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.
This is all totally wrong MelGross.
General layout of the film advance and shutter mechanism in a conventional motion picture camera.
All motion picture cameras have basically the exact same shutter design. The shutter on a motion picture camera is a 180 degree half circle. When the circle is open the film frame is held steady in the gate for exposure. When the circle closes the film is being advanced to the next frame. The shutter closing stops any light from exposing the film while it is being advanced to the next frame. The film moves at 24 frames per second, the shutter spins at 1/24th of a second.
There are no slight differences all cameras do this at the same rate. This is important because their are machines that will play back the images later. Those machines will play the film at 24 frames per second and spin a shutter at 1/24th of a second. Those machines will not compensate for any variances. The film is indiscriminately played back at the exact same rate no matter what camera it was shot on.
All motion picture cameras made in the last 30 years have a mirror on the shutter. This is called the reflex viewing system. When the shutter has closed light from exposing the film. The mirror on the shutter reflects light from the lens up into a prism. The prism sends that light into the viewfinder and into the camera operators eye. The camera operator is seeing this light at 1/24th of a second. The old viewing system was called a parallax viewing system where the viewfinder had a different lens from the main lens that exposed the film.
The shutter angle is adjustable on all modern cameras from 11.5 to 180 degrees. The higher end cameras have motors that open and close the shutter from electronic controls. You can even change the shutter angle while the camera is rolling. This can be done to change the exposure without effecting the depth of field. Lower end cameras have shutter that can be manually adjusted using a tool like a hex key.
The pull down claw has nothing directly to do with the shutter. Nearly film camera has a pull down claw. That is how the film is advanced in the gate. Aaton is the only company that does not use pull down claws, they have a magnetic system to advance the film.
I'm talking about motion picture film stock. Those are the specs. You can find them in Kodaks Eastman tech literature.
Kodak's motion picture literature says all Vision stocks are color matched. And I know its true because I've shot millions of feet of Kodak film.
Quote:
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.
When motion picture film is developed the lab gives a lap printer light report. This report informs how dense the yellow, cyan, and magenta layers of the film have been exposed. The base of well exposed negative is generally 25-25-25. Which means when the film is viewed red, green, and blue will appear as normal and natural as the original scene. Often for aesthetic reasons colors and contrast in movies are not normal or natural so printer lights for each movie will be radically different.
The cinematographer and the lab will establish the movies printer lights at the beginning of the film shoot and any variances in exposure or color due to lab processing will be seen in this report and can be easily compensated for when the film is printed.
Quote:
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.
Independent and low budget movies are a mixed bag as they shoot on whatever the production can afford or have access to. There are around 300 movies that receive wide theatrical distribution a year. Of those 300 movies around 10 have been shot in digital. Digitally shot film receive a lot of hype because they've been shot digitally but in reality there are not very many.
What I hear from Kodak is that they are selling more film now than they ever have in history. Their is more content being created around the world than their has ever been in history.
Kodak has discontinued old motion picture film stocks as they phase in newer technology in film stocks. Many older cinematographers are upset about Kodak discontinuing these old stocks. They feel the new stocks are too clean and too sharp loosing the characteristics that define film.
Quote:
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 really.
There has been some experimentation with HD in television. In the early 2000's sitcoms went almost totally HD and some new hour long dramas were HD. But HD's advantages weren't really found to be all that much better. The early HD cameras were designed around the ENG camera design and do not fit well into a film environment. HD quality still does not nearly reach the quality of 35mm and at the same time 35mm has been getting better. The cost of HD did not turn out to be much less than 35mm. The average budget for movies is 60 million the average television budget is 1.5 million. The cost of film is pretty negligible. Archiving is a big issue for HD. Their has been no proven or stable way to ensure HD content can be archived. Film has proven archivability and its high resolution will ensure a show will meet any future television standards.
Today's television line up is mostly hour long dramas and reality shows. Hour long dramas are nearly all shot on 35mm. The sitcom format is less popular today and the few that remain are also mostly shot on 35mm.
Commercials also have experimented with HD. But are still mostly shot on 35mm. This insures commercials can be repurposed for any medium from the web to the big screen movie theater.
HD cameras have easily replaced everything SD cameras were doing before. But HD was not excepted in the film world the video camera manufacturers had hoped. Many have gone back to the drawing board and have designed camera bodies that are more like film cameras. They are building higher resolution single sensors. We shall see how well these cameras perform and are accepted.
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 are the six most popular cameras working in motion picture today.
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.
If you want to talk about important modern cameras, you forgot the most imoportant one of all, which is the Panavision Genesis. I haven't heard of the Arri's having that much marketshare amongst major motion pictures.
I used to use the Mitchel 35 and Arri 35 for commercial shoots, but that was a while ago.
General layout of the film advance and shutter mechanism in a conventional motion picture camera.
All motion picture cameras have basically the exact same shutter design. The shutter on a motion picture camera is a 180 degree half circle. When the circle is open the film frame is held steady in the gate for exposure. When the circle closes the film is being advanced to the next frame. The shutter closing stops any light from exposing the film while it is being advanced to the next frame. The film moves at 24 frames per second, the shutter spins at 1/24th of a second.
There are no slight differences all cameras do this at the same rate. This is important because their are machines that will play back the images later. Those machines will play the film at 24 frames per second and spin a shutter at 1/24th of a second. Those machines will not compensate for any variances. The film is indiscriminately played back at the exact same rate no matter what camera it was shot on.
All motion picture cameras made in the last 30 years have a mirror on the shutter. This is called the reflex viewing system. When the shutter has closed light from exposing the film. The mirror on the shutter reflects light from the lens up into a prism. The prism sends that light into the viewfinder and into the camera operators eye. The camera operator is seeing this light at 1/24th of a second. The old viewing system was called a parallax viewing system where the viewfinder had a different lens from the main lens that exposed the film.
The shutter angle is adjustable on all modern cameras from 11.5 to 180 degrees. The higher end cameras have motors that open and close the shutter from electronic controls. You can even change the shutter angle while the camera is rolling. This can be done to change the exposure without effecting the depth of field. Lower end cameras have shutter that can be manually adjusted using a tool like a hex key.
The pull down claw has nothing directly to do with the shutter. Nearly film camera has a pull down claw. That is how the film is advanced in the gate. Aaton is the only company that does not use pull down claws, they have a magnetic system to advance the film.
I said that the shutter is indepenrent of the shutter. you mistake my statement.
The
I also said that the shutters use mirrors. all you are doing is confirming what I already said, except that the shutter itself is subject to slight variances. An attempt to prevent that was to use a mirrored shutter that rotated so that light was reflected through the gate only when the mirror was at a specific angle.
The point is that whether a motor is used, or electronic methods are used, all shutters are subject to variances.
Kodak's motion picture literature says all Vision stocks are color matched. And I know its true because I've shot millions of feet of Kodak film.
Color matched within a certain range. not color matched, as in excatly matched. That would be impossible.
What Kodak does is to look at the batches, and after measurement, match up the ones that are the closest, and fall within their parameters. They then call those "matched".
Quote:
When motion picture film is developed the lab gives a lap printer light report. This report informs how dense the yellow, cyan, and magenta layers of the film have been exposed. The base of well exposed negative is generally 25-25-25. Which means when the film is viewed red, green, and blue will appear as normal and natural as the original scene. Often for aesthetic reasons colors and contrast in movies are not normal or natural so printer lights for each movie will be radically different.
This is not different to what we would do in our process of duping 70mm, or even single frame work.
But, in the end, there is a final process that comes after all the testing, matching and enumeration, that moves the product out of where perfection would be.
Quote:
The cinematographer and the lab will establish the movies printer lights at the beginning of the film shoot and any variances in exposure or color due to lab processing will be seen in this report and can be easily compensated for when the film is printed.
I wish it was as accurate as you like.
Quote:
Independent and low budget movies are a mixed bag as they shoot on whatever the production can afford or have access to. There are around 300 movies that receive wide theatrical distribution a year. Of those 300 movies around 10 have been shot in digital. Digitally shot film receive a lot of hype because they've been shot digitally but in reality there are not very many.
Wikipedia has an article about the Panavision Genesis. It's incomplete, but has the basics.
It has some of the films shot with it (there are more). It also mentions a few of the Tv shows, there are also more. I'm sure Panavision would be glad to provide all of the films shot with their camera, as will any of the other digital makers.
Considering that this is only one of a number of digital cameras in use today, the list of films is much more extensive than this, as are the Tv programs.
Most Tv dramas today are shot in Hd, not film. The major late night shows are also shot that way, as are news broadcasts, morning shows, nature shows, sports, etc. Some networks are shooting all of their new programing in Hd, such as the Nat Geographic channel, Universal HD, HBO, etc.
Quote:
What I hear from Kodak is that they are selling more film now than they ever have in history. Their is more content being created around the world than their has ever been in history.
What I've heard from kodak is that there was a resurgence in the mid to late '90's, but that it has died out.
Considering that most movies are made in third world countries such as India and China, and their production values, for the most part, are lower than those in the west, it's true that for a time most of their productions will continue to use film and older equipment. But as digital continues to drop in price, that will change before too long.
Quote:
Kodak has discontinued old motion picture film stocks as they phase in newer technology in film stocks. Many older cinematographers are upset about Kodak discontinuing these old stocks. They feel the new stocks are too clean and too sharp loosing the characteristics that define film.
Just as with still film, more older stocks are being discontinued than are being replaced. There are fewer film stocks today than there were ten years ago, and that will continue.
Quote:
Not really.
There has been some experimentation with HD in television. In the early 2000's sitcoms went almost totally HD and some new hour long dramas were HD. But HD's advantages weren't really found to be all that much better. The early HD cameras were designed around the ENG camera design and do not fit well into a film environment. HD quality still does not nearly reach the quality of 35mm and at the same time 35mm has been getting better. The cost of HD did not turn out to be much less than 35mm. The average budget for movies is 60 million the average television budget is 1.5 million. The cost of film is pretty negligible. Archiving is a big issue for HD. Their has been no proven or stable way to ensure HD content can be archived. Film has proven archivability and its high resolution will ensure a show will meet any future television standards.
Today's television line up is mostly hour long dramas and reality shows. Hour long dramas are nearly all shot on 35mm. The sitcom format is less popular today and the few that remain are also mostly shot on 35mm.
Commercials also have experimented with HD. But are still mostly shot on 35mm. This insures commercials can be repurposed for any medium from the web to the big screen movie theater.
HD cameras have easily replaced everything SD cameras were doing before. But HD was not excepted in the film world the video camera manufacturers had hoped. Many have gone back to the drawing board and have designed camera bodies that are more like film cameras. They are building higher resolution single sensors. We shall see how well these cameras perform and are accepted.
I've already addressed this, but I can say that you are bhind here. It's true that in the early 2000's, Hd didn't provide much benefit, as few had hi def widescreen Tv's. That siruationed changes, and there are far more Hd Tv's around, as there is HD programming. The networks do a great deal of HD programming, as you can see by flipping through TV Guide. The secondary networks do much less, though that is changing.
If you want to talk about important modern cameras, you forgot the most imoportant one of all, which is the Panavision Genesis. I haven't heard of the Arri's having that much marketshare amongst major motion pictures.
Lets say over the past two years there have been about 600 major theatrically released films. The Genesis has been used to shoot about 15 of them.
Arriflex has the D20. It has been used on a few productions. But Arri's heart isn't really into digital cinema. Most of their innovation is still in film cameras.
Quote:
I said that the shutter is independent of the stutter. you mistake my statement.
"Many cameras have variable shutters. The widest standard shutter is 210 degrees. Which is not appreciably different from 180 degree. Closing the shutter down more and more has an effect on the image. The more closed down the shutter, the shorter the exposure, and therefore the sharper the image. A shutter angle of 90 degrees for example will be a much cleaner sharper image of any moving object. Beyond 90 degrees there is another effect in addition to sharpeness. Since the shutter is now closed significantly longer than it is open, the subject has more time to move between exposures. This will result in a strobe effect with a stuttering motion effect. This was used extensively in Saving Private Ryan and Three Kings as well as many music videos."
From the book Cinematography: Theory and Practice.
Quote:
I also said that the shutters use mirrors.
You said many cameras don't use shutters but rather a rotating mirror. The shutter does rotate and the mirror is on the shutter.
Quote:
The point is that whether a motor is used, or electronic methods are used, all shutters are subject to variances.
At worst its such an infinitesimally small error its inconsequential.
What Kodak does is to look at the batches, and after measurement, match up the ones that are the closest, and fall within their parameters. They then call those "matched".
Whatever they do I can shoot 5205 and 5218. As long the exposure and contrast are comparable they will cut seamlessly together in editing.
Quote:
Wikipedia has an article about the Panavision Genesis. It's incomplete, but has the basics.
Half of the films listed the Genesis was used for VFX plate shots. The principle photography was on 35mm.
Quote:
Most Tv dramas today are shot in Hd, not film.
Here are the shows shot on 35mm and a few on super 16.
Just as with still film, more older stocks are being discontinued than are being replaced. There are fewer film stocks today than there were ten years ago, and that will continue.
Kodak's list of motion picture film stocks in the 90's
5245/7245 EXR 50D
5248/7248 EXR 100T
5274/7274 VISION 200T
5246/7246 VISION 250D
5277/7277 VISION 320T
5263/7263 VISION 500T
5279/7279 VISION 500T
5284/7284 VISION 500T "Expression"
5289/7289 VISION 800T
Kodaks list of motion picture film stocks 2008.
5201/7201 VISION2 50D
5212/7212 VISION2 100T
5217/7217 VISION2 200T
5205/7205 VISION2 250D
5218/7218 VISION2 500T
5229/7229 VISION2 500T "Expression"
5299/7299 VISION2 500T
5219/7219 VISION3 500T
Kodak has said they will release more Vision 3 stocks.
Quote:
I've already addressed this, but I can say that you are bhind here. It's true that in the early 2000's, Hd didn't provide much benefit, as few had hi def widescreen Tv's. That siruationed changes, and there are far more Hd Tv's around, as there is HD programming. The networks do a great deal of HD programming, as you can see by flipping through TV Guide. The secondary networks do much less, though that is changing.
- This is the industry I work in. These are the tools I work with everyday.
- The choice to use or not use HD for production has nothing to do with what televisions people are using.
- Just because you are watching a show in HD does not mean it was produced in HD. Film images are transfered to HD and broadcast in HD.
I'm looking to buy Aperture 2.0 off the Apple website. My question is: how many computers will I be able to install it on if I opt to have an installation disk sent to me? I would assume at least 2, but I want to make sure before I assume.
I downloaded the trial of Aperture 2 but i can't find the filters anywhere! Is it that there aren't any? If not, how could Apple have overlooked this? Surely there should have been support for Core Image filters...It astonishes me that they're not there as it would have been really easy for Apple to implement. Is there a plugin that will give me access to the filters?
Other than that it's a great program, and pretty fast so I don't know what people are complaining about.
As far as I know, Apple doesn't use activation, as long as you have a valid serial you could install it on two or more computers, though if you buy a single user license I think it implies that only you could use the computers, if anyone else is using the software, they need to buy their own license! Make sense? That's my interpretation anyway. So in answer, as many computers as you like, but don't let anyone else use the software!
I downloaded the trial of Aperture 2 but i can't find the filters anywhere! Is it that there aren't any? If not, how could Apple have overlooked this? Surely there should have been support for Core Image filters...It astonishes me that they're not there as it would have been really easy for Apple to implement. Is there a plugin that will give me access to the filters?
Other than that it's a great program, and pretty fast so I don't know what people are complaining about.
Filters? What kind of filters would you like and what would you use them for?
I'm using aperture since 1.0 and find it pretty much does all I need it to do for my photography needs (amateur, using digital rebel), so I'm curious to what more you need/want.
Well, the core image filters allow you to do a variety of things, but I guess this is more classed as photo editing rather than photo import/organisation. I found a cool image application that uses the Core Image filters called Pixelmator. I now have little to no need for Photoshop!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutch pear
Filters? What kind of filters would you like and what would you use them for?
I'm using aperture since 1.0 and find it pretty much does all I need it to do for my photography needs (amateur, using digital rebel), so I'm curious to what more you need/want.
I personally prefer Photoshop more not only because of its detail enhancement but also due to its radically-conjured filters and effects. If Aperture would utilize some of that same techonolgy in a way that outdoes Adobe's, then I would definitely consider Aperture.
That was one monster pissing contest you guys had there. However, the questions about Aperture and Photoshop were the ones I was actually interested in. One of you stated CR4 has a lot more control. Cool, but anything of importance? Something someone might miss more than once every 100 years?
Maybe you could focus on that instead of just saying CR4 has more stuff. So tell us what's the more stuff is so we can decide if it's stuff we'd use.
I use CS2 for most of my image processing now, and in 90% of my pictures that doesn't involve much more than doing an Apple-Shift-I and a resize. The lack of a cataloguing and storage function in CS2 is the majour issue for me. I've started using iPhoto for storage and CS2 for processing images seperately. It is a pain to have to use different software for different functions. That is the appeal of Aperture. The issue raised about "maximum image quality" is kind of moot. Without clear examples, there's no way to evaluate what that might be worth to me. Given the ease of use of Aperture and it's integration with other Apple software that I use everyday, there's going to have to be an easily noticeable difference. If I have to blow things up to 200% to see the difference, I'm not going to care.
Another point would be the assertation that CR4 produces better images with the same raw data. OK, that should be easy to show with a couple of pictures. I have to say, to make a statement like that you really need to have blind tested the products and done a side by side comparison, without knowing which is which. I actually wouldn't make a statement like the one you made unless I had done that. Unless of course you're saying the differences are so obvious any amateur can pick them out.
Now if you just want to say the images from CR4 make you happier that's a wonderful thing. But I think the question being asked, is, how do you know what makes you happy will make anyone else happy?
I once saw a comparison in a popular magazine of my camera and a few others. The writer talked about punch, contrast all the things you need in a finished image. From his perspective every other DSLR out there was better than mine. But when I actually looked at the images I realized there was way more detail in the highlights and shadows. The pictures were a little flatter than the others, but, I can create shadows and highlights in the processing. I was always taught , go for every bit of information you can in your original. So I came away from the article thinking that even though my camera was the lowest rated, it was the best for the way I was taught to shoot.
As for all the comments about Aperture 1 and 1.5, I really don't need to hear them. I don't plan to buy 1 or 1.5. Apple says they have an all new image processing engine. For all we know they licensed it from Adobe or someone else.
A couple of images illustrating your points would be pretty much all I'd look at. You can go on with the theoretical crap all you want. We're talking about pictures. Arguing about who's processing engine is better and blah blah blah is meaningless, if I can't see a difference. So if you want to argue that one gives you more control over the others , that's good, but also, let us know in what percent of the images we take, are those controls needed. For those of us who take thousands of images every year, we aren't going to tweak every image to get the maximum out of it. There'd be no point in doing so. You seem to be saying you can't achieve acceptable results in Aperture and then doing the whole ego thing about how high your standards are. SO I have to ask, if you concerns about image engines are so high, why aren't you shooting with a Sigma and the Foveon sensor? It kind makes the whole image engine thing a moot point doesn't it?
normhead, I think there is a way to know this and avoid any potential posturing. Apple offers a free 30 day trial for Aperture. Adobe offers the same for Lightroom. You can try them both out and test it for yourself on your own pictures.
But yes, I think I understand your points about the camera, it's a tool. Anyone that understands the limitations and capabilities of the tool is going to get more out of it than those that don't, and even exceed that of less knowledgeable people with better equipment. If what you have suits your shooting style, then that's wonderful.
That was one monster pissing contest you guys had there. However, the questions about Aperture and Photoshop were the ones I was actually interested in. One of you stated CR4 has a lot more control. Cool, but anything of importance? Something someone might miss more than once every 100 years?
Maybe you could focus on that instead of just saying CR4 has more stuff. So tell us what's the more stuff is so we can decide if it's stuff we'd use.
I use CS2 for most of my image processing now, and in 90% of my pictures that doesn't involve much more than doing an Apple-Shift-I and a resize. The lack of a cataloguing and storage function in CS2 is the majour issue for me. I've started using iPhoto for storage and CS2 for processing images seperately. It is a pain to have to use different software for different functions. That is the appeal of Aperture. The issue raised about "maximum image quality" is kind of moot. Without clear examples, there's no way to evaluate what that might be worth to me. Given the ease of use of Aperture and it's integration with other Apple software that I use everyday, there's going to have to be an easily noticeable difference. If I have to blow things up to 200% to see the difference, I'm not going to care.
Another point would be the assertation that CR4 produces better images with the same raw data. OK, that should be easy to show with a couple of pictures. I have to say, to make a statement like that you really need to have blind tested the products and done a side by side comparison, without knowing which is which. I actually wouldn't make a statement like the one you made unless I had done that. Unless of course you're saying the differences are so obvious any amateur can pick them out.
Now if you just want to say the images from CR4 make you happier that's a wonderful thing. But I think the question being asked, is, how do you know what makes you happy will make anyone else happy?
I once saw a comparison in a popular magazine of my camera and a few others. The writer talked about punch, contrast all the things you need in a finished image. From his perspective every other DSLR out there was better than mine. But when I actually looked at the images I realized there was way more detail in the highlights and shadows. The pictures were a little flatter than the others, but, I can create shadows and highlights in the processing. I was always taught , go for every bit of information you can in your original. So I came away from the article thinking that even though my camera was the lowest rated, it was the best for the way I was taught to shoot.
As for all the comments about Aperture 1 and 1.5, I really don't need to hear them. I don't plan to buy 1 or 1.5. Apple says they have an all new image processing engine. For all we know they licensed it from Adobe or someone else.
A couple of images illustrating your points would be pretty much all I'd look at. You can go on with the theoretical crap all you want. We're talking about pictures. Arguing about who's processing engine is better and blah blah blah is meaningless, if I can't see a difference. So if you want to argue that one gives you more control over the others , that's good, but also, let us know in what percent of the images we take, are those controls needed. For those of us who take thousands of images every year, we aren't going to tweak every image to get the maximum out of it. There'd be no point in doing so. You seem to be saying you can't achieve acceptable results in Aperture and then doing the whole ego thing about how high your standards are. SO I have to ask, if you concerns about image engines are so high, why aren't you shooting with a Sigma and the Foveon sensor? It kind makes the whole image engine thing a moot point doesn't it?
Showing a couple of images on the internet is the worst way to show the differences. You don't now what has been done to the files, so you have no way to verify if the work done was even correctly done.
If you know Photoshop well, then the best thing to do is to go to Adobe's site, and download the 30 day free trial, and try it out for yourself.
If you don't know it all that well, and from what you say you do to a file, it sounds as though that may be the case, then it doesn't matter that much.
The differences are going to matter the most to those who wish to get the most out of every image. If that isn't required, then it doesn't matter which program you use.
Don't be a smartass, and accuse those of us who do care about the highest quality we get, of being egotists. For those of us who do, or did, commercial work, the clients demand that quality. It's not an option.
For those of us who do take thousands of pictures a year, there are automation features in both CR5 and PS to take care of the drudge work. I don't have to tweak each image in a batch individually most of the time, because generally, many of those images require the same treatment, particuarly those taken within controlled situations.
I can often take four or five minutes to work on one, and have the program apply it to all the images that need it. It's called batch processing, and all heavy PS users know about, and use it.
We also don't care if YOU don't care about the differences between Aperture 1 and 1.5. There are other people on this thread, and there are those who do care. Pass those comments that aren't of interest by.
As for the Sigma and Foveon chip. Well, quite frankly, neither is very impressive.
If you want information here, then ask some more specific questions, and we'll see if we have answers for you.
If you want information here, then ask some more specific questions, and we'll see if we have answers for you.
I was particularly interested in your assertion the the image processing engine was better in one than in the other. I assume that having said that, a demonstration would be easy to do, since that is the first step in whatever comes after. Start with the same raw image load it into one program, load it into the other, show us the difference. How long could it take? If you don't want to do it no problem, just when people make statements like that, I like to see examples. If it's too much work, don't bother.
If you want to talk about important modern cameras, you forgot the most imoportant one of all, which is the Panavision Genesis. I haven't heard of the Arri's having that much marketshare amongst major motion pictures.
I used to use the Mitchel 35 and Arri 35 for commercial shoots, but that was a while ago.
Although RED is making the big noise among cinematographers now.
Comments
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.
This is all totally wrong MelGross.
General layout of the film advance and shutter mechanism in a conventional motion picture camera.
All motion picture cameras have basically the exact same shutter design. The shutter on a motion picture camera is a 180 degree half circle. When the circle is open the film frame is held steady in the gate for exposure. When the circle closes the film is being advanced to the next frame. The shutter closing stops any light from exposing the film while it is being advanced to the next frame. The film moves at 24 frames per second, the shutter spins at 1/24th of a second.
There are no slight differences all cameras do this at the same rate. This is important because their are machines that will play back the images later. Those machines will play the film at 24 frames per second and spin a shutter at 1/24th of a second. Those machines will not compensate for any variances. The film is indiscriminately played back at the exact same rate no matter what camera it was shot on.
All motion picture cameras made in the last 30 years have a mirror on the shutter. This is called the reflex viewing system. When the shutter has closed light from exposing the film. The mirror on the shutter reflects light from the lens up into a prism. The prism sends that light into the viewfinder and into the camera operators eye. The camera operator is seeing this light at 1/24th of a second. The old viewing system was called a parallax viewing system where the viewfinder had a different lens from the main lens that exposed the film.
The shutter angle is adjustable on all modern cameras from 11.5 to 180 degrees. The higher end cameras have motors that open and close the shutter from electronic controls. You can even change the shutter angle while the camera is rolling. This can be done to change the exposure without effecting the depth of field. Lower end cameras have shutter that can be manually adjusted using a tool like a hex key.
The pull down claw has nothing directly to do with the shutter. Nearly film camera has a pull down claw. That is how the film is advanced in the gate. Aaton is the only company that does not use pull down claws, they have a magnetic system to advance the film.
I'm talking about motion picture film stock. Those are the specs. You can find them in Kodaks Eastman tech literature.
Kodak's motion picture literature says all Vision stocks are color matched. And I know its true because I've shot millions of feet of Kodak film.
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.
When motion picture film is developed the lab gives a lap printer light report. This report informs how dense the yellow, cyan, and magenta layers of the film have been exposed. The base of well exposed negative is generally 25-25-25. Which means when the film is viewed red, green, and blue will appear as normal and natural as the original scene. Often for aesthetic reasons colors and contrast in movies are not normal or natural so printer lights for each movie will be radically different.
The cinematographer and the lab will establish the movies printer lights at the beginning of the film shoot and any variances in exposure or color due to lab processing will be seen in this report and can be easily compensated for when the film is printed.
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.
Independent and low budget movies are a mixed bag as they shoot on whatever the production can afford or have access to. There are around 300 movies that receive wide theatrical distribution a year. Of those 300 movies around 10 have been shot in digital. Digitally shot film receive a lot of hype because they've been shot digitally but in reality there are not very many.
What I hear from Kodak is that they are selling more film now than they ever have in history. Their is more content being created around the world than their has ever been in history.
Kodak has discontinued old motion picture film stocks as they phase in newer technology in film stocks. Many older cinematographers are upset about Kodak discontinuing these old stocks. They feel the new stocks are too clean and too sharp loosing the characteristics that define film.
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 really.
There has been some experimentation with HD in television. In the early 2000's sitcoms went almost totally HD and some new hour long dramas were HD. But HD's advantages weren't really found to be all that much better. The early HD cameras were designed around the ENG camera design and do not fit well into a film environment. HD quality still does not nearly reach the quality of 35mm and at the same time 35mm has been getting better. The cost of HD did not turn out to be much less than 35mm. The average budget for movies is 60 million the average television budget is 1.5 million. The cost of film is pretty negligible. Archiving is a big issue for HD. Their has been no proven or stable way to ensure HD content can be archived. Film has proven archivability and its high resolution will ensure a show will meet any future television standards.
Today's television line up is mostly hour long dramas and reality shows. Hour long dramas are nearly all shot on 35mm. The sitcom format is less popular today and the few that remain are also mostly shot on 35mm.
Commercials also have experimented with HD. But are still mostly shot on 35mm. This insures commercials can be repurposed for any medium from the web to the big screen movie theater.
HD cameras have easily replaced everything SD cameras were doing before. But HD was not excepted in the film world the video camera manufacturers had hoped. Many have gone back to the drawing board and have designed camera bodies that are more like film cameras. They are building higher resolution single sensors. We shall see how well these cameras perform and are accepted.
That sounds nifty. What model camera & remote would those be?
The Arriflex Wireless Remote Control that works with the Arricam, Arri 435, and Arri 416
Panavision Wireless Remote that works with all models of Panaflex and Millinium XL cameras.
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 are the six most popular cameras working in motion picture today.
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.
If you want to talk about important modern cameras, you forgot the most imoportant one of all, which is the Panavision Genesis. I haven't heard of the Arri's having that much marketshare amongst major motion pictures.
I used to use the Mitchel 35 and Arri 35 for commercial shoots, but that was a while ago.
This is all totally wrong MelGross.
General layout of the film advance and shutter mechanism in a conventional motion picture camera.
All motion picture cameras have basically the exact same shutter design. The shutter on a motion picture camera is a 180 degree half circle. When the circle is open the film frame is held steady in the gate for exposure. When the circle closes the film is being advanced to the next frame. The shutter closing stops any light from exposing the film while it is being advanced to the next frame. The film moves at 24 frames per second, the shutter spins at 1/24th of a second.
There are no slight differences all cameras do this at the same rate. This is important because their are machines that will play back the images later. Those machines will play the film at 24 frames per second and spin a shutter at 1/24th of a second. Those machines will not compensate for any variances. The film is indiscriminately played back at the exact same rate no matter what camera it was shot on.
All motion picture cameras made in the last 30 years have a mirror on the shutter. This is called the reflex viewing system. When the shutter has closed light from exposing the film. The mirror on the shutter reflects light from the lens up into a prism. The prism sends that light into the viewfinder and into the camera operators eye. The camera operator is seeing this light at 1/24th of a second. The old viewing system was called a parallax viewing system where the viewfinder had a different lens from the main lens that exposed the film.
The shutter angle is adjustable on all modern cameras from 11.5 to 180 degrees. The higher end cameras have motors that open and close the shutter from electronic controls. You can even change the shutter angle while the camera is rolling. This can be done to change the exposure without effecting the depth of field. Lower end cameras have shutter that can be manually adjusted using a tool like a hex key.
The pull down claw has nothing directly to do with the shutter. Nearly film camera has a pull down claw. That is how the film is advanced in the gate. Aaton is the only company that does not use pull down claws, they have a magnetic system to advance the film.
I said that the shutter is indepenrent of the shutter. you mistake my statement.
The
I also said that the shutters use mirrors. all you are doing is confirming what I already said, except that the shutter itself is subject to slight variances. An attempt to prevent that was to use a mirrored shutter that rotated so that light was reflected through the gate only when the mirror was at a specific angle.
The point is that whether a motor is used, or electronic methods are used, all shutters are subject to variances.
Kodak's motion picture literature says all Vision stocks are color matched. And I know its true because I've shot millions of feet of Kodak film.
Color matched within a certain range. not color matched, as in excatly matched. That would be impossible.
What Kodak does is to look at the batches, and after measurement, match up the ones that are the closest, and fall within their parameters. They then call those "matched".
When motion picture film is developed the lab gives a lap printer light report. This report informs how dense the yellow, cyan, and magenta layers of the film have been exposed. The base of well exposed negative is generally 25-25-25. Which means when the film is viewed red, green, and blue will appear as normal and natural as the original scene. Often for aesthetic reasons colors and contrast in movies are not normal or natural so printer lights for each movie will be radically different.
This is not different to what we would do in our process of duping 70mm, or even single frame work.
But, in the end, there is a final process that comes after all the testing, matching and enumeration, that moves the product out of where perfection would be.
The cinematographer and the lab will establish the movies printer lights at the beginning of the film shoot and any variances in exposure or color due to lab processing will be seen in this report and can be easily compensated for when the film is printed.
I wish it was as accurate as you like.
Independent and low budget movies are a mixed bag as they shoot on whatever the production can afford or have access to. There are around 300 movies that receive wide theatrical distribution a year. Of those 300 movies around 10 have been shot in digital. Digitally shot film receive a lot of hype because they've been shot digitally but in reality there are not very many.
Wikipedia has an article about the Panavision Genesis. It's incomplete, but has the basics.
It has some of the films shot with it (there are more). It also mentions a few of the Tv shows, there are also more. I'm sure Panavision would be glad to provide all of the films shot with their camera, as will any of the other digital makers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_(Panavision)
Considering that this is only one of a number of digital cameras in use today, the list of films is much more extensive than this, as are the Tv programs.
Most Tv dramas today are shot in Hd, not film. The major late night shows are also shot that way, as are news broadcasts, morning shows, nature shows, sports, etc. Some networks are shooting all of their new programing in Hd, such as the Nat Geographic channel, Universal HD, HBO, etc.
What I hear from Kodak is that they are selling more film now than they ever have in history. Their is more content being created around the world than their has ever been in history.
What I've heard from kodak is that there was a resurgence in the mid to late '90's, but that it has died out.
Considering that most movies are made in third world countries such as India and China, and their production values, for the most part, are lower than those in the west, it's true that for a time most of their productions will continue to use film and older equipment. But as digital continues to drop in price, that will change before too long.
Kodak has discontinued old motion picture film stocks as they phase in newer technology in film stocks. Many older cinematographers are upset about Kodak discontinuing these old stocks. They feel the new stocks are too clean and too sharp loosing the characteristics that define film.
Just as with still film, more older stocks are being discontinued than are being replaced. There are fewer film stocks today than there were ten years ago, and that will continue.
Not really.
There has been some experimentation with HD in television. In the early 2000's sitcoms went almost totally HD and some new hour long dramas were HD. But HD's advantages weren't really found to be all that much better. The early HD cameras were designed around the ENG camera design and do not fit well into a film environment. HD quality still does not nearly reach the quality of 35mm and at the same time 35mm has been getting better. The cost of HD did not turn out to be much less than 35mm. The average budget for movies is 60 million the average television budget is 1.5 million. The cost of film is pretty negligible. Archiving is a big issue for HD. Their has been no proven or stable way to ensure HD content can be archived. Film has proven archivability and its high resolution will ensure a show will meet any future television standards.
Today's television line up is mostly hour long dramas and reality shows. Hour long dramas are nearly all shot on 35mm. The sitcom format is less popular today and the few that remain are also mostly shot on 35mm.
Commercials also have experimented with HD. But are still mostly shot on 35mm. This insures commercials can be repurposed for any medium from the web to the big screen movie theater.
HD cameras have easily replaced everything SD cameras were doing before. But HD was not excepted in the film world the video camera manufacturers had hoped. Many have gone back to the drawing board and have designed camera bodies that are more like film cameras. They are building higher resolution single sensors. We shall see how well these cameras perform and are accepted.
I've already addressed this, but I can say that you are bhind here. It's true that in the early 2000's, Hd didn't provide much benefit, as few had hi def widescreen Tv's. That siruationed changes, and there are far more Hd Tv's around, as there is HD programming. The networks do a great deal of HD programming, as you can see by flipping through TV Guide. The secondary networks do much less, though that is changing.
If you want to talk about important modern cameras, you forgot the most imoportant one of all, which is the Panavision Genesis. I haven't heard of the Arri's having that much marketshare amongst major motion pictures.
Lets say over the past two years there have been about 600 major theatrically released films. The Genesis has been used to shoot about 15 of them.
Arriflex has the D20. It has been used on a few productions. But Arri's heart isn't really into digital cinema. Most of their innovation is still in film cameras.
I said that the shutter is independent of the stutter. you mistake my statement.
"Many cameras have variable shutters. The widest standard shutter is 210 degrees. Which is not appreciably different from 180 degree. Closing the shutter down more and more has an effect on the image. The more closed down the shutter, the shorter the exposure, and therefore the sharper the image. A shutter angle of 90 degrees for example will be a much cleaner sharper image of any moving object. Beyond 90 degrees there is another effect in addition to sharpeness. Since the shutter is now closed significantly longer than it is open, the subject has more time to move between exposures. This will result in a strobe effect with a stuttering motion effect. This was used extensively in Saving Private Ryan and Three Kings as well as many music videos."
From the book Cinematography: Theory and Practice.
I also said that the shutters use mirrors.
You said many cameras don't use shutters but rather a rotating mirror. The shutter does rotate and the mirror is on the shutter.
The point is that whether a motor is used, or electronic methods are used, all shutters are subject to variances.
At worst its such an infinitesimally small error its inconsequential.
What Kodak does is to look at the batches, and after measurement, match up the ones that are the closest, and fall within their parameters. They then call those "matched".
Whatever they do I can shoot 5205 and 5218. As long the exposure and contrast are comparable they will cut seamlessly together in editing.
Wikipedia has an article about the Panavision Genesis. It's incomplete, but has the basics.
Half of the films listed the Genesis was used for VFX plate shots. The principle photography was on 35mm.
Most Tv dramas today are shot in Hd, not film.
Here are the shows shot on 35mm and a few on super 16.
ABC:
Boston Legal
Brothers & Sisters
Desperate Housewives
Dirty Sexy Money
Eli Stone
Grey's Anatomy
Lost
Men In Trees
Private Practice
Pushing Daisies
NBC:
30 Rock
Bionic Woman
Chuck
ER
Heros
Friday Night Lights
Knight Rider
Las Vegas
Law & Order
L&O SVU
Lipstick Jungle
Medium
My Name is Earl
Scrubs (super 16)
CBS:
Cold Case
CSI
CSI: Miami
CSI: New York
Ghost Whisperer
Jericho
NCIS
Numb3ers
The Unit
Without A Trace
Fox/FX:
24
Bones
House
Prison Break
Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicles
Nip Tuck
The Shield (super 16)
CW:
Reaper
One Tree Hill
Supernatural
Smallville
Aliens in America
HBO:
The Sopranos
The Wire
Entourage
Big Love
Rome
Deadwood
Six Feet Under
Sex And The City (super 16)
Carnival
Scripted shows shot in HD.
ABC:
According to Jim
NBC:
The Office
CBS:
Two and a Half Men
CW:
Everybody Hates Chris
FX:
Rescue Me
Damages
Dirt
Showtime:
The L Word
Weeds
Dexter
Californication
HBO:
Curb Your Enthusiasm
Extras
Flight of The Concords
Just as with still film, more older stocks are being discontinued than are being replaced. There are fewer film stocks today than there were ten years ago, and that will continue.
Kodak's list of motion picture film stocks in the 90's
5245/7245 EXR 50D
5248/7248 EXR 100T
5274/7274 VISION 200T
5246/7246 VISION 250D
5277/7277 VISION 320T
5263/7263 VISION 500T
5279/7279 VISION 500T
5284/7284 VISION 500T "Expression"
5289/7289 VISION 800T
Kodaks list of motion picture film stocks 2008.
5201/7201 VISION2 50D
5212/7212 VISION2 100T
5217/7217 VISION2 200T
5205/7205 VISION2 250D
5218/7218 VISION2 500T
5229/7229 VISION2 500T "Expression"
5299/7299 VISION2 500T
5219/7219 VISION3 500T
Kodak has said they will release more Vision 3 stocks.
I've already addressed this, but I can say that you are bhind here. It's true that in the early 2000's, Hd didn't provide much benefit, as few had hi def widescreen Tv's. That siruationed changes, and there are far more Hd Tv's around, as there is HD programming. The networks do a great deal of HD programming, as you can see by flipping through TV Guide. The secondary networks do much less, though that is changing.
- This is the industry I work in. These are the tools I work with everyday.
- The choice to use or not use HD for production has nothing to do with what televisions people are using.
- Just because you are watching a show in HD does not mean it was produced in HD. Film images are transfered to HD and broadcast in HD.
Other than that it's a great program, and pretty fast so I don't know what people are complaining about.
I downloaded the trial of Aperture 2 but i can't find the filters anywhere!
Other than that it's a great program, and pretty fast so I don't know what people are complaining about.
Filters? What kind of filters would you like and what would you use them for?
I'm using aperture since 1.0 and find it pretty much does all I need it to do for my photography needs (amateur, using digital rebel), so I'm curious to what more you need/want.
Filters? What kind of filters would you like and what would you use them for?
I'm using aperture since 1.0 and find it pretty much does all I need it to do for my photography needs (amateur, using digital rebel), so I'm curious to what more you need/want.
Maybe you could focus on that instead of just saying CR4 has more stuff. So tell us what's the more stuff is so we can decide if it's stuff we'd use.
I use CS2 for most of my image processing now, and in 90% of my pictures that doesn't involve much more than doing an Apple-Shift-I and a resize. The lack of a cataloguing and storage function in CS2 is the majour issue for me. I've started using iPhoto for storage and CS2 for processing images seperately. It is a pain to have to use different software for different functions. That is the appeal of Aperture. The issue raised about "maximum image quality" is kind of moot. Without clear examples, there's no way to evaluate what that might be worth to me. Given the ease of use of Aperture and it's integration with other Apple software that I use everyday, there's going to have to be an easily noticeable difference. If I have to blow things up to 200% to see the difference, I'm not going to care.
Another point would be the assertation that CR4 produces better images with the same raw data. OK, that should be easy to show with a couple of pictures. I have to say, to make a statement like that you really need to have blind tested the products and done a side by side comparison, without knowing which is which. I actually wouldn't make a statement like the one you made unless I had done that. Unless of course you're saying the differences are so obvious any amateur can pick them out.
Now if you just want to say the images from CR4 make you happier that's a wonderful thing. But I think the question being asked, is, how do you know what makes you happy will make anyone else happy?
I once saw a comparison in a popular magazine of my camera and a few others. The writer talked about punch, contrast all the things you need in a finished image. From his perspective every other DSLR out there was better than mine. But when I actually looked at the images I realized there was way more detail in the highlights and shadows. The pictures were a little flatter than the others, but, I can create shadows and highlights in the processing. I was always taught , go for every bit of information you can in your original. So I came away from the article thinking that even though my camera was the lowest rated, it was the best for the way I was taught to shoot.
As for all the comments about Aperture 1 and 1.5, I really don't need to hear them. I don't plan to buy 1 or 1.5. Apple says they have an all new image processing engine. For all we know they licensed it from Adobe or someone else.
A couple of images illustrating your points would be pretty much all I'd look at. You can go on with the theoretical crap all you want. We're talking about pictures. Arguing about who's processing engine is better and blah blah blah is meaningless, if I can't see a difference. So if you want to argue that one gives you more control over the others , that's good, but also, let us know in what percent of the images we take, are those controls needed. For those of us who take thousands of images every year, we aren't going to tweak every image to get the maximum out of it. There'd be no point in doing so. You seem to be saying you can't achieve acceptable results in Aperture and then doing the whole ego thing about how high your standards are. SO I have to ask, if you concerns about image engines are so high, why aren't you shooting with a Sigma and the Foveon sensor? It kind makes the whole image engine thing a moot point doesn't it?
But yes, I think I understand your points about the camera, it's a tool. Anyone that understands the limitations and capabilities of the tool is going to get more out of it than those that don't, and even exceed that of less knowledgeable people with better equipment. If what you have suits your shooting style, then that's wonderful.
That was one monster pissing contest you guys had there. However, the questions about Aperture and Photoshop were the ones I was actually interested in. One of you stated CR4 has a lot more control. Cool, but anything of importance? Something someone might miss more than once every 100 years?
Maybe you could focus on that instead of just saying CR4 has more stuff. So tell us what's the more stuff is so we can decide if it's stuff we'd use.
I use CS2 for most of my image processing now, and in 90% of my pictures that doesn't involve much more than doing an Apple-Shift-I and a resize. The lack of a cataloguing and storage function in CS2 is the majour issue for me. I've started using iPhoto for storage and CS2 for processing images seperately. It is a pain to have to use different software for different functions. That is the appeal of Aperture. The issue raised about "maximum image quality" is kind of moot. Without clear examples, there's no way to evaluate what that might be worth to me. Given the ease of use of Aperture and it's integration with other Apple software that I use everyday, there's going to have to be an easily noticeable difference. If I have to blow things up to 200% to see the difference, I'm not going to care.
Another point would be the assertation that CR4 produces better images with the same raw data. OK, that should be easy to show with a couple of pictures. I have to say, to make a statement like that you really need to have blind tested the products and done a side by side comparison, without knowing which is which. I actually wouldn't make a statement like the one you made unless I had done that. Unless of course you're saying the differences are so obvious any amateur can pick them out.
Now if you just want to say the images from CR4 make you happier that's a wonderful thing. But I think the question being asked, is, how do you know what makes you happy will make anyone else happy?
I once saw a comparison in a popular magazine of my camera and a few others. The writer talked about punch, contrast all the things you need in a finished image. From his perspective every other DSLR out there was better than mine. But when I actually looked at the images I realized there was way more detail in the highlights and shadows. The pictures were a little flatter than the others, but, I can create shadows and highlights in the processing. I was always taught , go for every bit of information you can in your original. So I came away from the article thinking that even though my camera was the lowest rated, it was the best for the way I was taught to shoot.
As for all the comments about Aperture 1 and 1.5, I really don't need to hear them. I don't plan to buy 1 or 1.5. Apple says they have an all new image processing engine. For all we know they licensed it from Adobe or someone else.
A couple of images illustrating your points would be pretty much all I'd look at. You can go on with the theoretical crap all you want. We're talking about pictures. Arguing about who's processing engine is better and blah blah blah is meaningless, if I can't see a difference. So if you want to argue that one gives you more control over the others , that's good, but also, let us know in what percent of the images we take, are those controls needed. For those of us who take thousands of images every year, we aren't going to tweak every image to get the maximum out of it. There'd be no point in doing so. You seem to be saying you can't achieve acceptable results in Aperture and then doing the whole ego thing about how high your standards are. SO I have to ask, if you concerns about image engines are so high, why aren't you shooting with a Sigma and the Foveon sensor? It kind makes the whole image engine thing a moot point doesn't it?
Showing a couple of images on the internet is the worst way to show the differences. You don't now what has been done to the files, so you have no way to verify if the work done was even correctly done.
If you know Photoshop well, then the best thing to do is to go to Adobe's site, and download the 30 day free trial, and try it out for yourself.
If you don't know it all that well, and from what you say you do to a file, it sounds as though that may be the case, then it doesn't matter that much.
The differences are going to matter the most to those who wish to get the most out of every image. If that isn't required, then it doesn't matter which program you use.
Don't be a smartass, and accuse those of us who do care about the highest quality we get, of being egotists. For those of us who do, or did, commercial work, the clients demand that quality. It's not an option.
For those of us who do take thousands of pictures a year, there are automation features in both CR5 and PS to take care of the drudge work. I don't have to tweak each image in a batch individually most of the time, because generally, many of those images require the same treatment, particuarly those taken within controlled situations.
I can often take four or five minutes to work on one, and have the program apply it to all the images that need it. It's called batch processing, and all heavy PS users know about, and use it.
We also don't care if YOU don't care about the differences between Aperture 1 and 1.5. There are other people on this thread, and there are those who do care. Pass those comments that aren't of interest by.
As for the Sigma and Foveon chip. Well, quite frankly, neither is very impressive.
If you want information here, then ask some more specific questions, and we'll see if we have answers for you.
If you want information here, then ask some more specific questions, and we'll see if we have answers for you.
I was particularly interested in your assertion the the image processing engine was better in one than in the other. I assume that having said that, a demonstration would be easy to do, since that is the first step in whatever comes after. Start with the same raw image load it into one program, load it into the other, show us the difference. How long could it take? If you don't want to do it no problem, just when people make statements like that, I like to see examples. If it's too much work, don't bother.
If you want to talk about important modern cameras, you forgot the most imoportant one of all, which is the Panavision Genesis. I haven't heard of the Arri's having that much marketshare amongst major motion pictures.
I used to use the Mitchel 35 and Arri 35 for commercial shoots, but that was a while ago.
Although RED is making the big noise among cinematographers now.