package, so that you know. Later on, those differences are reconciled, but they can never match perfectly. When they go to print, there is more variation. The processing itself isn't exactly the same throughout the day either, no matter how many control strips you run.
Quote:
Even in that the over all tone and mood of the film does not change. A high key brightly lit comedy such as a Adam Sandler movie is always high key and brightly lit through out the entire film. It never becomes low key and dark like a horror or thriller.
I'm not talking about gross differences like that. But film can't be controlled as much as digital is. Eastman stock negative film is plus or minus 15 CC color (times three), and plus or minus 10 density units per emulsion run. The processing adds plus or minus 5 to 10 more in color, and about plus or minus 5 more in density to that.
Then the print adds it's own variation. They filter when making prints, but even that has problems.
Despite how they adjust the camera bodies, the shutter speeds are never exact. Some camera shutters may be a bit slow, and some a bit fast. Don't forget that most of these cameras are 40 or more years old. Some Panascope cameras that were brought back a few years ago and reworked, are 60 years old. The lenses are also not perfectly matched, camera to camera. The spec is usually better than a quarter T stop, but that's still noticeable. And despite being filtered, something we used to do in advertising studio work, there is a small difference between lenses, though new lenses are much better than older ones, many old lenses are still in use. I've seen 40 year old Cooke lenses on sets.
This is why I don't like to talk about movies in the same breath as digital still.
Quote:
A movie like Saving Private Ryan maintains its deep shadows, blown out highlights, and grainy texture throughout the entire film. It never gains the high key bright look of a comedy or neutral look of a drama.
Never saw the movie, but you can see what I'm saying. I'm not talking about overall tonality.
Quote:
I see what you are saying. Cameras and lens come into the discussion once you are talking about the amount of information available in the file.
Yes, that's the point I'm making here.
Quote:
That makes perfect sense. I heard no one explain that at all when Aperture was initially launched.
A lot of the reviewers know their business, but don't work daily in the business of making high end photography work. That was my business. When I first saw the results I was getting from Aperture, I thought, " This looks like the results I would get when I first started doing correction in digital." I learned a lot along the way. They obviously didn't think it through at the beginning.
I know how they felt. They looked at the results from Camera Raw (old), Photo Mechanic, and others, and thought that they were getting more information out than the others were, and probably jumped around in joy. They didn't realize that the others do what they do for a reason. It's a compromise. They then give the tools for the photo editor to go further if they want. That's the way everyone likes it to be. Apple was making the choice for everyone in a way where it couldn't be put back. The tools weren't there.
Teno, I don't want to argue the perfection of film, and movies here more than we have. We're looking at it from two different perspectives, and will likely not reconcile our perspectives on what we perceive as quality. I'm more interested in still work, where even the smallest difference is significant. I probably see differences than most other people don't see, or care about, because I've been working with film, and digital quality for almost 40 years, and so my senses are heightened to small errors.
Teno, I don't want to argue the perfection of film, and movies here more than we have. We're looking at it from two different perspectives, and will likely not reconcile our perspectives on what we perceive as quality.
I agree I don't want to belabor the issue. And I would leave it alone but many of the things you said in your last post are either really wrong or issues from the past.
Quote:
Despite how they adjust the camera bodies, the shutter speeds are never exact. Some camera shutters may be a bit slow, and some a bit fast. Don't forget that most of these cameras are 40 or more years old.
No one is shooting with 40 year old cameras. The cameras being used today are brand new electronics control the machination of film and shutter movement. Today's cameras have remote controls with LCD readouts of focus, iris, and zoom control.
I've never heard of a camera having imprecise shutter movement, unless it was broken. When the film stops in the gate to be exposed if the shutter does not open and close at a precise time the film will not be properly exposed. That can introduce stutter in the motion, streaking highlights, or underexposure.
Quote:
You do realize that even though film companies buy large amounts of stock to get the same emulsion number batch, there are still differences between the rolls. Kodak puts those differences on the package, so that you know. Later on, those differences are reconciled, but they can never match perfectly. When they go to print, there is more variation.
Admittedly I don't know as much about still film. Kodak has put a lot of work into the chemistry of motion picture film. Using advanced dye layers, couplers, and new silver halide crystals. You can shoot any film stock from Kodaks modern line up and they will all match.
The place where variances can happen are in the development bath. The chemical PH of the bath isn't always the same, the temperature fluctuates, the minerals levels in the water can change. All of this can shift color a bit. But in the end this is all accounted for.
Quote:
The lenses are also not perfectly matched, camera to camera. The spec is usually better than a quarter T stop, but that's still noticeable. And despite being filtered, something we used to do in advertising studio work, there is a small difference between lenses,
Modern motion picture lens the color matching tolerances are extremely tight. This still was a slight issue 15 years ago. Today no one even worries about color matching lenses anymore.
Quote:
many old lenses are still in use. I've seen 40 year old Cooke lenses on sets.
At rare times vintage equipment is used for aesthetics. But 99% of the time modern equipment is being used to film movies and television.
I agree I don't want to belabor the issue. And I would leave it alone but many of the things you said in your last post are either really wrong or issues from the past.
Not really.
Quote:
No one is shooting with 40 year old cameras. The cameras being used today are brand new electronics control the machination of film and shutter movement. Today's cameras have remote controls with LCD readouts of focus, iris, and zoom control.
Not true. Possibly half of all motion picture cameras in use today have been made almost a half century ago. These cameras, as have the Panavision ones, older still, been re-worked, as I mentioned. These bodies have been given modern treatments, and are upgraded over the years. But these film cameras are so expensive, that it's cheaper to modernize old bodies, rather than to make new ones, considering how limited the market is.
Quote:
I've never heard of a camera having imprecise shutter movement, unless it was broken. When the film stops in the gate to be exposed if the shutter does not open and close at a precise time the film will not be properly exposed. That can introduce stutter in the motion, streaking highlights, or underexposure.
Not imprecise shutter movement. But the timings on the shutter exposure on each camera is slightly different. The shutter speed is faster than the frame rate, and has no consequence as to stutter. The slight exposure difference between cameras is exactly what happens. Many cameras don't actually use a shutter, but rather a rotating mirror. This is separate from, though linked to, the pulldown claws.
Quote:
Admittedly I don't know as much about still film. Kodak has put a lot of work into the chemistry of motion picture film. Using advanced dye layers, couplers, and new silver halide crystals. You can shoot any film stock from Kodaks modern line up and they will all match.
I'm talking about motion picture film stock. Those are the specs. You can find them in Kodaks Eastman tech literature.
[q
The place where variances can happen are in the development bath. The chemical PH of the bath isn't always the same, the temperature fluctuates, the minerals levels in the water can change. All of this can shift color a bit. But in the end this is all accounted for. [/quote]
I mentioned that. Even though my processors were all computer controlled, the film itself changes the process environment. It can't be accounted for, because processing is the last stage, and fluctuates unpredictably. Even in my lab, where we maintained the highest standards, we couldn't maintain a perfect line in any of our processes. We were always within Kodaks "professional Limits", which sadly, many labs, even movie labs, are not. But, even those limits are noticeably off, if you look at the extremes, which are much closer than Kodak allows for amateur processing labs.
Quote:
Modern motion picture lens the color matching tolerances are extremely tight. This still was a slight issue 15 years ago. Today no one even worries about color matching lenses anymore.
I agree that modern lenses are much better, in this regard, as I mentioned, but many older lenses are still in use.
The truth is also that more movies these days are being shot in digital as well. Kodak's sales of Eastman film stock are down significantly, as is all film sales. They've discontinued much of the film stock in use ten years ago. I'm talking about motion picture film.
Quote:
At rare times vintage equipment is used for aesthetics. But 99% of the time modern equipment is being used to film movies and television.
Tv is all digital, so new equipment must be used. In fact, most shows are shot in HD, even though they may not be broadcast that way. Even most commercials are shot HD, though, they too, are more often broadcast as SD, though possibly in 16:9, these days.
Not true. Possibly half of all motion picture cameras in use today have been made almost a half century ago.
What cameras made almost 50 years ago are still in wide use today? Prior to the mid 70's most cameras in use weighed 200 pounds. Today cameras average around 10 - 20 pounds depending on configuration.
Quote:
These cameras, as have the Panavision ones, older still, been re-worked, as I mentioned. These bodies have been given modern treatments, and are upgraded over the years. These bodies have been given modern treatments, and are upgraded over the years. But these film cameras are so expensive, that it's cheaper to modernize old bodies, rather than to make new ones, considering how limited the market is.
These are the six most popular cameras working in motion picture today.
Arriflex Arricam and Arricam Lite introduced in 2000
Panavision Millennium XL 2 introduced 2005
Arriflex 435 Extreme introduced in 2003
Aaton XTR introduced in 1997
Arriflex 416 introduced in 2006
The Panavision Panaflex Gold and Panavision Panaflex Platinum. The Gold was made in the late 70's and the Platinum in the late 80's. In the late 90's Panavision released the Panaflex Millennium. In 2000 released the Millennium XL. In 2005 the XL 2. All of these updates were brand new cameras with new smaller and lighter bodies. New state of the art electronics with subsequent bells and whistles.
Through the 80's and 90's the Panaflex Gold and Platinum were the gold standard 35mm cameras of the time. Over the years Panavision updated and added new motors and electronic gadgets to the Gold and Platinum. It got to the point where there were gagdets and wires hanging all over the cameras. Panavision developed brand new cameras where all of the newer gadgets and toys were integrated and built into the camera or were made modular so they could fit onto the camera in a more ergonomic way. Once Panavision introduced the Millinium and XL line of cameras they became the primary cameras. The Gold and Platinum became relegated to secondary camera work because they are larger and heavier than the XL. Today the Panaflex Gold or Platinum cameras are rarely used on large budget movies. Panavision rents them to indie and low budget movies for dirt cheap.
Arriflex had 3 versions of the 35BL cameras through the 70's and 80's. In the 80's Arriflex developed the Arri 3 as a multipurpose non-syncsound camera. In 1990 Arriflex introduced the Arri 535 which was a new version of the 35BL with modern electronics. In 1995 Arriflex introduced the Arri 435 to replace the Arri 3. The 435 has been the most popular camera for action movies, commercials, and music videos for the past 18 years. In 2000 Arriflex launched the Arricam Studio and Arricam Lite. These have become the premiere cameras used in motion pictures today.
Comments
Of the three, Aperture has given the lowest quality results. This is due to a number of factors. While the basic conversion was seriously improved after the initial fiasco,
Of the test I've seen between Lightroom and Aperture. The one question I always ask is what does the picture look like originally before Lightroom or Aperture adds color space, noise reduction, or sharpening. The answer generally is that because they de-bayer differently its difficult to say what the picture original picture looks like.
My next questions is if you really don't know what the picture looks like from the sensor. How do you really know what Aperture was showing you isn't the picture your camera took. No one seems to ever have a simple answer to that one. But it appears no one was really interested to know what the picture really looks like from the sensor, only interested in de-bayering software that can make it look the cleanest.
Of the test I've seen between Lightroom and Aperture. The one question I always ask is what does the picture look like originally before Lightroom or Aperture adds color space, noise reduction, or sharpening. The answer generally is that because they de-bayer differently its difficult to say what the picture original picture looks like.
My next questions is if you really don't know what the picture looks like from the sensor. How do you really know what Aperture was showing you isn't the picture your camera took. No one seems to ever have a simple answer to that one. But it appears no one was really interested to know what the picture really looks like from the sensor, only interested in de-bayering software that can make it look the cleanest.
There is no simple answer. The sensor is providing a system of sampling, as such, any detail that's smaller than a photocell is lost, and not only that, any detail that hits a photocell but not in the cell's color is also lost. All that is interpolated, and it looks like there may be different interpolation algorithms.
The sensor data is actually pretty ugly, it's a pretty nasty version of pointillism:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sensors.htm
Of the test I've seen between Lightroom and Aperture. The one question I always ask is what does the picture look like originally before Lightroom or Aperture adds color space, noise reduction, or sharpening. The answer generally is that because they de-bayer differently its difficult to say what the picture original picture looks like.
My next questions is if you really don't know what the picture looks like from the sensor. How do you really know what Aperture was showing you isn't the picture your camera took. No one seems to ever have a simple answer to that one. But it appears no one was really interested to know what the picture really looks like from the sensor, only interested in de-bayering software that can make it look the cleanest.
Trying to remember what the original picture looked like is an exercise in frustration. We don't have a good enough memory for visual and aural phenomena for that to work. In addition, no media can duplicate it. What we can do is to attempt to reconstruct that so it appears to our liking in a way that seems to be correct, and pleasing.
Therefore, what we attempt to do in our programs is to extract as much information from the file as possible. We can then work out how we want that information to appear.
Aperture extracts less information than does Camera Raw. You can tell by working on the same image file. It isn't magic. You don't have to know what information is encoded from the sensor. After you do enough files, and understand the programs well enough, you will find it to be easy to see the differences.
Until now, Aperture couldn't extract the "lost" highlight information that Camera Raw 4.+ could do so well. That wasn't difficult to know. Aperture didn't have the tools to do it. CR 4 did. This was a major advantage to CR 4 that pro's are well aware of, and use constantly.
We will have to see how effective the new one in Aperture is.
That is just a part of the toolset. CR 4 has many more.
This can't be qualified in a post. I can give you some links tomorrow, if you are interested.
Trying to remember what the original picture looked like is an exercise in frustration. We don't have a good enough memory for visual and aural phenomena for that to work. In addition, no media can duplicate it.
I'm not talking about how faithfully the camera recreated the original scene. I'm simply talking about the picture the camera did take.
What we can do is to attempt to reconstruct that so it appears to our liking in a way that seems to be correct, and pleasing.
Consistency and predictability is very important. I come from the cinema way of thinking about this. In cinema we test all of our equipment to get to know its strengths, weakness, and idiosyncrasies. That includes the lens, filters, film or digital sensor, film lab, photochemical manipulation, digital scanning equipment, and any post digital manipulation.
We will test all of this equipment by starting with a neutral benchmark. Such as a pure white, pure black, and 18% grey charts. We also test color charts next to a neutral skin tone. To eliminate any bias and receive a fair evaluation each element is tested against these neutral benchmarks.
From there you find out if a filter is too green or too yellow, if a lens is too soft or has too much highlight flair, if a film stock has too much contrast or too grainy, if a digital sensor adds to much artificial sharpening or introduces noise, if a certain photochemical process gives you the final look you want or if a digital process gives you the final look you want.
Granted cinema is different from photography. In that cinema is a two hour movie that has been produced over a month or two. So consistency and predictability is extremely important. While a picture generally stands on its own and does not have to be consistent with anything else.
Aperture extracts less information than does Camera Raw. Yo can tell by working on the same image file. It isn't magic. You don't have to know what information is encoded from the sensor. After you do enough files, and understand the programs well enough, you will find it to be easy to see the differences.
I don't see how you can eliminate the camera and lens as important variables. What Aperture and Lightroom interpret is directly from what the camera has captured.
When Aperture first came out the biggest complaint I remember hearing was about noise. You would see more noise in Aperture pictures than in Lightroom pictures. I would ask how do you know that noise is not really in the picture and Lightroom is covering it up. Because the evaluation did not start from a neutral place their was no way to know for sure. How do you really know this is not a problem with the camera or lens.
Until now, Aperture couldn't extract the "lost" highlight information that Camera Raw 4.+ could do so well. That wasn't difficult to know. Aperture didn't have the tools to do it. CR 4 did. This was a major advantage to CR 4 that pro's are well aware of, and use constantly.
Back when Aperture first came out I don't recall this as a major complaint. Yes differences in dynamic range are a lot easier to discern than differences in color, exposure, or sharpness. Pictures from Lightroom have more highlight and shadow information than pictures from Aperture. Its true this would not be difficult to see.
But like I said I don't recall that being the major complaint.
I'm not talking about how faithfully the camera recreated the original scene. I'm simply talking about the picture the camera did take.
Consistency and predictability is very important. I come from the cinema way of thinking about this. In cinema we test all of our equipment to get to know its strengths, weakness, and idiosyncrasies. That includes the lens, filters, film or digital sensor, film lab, photochemical manipulation, digital scanning equipment, and any post digital manipulation.
We will test all of this equipment by starting with a neutral benchmark. Such as a pure white, pure black, and 18% grey charts. We also test color charts next to a neutral skin tone. To eliminate any bias and receive a fair evaluation each element is tested against these neutral benchmarks.
From there you find out if a filter is too green or too yellow, if a lens is too soft or has too much highlight flair, if a film stock has too much contrast or too grainy, if a digital sensor adds to much artificial sharpening or introduces noise, if a certain photochemical process gives you the final look you want or if a digital process gives you the final look you want.
Granted cinema is different from photography. In that cinema is a two hour movie that has been produced over a month or two. So consistency and predictability is extremely important. While a picture generally stands on its own and does not have to be consistent with anything else.
I don't see how you can eliminate the camera and lens as important variables. What Aperture and Lightroom interpret is directly from what the camera has captured.
When Aperture first came out the biggest complaint I remember hearing was about noise. You would see more noise in Aperture pictures than in Lightroom pictures. I would ask how do you know that noise is not really in the picture and Lightroom is covering it up. Because the evaluation did not start from a neutral place their was no way to know for sure. How do you really know this is not a problem with the camera or lens.
Back when Aperture first came out I don't recall this as a major complaint. Yes differences in dynamic range are a lot easier to discern than differences in color, exposure, or sharpness. Pictures from Lightroom have more highlight and shadow information than pictures from Aperture. Its true this would not be difficult to see.
But like I said I don't recall that being the major complaint.
Teno, I've been in this business since 1969. I understand the equipment and methodology pretty well. I developed some of it myself.
What you must keep in mind is that movies are very poor in quality or consistancy when compared to still photography. The mind is forgiving when watching "moving pictures" but not so kind when looking at prints.
Nevertheless, we are not talking about film and the chemical processes that they require. Digital is a very dfferent world.
Whatever lenses you are using don't matter to the program, except that CR 4 gives you some control over those lens defects, where Aperture doesn't.
The file is the file. It's as simple as that.
How that program treats that file is what we are talking about here. It isn't required to discuss all that you did, because it isn't relevant to this discussion. I'm not sure why you brought it up. The last time we discussed this you brought it up as well. forget about it.
All we are talking about is the file. Anything before that doesn't matter at that point. How the program treats the file is what does matter. The simple fact is that Aperture doesn't give nearly as much control as CR 4 does, nor has it's conversion been as good.
I can eliminate the camera and lens because we are comparing the same file amongst the programs. We are therefore starting out with equal quality. Use a camera with a better lens and body, and the file might be better, unless the photographer doesn't understand the requirements of digital shooting, which is different from that of film. But, even then, the differences between the programs will bcome apparent. The more difficult the file, actually, the more the spread between Aperture and CR 4 will become, as CR 4 has better control over the results.
The reason why highlight recovery wasn't mentioned about Aperture 1.0 is because Adobe hadn't yet developed it for CR 3. It began with CR 4.
Apple is acknowledging that their conversion was not up to the quality required by making a case for why it is improved now. As I said earlier, I'll see for myself tomorrow just how improved it is.
By adding a few more controls, they (Apple) are giving us some power over the process they didn't give before. This is good. But some other tools are still not up to snuff.
What you must keep in mind is that movies are very poor in quality or consistancy when compared to still photography. The mind is forgiving when watching "moving pictures" but not so kind when looking at prints.
Depends on the end product. A picture has to be flawless in the sense that one frame can be studied for a long period of time.
One frame of a movie doesn't have to be flawless. For every film a look as been agreed upon by the creative team. This look supports the mood and tone that has been set by the story. The lighting, colors, texture must remain consistent to the agreed upon look. That consistency must be maintained over a long period of time. This is not easy and requires a work methodology to achieve.
Nevertheless, we are not talking about film and the chemical processes that they require. Digital is a very dfferent world.
It was just an example. Extensive testing is done whether its photochemical or digital.
The file is the file. It's as simple as that.
Camera sensors and lenses are not all created the same and they all exhibit different characteristics, strengths and weaknesses. This is the first place an image is captured and the first to assign characteristics and limitation to what can be done later on.
How that program treats that file is what we are talking about here. It isn't required to discuss all that you did, because it isn't relevant to this discussion. I'm not sure why you brought it up. The last time we discussed this you brought it up as well. forget about it.
I work with a lot of imaging experts who have been working in the industry (insert whatever number of years you find impressive). I've never heard any of them say that the equipment that captures the image (camera/lens) are not relevant to how an image can be treated in its finishing processes.
I can eliminate the camera and lens because we are comparing the same file amongst the programs. We are therefore starting out with equal quality.
The flaw in this methodology is in not correctly tracking down where certain characteristics originate. If an Aperture picture is noisy while a Lightroom picture is not noisy. It has been assumed that Aperture has bad processing. If in reality Lightroom is covering the noise and Aperture is not, then Aperture isn't the problem the noise came from the camera.
In cinematography we would have examined every variable to eliminate exactly where that noise originated.
Apple is acknowledging that their conversion was not up to the quality required by making a case for why it is improved now. As I said earlier, I'll see for myself tomorrow just how improved it is.
This could be Apple saying we didn't realize photographers wanted camera anomalies corrected and covered up.
This could be Apple saying we didn't realize photographers wanted camera anomalies corrected and covered up.
Of course photographers want that. That's why we have features like noise reduction, sharpening, highlight recovery, shadow recovery, white balance. Everything can be seen as covering up for camera flaws and photographer's mistakes.
Some people (even some pros) shoot straight to JPeg and print automatically. That's fine, but it's not what everybody does.
Depends on the end product. A picture has to be flawless in the sense that one frame can be studied for a long period of time.
Yes. That's the point.
One frame of a movie doesn't have to be flawless. For every film a look as been agreed upon by the creative team. This look supports the mood and tone that has been set by the story. The lighting, colors, texture must remain consistent to the agreed upon look. That consistency must be maintained over a long period of time. This is not easy and requires a work methodology to achieve.
Despite all that, every camera seems to give a different "look". Color and contrast change, even within the same scene.
Camera sensors and lenses are not all created the same and they all exhibit different characteristics, strengths and weaknesses. This is the first place an image is captured and the first to assign characteristics and limitation to what can be done later on.
The point to comparing programs is to see how they work with the SAME file. Considering that, what I said before is correct. If you give me a file, from wherever, my programs should be able to give me the identical results. They don't. Some are better than others, and this is all we're talking about.
If you want to discuss cameras and lenses, I'l be happy to do so. But for the purposes of this discussion, they are irrelevant.
I work with a lot of imaging experts who have been working in the industry (insert whatever number of years you find impressive). I've never heard any of them say that the equipment that captures the image (camera/lens) are not relevant to how an image can be treated in its finishing processes.
Well, I may not have worked with you, but I was one of those experts. And every one would say the same thing I'm saying for the purposes of this discussion. I'm not saying that one camera, or lens, isn't better than another. In fact, I said the opposite. but, it's not what matters here, except for the reason I also gave earlier. You are ignoring those remarks.
The flaw in this methodology is in not correctly tracking down where certain characteristics originate. If an Aperture picture is noisy while a Lightroom picture is not noisy. It has been assumed that Aperture has bad processing. If in reality Lightroom is covering the noise and Aperture is not, then Aperture isn't the problem the noise came from the camera.
I understand your point. but understand mine. Camera Raw doesn't do that at all. noise is in the file, to a certain extent. CR gives you a choice of what to do with it. Earlier versions of Aperture had a flaw in the concept of what to do with a RAW file when processing. I know exactly what the team at Apple was attempting to do, but it was a bad idea. They realized that after all the criticism, and backed off. That was evident.
What they were trying to do was to exume all of the shadow detail. But, if you do that, you bring up the noise level, and increase the shadow contrast, while losing levels. That's exactly what happened. They had to tone it down.
Actually CR has a bit more noise on some files, but there is more detail. Apple backed down a bit too much.
In cinematography we would have examined every variable to eliminate exactly where that noise originated.
Believe me, when an image is going to an advertising campaign in high quality magazines, or going on the gallery wall, there is nothing else that is examined in more detail.
This could be Apple saying we didn't realize photographers wanted camera anomalies corrected and covered up.
I doubt it. I've never seen "anomalies" covered up by Aperture, other that by luck. Apple would have no way to do that with Aperture. That's major work.
In fact, there are programs designed specifically to do just that. They don't "cover them up", but rather, eliminate them. Noise reduction programs, such as Noise Ninja, for example. Or DXO OPtics Pro. There are plenty more. CR itself offers adjustable lens correction controls.
No, I will tomorrow perhaps. What computer are you running Spam?
Dual 1.8 GHz PowerPC G5, 2 Gigs RAM, OS 10.4.11.
Dual 1.8 GHz PowerPC G5, 2 Gigs RAM, OS 10.4.11.
You're pushing it on the system specs there. A better graphics card would probably do wonders to the speed of Aperture on your computer.
So if I have 1.5, I can do the upgrade for $99?
You're pushing it on the system specs there. A better graphics card would probably do wonders to the speed of Aperture on your computer.
So if I have 1.5, I can do the upgrade for $99?
I did.
I did.
Do you think it will work if I have the academic version?
Despite all that, every camera seems to give a different "look". Color and contrast change, even within the same scene.
With shooting movies its mostly the lens and film that determine the look. Film and lenses from the same manufacturer are all color matched. The camera is mostly a dark box that runs the film at a steady 24 fps.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by color and contrast changing in the same scene. Its a vague statement. But color and contrast do change to some degree when going from day to night or indoor to outdoor. As changing contrast and color are characteristics of these different environments.
Even in that the over all tone and mood of the film does not change. A high key brightly lit comedy such as a Adam Sandler movie is always high key and brightly lit through out the entire film. It never becomes low key and dark like a horror or thriller.
A movie like Saving Private Ryan maintains its deep shadows, blown out highlights, and grainy texture throughout the entire film. It never gains the high key bright look of a comedy or neutral look of a drama.
The point to comparing programs is to see how they work with the SAME file. Considering that, what I said before is correct. If you give me a file, from wherever, my programs should be able to give me the identical results. They don't. Some are better than others, and this is all we're talking about.
I see what you are saying. Cameras and lens come into the discussion once you are talking about the amount of information available in the file.
What they were trying to do was to exume all of the shadow detail. But, if you do that, you bring up the noise level, and increase the shadow contrast, while losing levels. That's exactly what happened. They had to tone it down.
That makes perfect sense. I heard no one explain that at all when Aperture was initially launched.
Do you think it will work if I have the academic version?
I don't se why not. You are still upgrading.
With shooting movies its mostly the lens and film that determine the look. Film and lenses from the same manufacturer are all color matched. The camera is mostly a dark box that runs the film at a steady 24 fps.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by color and contrast changing in the same scene. Its a vague statement. But color and contrast do change to some degree when going from day to night or indoor to outdoor. As changing contrast and color are characteristics of these different environments.
What I'm saying isn't vague. In a multi camera shoot, I can see differences in the color, contrast, and exposure, from camera to camera. I've always seen those differences. It's usually less today than it was in the past, but it still exists.
You do realize that even though film companies buy large amounts of stock to get the same emulsion number batch, there are still differences between the rolls. Kodak puts those differences on the package, so that you know. Later on, those differences are reconciled, but they can never match perfectly. When they go to print, there is more variation. The processing itself isn't exactly the same throughout the day either, no matter how many control strips you run.
Even in that the over all tone and mood of the film does not change. A high key brightly lit comedy such as a Adam Sandler movie is always high key and brightly lit through out the entire film. It never becomes low key and dark like a horror or thriller.
I'm not talking about gross differences like that. But film can't be controlled as much as digital is. Eastman stock negative film is plus or minus 15 CC color (times three), and plus or minus 10 density units per emulsion run. The processing adds plus or minus 5 to 10 more in color, and about plus or minus 5 more in density to that.
Then the print adds it's own variation. They filter when making prints, but even that has problems.
Despite how they adjust the camera bodies, the shutter speeds are never exact. Some camera shutters may be a bit slow, and some a bit fast. Don't forget that most of these cameras are 40 or more years old. Some Panascope cameras that were brought back a few years ago and reworked, are 60 years old. The lenses are also not perfectly matched, camera to camera. The spec is usually better than a quarter T stop, but that's still noticeable. And despite being filtered, something we used to do in advertising studio work, there is a small difference between lenses, though new lenses are much better than older ones, many old lenses are still in use. I've seen 40 year old Cooke lenses on sets.
This is why I don't like to talk about movies in the same breath as digital still.
A movie like Saving Private Ryan maintains its deep shadows, blown out highlights, and grainy texture throughout the entire film. It never gains the high key bright look of a comedy or neutral look of a drama.
Never saw the movie, but you can see what I'm saying. I'm not talking about overall tonality.
I see what you are saying. Cameras and lens come into the discussion once you are talking about the amount of information available in the file.
Yes, that's the point I'm making here.
That makes perfect sense. I heard no one explain that at all when Aperture was initially launched.
A lot of the reviewers know their business, but don't work daily in the business of making high end photography work. That was my business. When I first saw the results I was getting from Aperture, I thought, " This looks like the results I would get when I first started doing correction in digital." I learned a lot along the way. They obviously didn't think it through at the beginning.
I know how they felt. They looked at the results from Camera Raw (old), Photo Mechanic, and others, and thought that they were getting more information out than the others were, and probably jumped around in joy. They didn't realize that the others do what they do for a reason. It's a compromise. They then give the tools for the photo editor to go further if they want. That's the way everyone likes it to be. Apple was making the choice for everyone in a way where it couldn't be put back. The tools weren't there.
Teno, I don't want to argue the perfection of film, and movies here more than we have. We're looking at it from two different perspectives, and will likely not reconcile our perspectives on what we perceive as quality. I'm more interested in still work, where even the smallest difference is significant. I probably see differences than most other people don't see, or care about, because I've been working with film, and digital quality for almost 40 years, and so my senses are heightened to small errors.
Teno, I don't want to argue the perfection of film, and movies here more than we have. We're looking at it from two different perspectives, and will likely not reconcile our perspectives on what we perceive as quality.
I agree I don't want to belabor the issue. And I would leave it alone but many of the things you said in your last post are either really wrong or issues from the past.
Despite how they adjust the camera bodies, the shutter speeds are never exact. Some camera shutters may be a bit slow, and some a bit fast. Don't forget that most of these cameras are 40 or more years old.
No one is shooting with 40 year old cameras. The cameras being used today are brand new electronics control the machination of film and shutter movement. Today's cameras have remote controls with LCD readouts of focus, iris, and zoom control.
I've never heard of a camera having imprecise shutter movement, unless it was broken. When the film stops in the gate to be exposed if the shutter does not open and close at a precise time the film will not be properly exposed. That can introduce stutter in the motion, streaking highlights, or underexposure.
You do realize that even though film companies buy large amounts of stock to get the same emulsion number batch, there are still differences between the rolls. Kodak puts those differences on the package, so that you know. Later on, those differences are reconciled, but they can never match perfectly. When they go to print, there is more variation.
Admittedly I don't know as much about still film. Kodak has put a lot of work into the chemistry of motion picture film. Using advanced dye layers, couplers, and new silver halide crystals. You can shoot any film stock from Kodaks modern line up and they will all match.
The place where variances can happen are in the development bath. The chemical PH of the bath isn't always the same, the temperature fluctuates, the minerals levels in the water can change. All of this can shift color a bit. But in the end this is all accounted for.
The lenses are also not perfectly matched, camera to camera. The spec is usually better than a quarter T stop, but that's still noticeable. And despite being filtered, something we used to do in advertising studio work, there is a small difference between lenses,
Modern motion picture lens the color matching tolerances are extremely tight. This still was a slight issue 15 years ago. Today no one even worries about color matching lenses anymore.
many old lenses are still in use. I've seen 40 year old Cooke lenses on sets.
At rare times vintage equipment is used for aesthetics. But 99% of the time modern equipment is being used to film movies and television.
I agree I don't want to belabor the issue. And I would leave it alone but many of the things you said in your last post are either really wrong or issues from the past.
Not really.
No one is shooting with 40 year old cameras. The cameras being used today are brand new electronics control the machination of film and shutter movement. Today's cameras have remote controls with LCD readouts of focus, iris, and zoom control.
Not true. Possibly half of all motion picture cameras in use today have been made almost a half century ago. These cameras, as have the Panavision ones, older still, been re-worked, as I mentioned. These bodies have been given modern treatments, and are upgraded over the years. But these film cameras are so expensive, that it's cheaper to modernize old bodies, rather than to make new ones, considering how limited the market is.
I've never heard of a camera having imprecise shutter movement, unless it was broken. When the film stops in the gate to be exposed if the shutter does not open and close at a precise time the film will not be properly exposed. That can introduce stutter in the motion, streaking highlights, or underexposure.
Not imprecise shutter movement. But the timings on the shutter exposure on each camera is slightly different. The shutter speed is faster than the frame rate, and has no consequence as to stutter. The slight exposure difference between cameras is exactly what happens. Many cameras don't actually use a shutter, but rather a rotating mirror. This is separate from, though linked to, the pulldown claws.
Admittedly I don't know as much about still film. Kodak has put a lot of work into the chemistry of motion picture film. Using advanced dye layers, couplers, and new silver halide crystals. You can shoot any film stock from Kodaks modern line up and they will all match.
I'm talking about motion picture film stock. Those are the specs. You can find them in Kodaks Eastman tech literature.
[q
The place where variances can happen are in the development bath. The chemical PH of the bath isn't always the same, the temperature fluctuates, the minerals levels in the water can change. All of this can shift color a bit. But in the end this is all accounted for. [/quote]
I mentioned that. Even though my processors were all computer controlled, the film itself changes the process environment. It can't be accounted for, because processing is the last stage, and fluctuates unpredictably. Even in my lab, where we maintained the highest standards, we couldn't maintain a perfect line in any of our processes. We were always within Kodaks "professional Limits", which sadly, many labs, even movie labs, are not. But, even those limits are noticeably off, if you look at the extremes, which are much closer than Kodak allows for amateur processing labs.
Modern motion picture lens the color matching tolerances are extremely tight. This still was a slight issue 15 years ago. Today no one even worries about color matching lenses anymore.
I agree that modern lenses are much better, in this regard, as I mentioned, but many older lenses are still in use.
The truth is also that more movies these days are being shot in digital as well. Kodak's sales of Eastman film stock are down significantly, as is all film sales. They've discontinued much of the film stock in use ten years ago. I'm talking about motion picture film.
At rare times vintage equipment is used for aesthetics. But 99% of the time modern equipment is being used to film movies and television.
Tv is all digital, so new equipment must be used. In fact, most shows are shot in HD, even though they may not be broadcast that way. Even most commercials are shot HD, though, they too, are more often broadcast as SD, though possibly in 16:9, these days.
Today's cameras have remote controls with LCD readouts of focus, iris, and zoom control.
That sounds nifty. What model camera & remote would those be?
That sounds nifty. What model camera & remote would those be?
He's talking about motion picture cameras.
Not true. Possibly half of all motion picture cameras in use today have been made almost a half century ago.
What cameras made almost 50 years ago are still in wide use today? Prior to the mid 70's most cameras in use weighed 200 pounds. Today cameras average around 10 - 20 pounds depending on configuration.
These cameras, as have the Panavision ones, older still, been re-worked, as I mentioned. These bodies have been given modern treatments, and are upgraded over the years. These bodies have been given modern treatments, and are upgraded over the years. But these film cameras are so expensive, that it's cheaper to modernize old bodies, rather than to make new ones, considering how limited the market is.
These are the six most popular cameras working in motion picture today.
Arriflex Arricam and Arricam Lite introduced in 2000
Panavision Millennium XL 2 introduced 2005
Arriflex 435 Extreme introduced in 2003
Aaton XTR introduced in 1997
Arriflex 416 introduced in 2006
The Panavision Panaflex Gold and Panavision Panaflex Platinum. The Gold was made in the late 70's and the Platinum in the late 80's. In the late 90's Panavision released the Panaflex Millennium. In 2000 released the Millennium XL. In 2005 the XL 2. All of these updates were brand new cameras with new smaller and lighter bodies. New state of the art electronics with subsequent bells and whistles.
Through the 80's and 90's the Panaflex Gold and Platinum were the gold standard 35mm cameras of the time. Over the years Panavision updated and added new motors and electronic gadgets to the Gold and Platinum. It got to the point where there were gagdets and wires hanging all over the cameras. Panavision developed brand new cameras where all of the newer gadgets and toys were integrated and built into the camera or were made modular so they could fit onto the camera in a more ergonomic way. Once Panavision introduced the Millinium and XL line of cameras they became the primary cameras. The Gold and Platinum became relegated to secondary camera work because they are larger and heavier than the XL. Today the Panaflex Gold or Platinum cameras are rarely used on large budget movies. Panavision rents them to indie and low budget movies for dirt cheap.
Arriflex had 3 versions of the 35BL cameras through the 70's and 80's. In the 80's Arriflex developed the Arri 3 as a multipurpose non-syncsound camera. In 1990 Arriflex introduced the Arri 535 which was a new version of the 35BL with modern electronics. In 1995 Arriflex introduced the Arri 435 to replace the Arri 3. The 435 has been the most popular camera for action movies, commercials, and music videos for the past 18 years. In 2000 Arriflex launched the Arricam Studio and Arricam Lite. These have become the premiere cameras used in motion pictures today.