Jump to content


Photo

Do Current Cameras not have Viewfinders?


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#21 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 13 July 2017 - 09:57 AM

 

Wow, that's really cool to hear.  It must mean there's some sort of evidence that the majority of people aren't watching this stuff on their phones, which is very encouraging.  

 

 

Sadly that might be a bit of a jump but some stuff is destined for TV and the movies and some stuff is made with internet and phones in mind, so I get the impression it is going in two directions with stuff like Netflix and broadcast TV trying to be more cinema like and a lot stuff made with more internetty ideas in mind (I'm not sure there is a word for what I mean) being made with an eye to smaller devices.

 

Freya


  • 0

#22 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 13 July 2017 - 10:02 AM

Well its 4K for HD delivery so these little zooms,pans.. although I dont like them myself .. are not really doing any noticeable damage to the image.. actually I was going to post the same comment as Dave re Freya,s post.. doc,s too we often now tend to shoot wider angles and very wide landscapes due to the average tv now being huge... compared to say 5-10 years ago the you would never do it as all the details would be so small..  

 

 

It's a really good point that you and David make and TV's are likely to get even bigger I suspect.

 

I also like the way that everyone neatly stepped over the really awful and horrible thing I said or implied at the start of that post... but lets not go there! ;)

 

Freya


  • 0

#23 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1903 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 13 July 2017 - 10:21 AM

I saw today a 55 inch 4K TV for approx $500 !!  .. not a well known brand.. at least not one of the usual suspects.. although they are no doubt made in the same factories in China, till Sony et el put a sticker on the front in Tokyo and jack the price up....  but these things are getting cheaper by the day.. and the 55 inch was looking small in the show room.. !..and the picture look fine to me.. 

 

There has to be a limit I guess.. but now 55/65 inch tv, s are pretty much the norm it seems..  my kids watch youtube rubbish stuff on their phones.. but films or drama on at least a computer screen.. and mostly a TV.. I think even kids don't want to watch a film on their phone.. so far anyway..!! and seems like cinemas might have to get way bigger screens to keep their audiences too... 


  • 0

#24 Simon Wyss

Simon Wyss
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1410 posts
  • Other
  • Basel, Switzerland

Posted 13 July 2017 - 10:36 AM

I don't believe in post reframing as a general principle, the original composition must have some authority and be respected.

 

Totally agree with David. Movie cameras with elaborate viewfinders, an image aspect ratio chosen for composition, there is nothing to doctor with. If there is something old school about filmmaking, something of consistency, it is perspective, focal length, distance, and framing. Everything else belongs in the modern times basket, even sound. I’m an old fart but no fool, everything modern times is not good per se. To explain myself more clearly: you cannot shoot a classic like The Third Man or The Lady From Shanghai in 16:9 or reframed by somebody else than the DoP. One can’t even enjoy Chaplin’s Modern Times on a pixel screen. One kills films with computers.

 

I said films.


  • 1

#25 Stephen Baldassarre

Stephen Baldassarre
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Idaho

Posted 14 July 2017 - 10:41 AM

It's a bit humourous to hear how spoiled everyone has become...  Think of all the legendary movies shot with T3.9 25-250 zooms, 50 ASA

or 100 ASA stocks, and hand zooming or more primitive zoom motors, and no one bitched back then.

Many movies were shot without zooms.  I also know of some classics that were shot using a single prime lens, like "20,000 Leagues..."

What about "Barry Lyndon" which had scenes lit entirely by candles on 100 ISO film?  I'm not a fan of that movie but there's no doubt of its cinematic beauty.

I actually think being stuck with lower ISOs can have advantages.  It forces people to compose and light better rather than what a lot of people do now, which is show up on-scene with little/no lighting and relying on electronics to make the image work.  I said it elsewhere my go-to stock for indoor AND outdoor shoots was 7217 because it was so sharp and low-grain.  I really miss it.  The last shoot I did on location was with a camera that was NATIVELY 800 ISO, and not "marketing ISO" like BM but the actual ISO.  It was an F16 day so I was really struggling to get in the sweet spot of the lens, even with an ND filter.

On a side note, I can't for the life of me figure out why 400+ ISO still film would be daylight balanced.  If you want to shoot indoors, you have to use an 80a filter, effectively making it 200 ISO.

 

I saw today a 55 inch 4K TV for approx $500 !!

More evidence that marketing is more important than quality.  I gladly paid a lot more for a mere 1920x1080 TV because there simply wasn't any denying it had the best image.  Most people simply think "more pixels is better", like why cell phone image sensors have 12-20MP when more than 6MP or so is actually detrimental to quality due to dynamic range and limitations of the lens.

 

 

To explain myself more clearly: you cannot shoot a classic like The Third Man or The Lady From Shanghai in 16:9 or reframed by somebody else than the DoP. One can’t even enjoy Chaplin’s Modern Times on a pixel screen. One kills films with computers.

 

I said films.

You sort of touched on two big pet peeves of mine: One is producers etc. changing the DP's content in post, often without his knowledge or input.  I've witnessed it first hand at premieres when the DP goes "that's not how I shot it!" or a grip saying "it looked so good on the studio monitors, now it looks like an Instagram filter."

 

The other is people who aren't even competent at video production calling what they do "films".  I cringe every time I hear one call themselves a "filmmaker".  I want to go "You have no idea what being a filmmaker means.  You don't have the basic knowledge or equipment required to do a proper job.  Have you ever even touched film?  You don't understand the workflow and you cheapen the entire industry by claiming to be a part of it."  Of course, I don't actually say that.  I just keep referring to their work as "video" and watch them get annoyed.  I don't really care, they harm the industry by producing inferior product while cutting into clientele that could have gone to reputable businesses.  I spend countless hours cleaning up their messes too.  I recently had to prep a video for projection in a 400-seat venue.  Not a single shot was within legal values and the dialogue AVERAGED -6dBfs RMS.  Nothing would have made it look/sound good but at least I could get levels within standard.  Most of them don't understand lighting, none of them understand audio.  They'll spend five hours on location and 30 hours color correcting/reframing/denoising etc. when an extra hour on location would mean only needing a few hours in post, yielding a better final product in process.

 

Call me an elitist if you must (and some do), which is odd because I make a lot of quick and dirty videos.  The difference is I don't call that film, nor do I call myself a "filmmaker". I think that brings up another point.  Film costs money, so you better be sure you get it right.  Video costs virtually nothing, so who cares about a bad shot?


  • 0


Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

CineTape

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider