Best Letus35+reel-stream footage ever

Kurt August · October 12th, 2005, 02:17 PM

Obin, I took the liberty to fool around a bit with your images. It seemed like there was a color shift. I moved some colors (mainly the red channel) a pixel or two.

The original:

http://www.lesoup.com/fileadmin/user..._h264_orig.jpg

The shifted:

http://www.lesoup.com/fileadmin/user...4_px_shift.jpg

The blurred parts of the paper come out better. Less blue, more paper. Also the annoying red lines where the image is sharp seem to be gone. I don't know what it would do to others objects or talent.

All things considered, I still hope for sharper results from these adapters (in my humble eyes, a 'film look' is very very sharp where it should be sharp, so soft seems like nonsense to me). Perhaps, video is the limit for now, which, considering the cost, would be fine for me.

I letterboxed it and played a bit more. Well, too much actually, but the point is, with a little help it really can look good. This is a pumpkin that I could eat...

Letterboxed as video resolution (pal) and some obvious tricks:

http://www.lesoup.com/fileadmin/user...s_tinkered.jpg

Just a notice. Those color things can quite easily be corrected in Final Cut Pro and therefore I guess also in Premiere or whatever you are using.

Pekka Uotila · October 13th, 2005, 01:48 AM

Thanks Kurt (and Obin ofcourse) for your work,
Since I am a newbie with in this internet/codec/format/computer world I was not able to capture any stillimage of this footage and I could not study the material like you have done.
Seriously, I really feel that Letus35 is very interesting to my purposes.
When I look at your stills, it seems to me that the focus is shifting, it is closer on the right and more faraway on the left. I do not believe that this is typical for Letus35
So far Obin has not said anything about the equipment he has been using so it is difficult to know the reason for this but I guess you did not do that (focus shift) with your tools.
In general, about all what I have seen done with Letus35, it seems to me that the most difficult thing with Letus35 is to keep all the surfaces clean.

Kurt August · October 13th, 2005, 02:16 AM

Pekka, You're right about the focus shift. My only guess is that depth is so shallow, that the left part in the still is just a bit closer to the lens and therefore not entirely focussed.

I also think you are right about the dust.

Oscar Spierenburg · October 13th, 2005, 05:13 AM

<<<Letterboxed as video resolution (pal) and some obvious tricks:>>>>

Kurt, this makes me wonder...lower resolution, obvious tricks (unsharp masks for one) and it really looks better than the original.
It seems to me that real-stream captures the image without the same obvious built-in camcorder tricks and now we know why the manufacturers use those tricks.

Obin Olson · October 13th, 2005, 07:08 AM

I got word that the color shift is a mistake in the offset of the reel-stream output, I can fix it on render to HD...

Steven Fokkinga · October 13th, 2005, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oscar Spier

<<<Letterboxed as video resolution (pal) and some obvious tricks:>>>>
Kurt, this makes me wonder...lower resolution, obvious tricks (unsharp masks for one) and it really looks better than the original.
It seems to me that real-stream captures the image without the same obvious built-in camcorder tricks and now we know why the manufacturers use those tricks.

Yes, some tricks that happen in camera are desirable. Other things are not, like 5:1 DV compression and 4:1:1 color conversion. The nice thing about RS is that you can choose whatever you want to do yourself...
Oh and the HD thing is also nice... :)

Obin Olson · October 13th, 2005, 09:31 AM

very very sharp, film "look" is softer then video, video is HARSH.

I have you heard about actors hating HD video? it's because it's so sharp on the skin, makes them look older.

Glen Hurd · October 13th, 2005, 11:09 PM

In response to Kurt, I agree with you. I think people confuse "sharp" with contrast, and video records with greater contrast than film for any given scene, since its exposure latitude is more limited. Assuming identical scenes, and identical exposures, shadows are darker, and highlights peak "earlier" in video. Since we respond to high contrast as being sharp (thus the "unsharp mask" filter in Photoshop), we perceive video as being too "sharp." In fact, film is sharper (referring to resolution). Just kinder to the eyes, since it takes a couple more stops more before blowing highlights or burying shadows.
For fun, you can take an HD image, copy it, apply an unsharp mask to it that "sharpens" the image somewhat noticeably, then apply a difference filter between that and the original. Using the result, adjust the levels until white lines are evident, showing where the unsharp mask had the most effect. Converting that to an alpha channel, or mask, you can then mask a contrast-reducing curve applied to the original image.
The result is an image with a less "sharp" look, which has not been effected with a blur or sharpen filter at all. Just a selective application of contrast-reduction.
By the way, beautiful looking footage.

Glen

Pekka Uotila · October 14th, 2005, 04:43 AM

Interesting indeed this question about sharpness.
It just reminds me of an experience that I had last year. The TV film that was shot by me with Sony's 570 Dvcam and I used some combinations promist and lowcontrast filters to get a nicer feeling to the story. In general it was a good choice until the day of a premier came and the picture was spread to a big canvas in a movietheatre with a very good videoprojector... the only solution for me was to close my yes when the wide shots were screened, it just looked so soft. ( I really should have done some more tests before, for that screening)

Obin,
I would like to ask your opinion about one thing. I am about to order Letus35 with a mount where I could use normal 35mm cinelenses. Queyn would make a special one.
This means that the size of the frame that videocam records from gg would be something like 18x24mm.
Since you have been using Letus35 and it seems that you know about these things very much, it would be very valuable to me to hear from you if you see any major problems in my plan immediately?

Michael Maier · October 14th, 2005, 04:50 AM

That's interesting Pekka. What cine mount you have in mind, PL?

Pekka Uotila · October 14th, 2005, 05:14 AM

Hi Michael,
no. The mount I have in my mind is Aatonmount. It's flange is 40mm. That mount would allow me to use Nikon's lenses easily aswell. I even have such a curiosity as an Aatonadapter for c-mount, I just have never been able to use it because there is not enough room for that in Aaton.
With Aaton mount I could use old Cooke lenses, old Zeiss lenses etc. But I really hope that it would work atleast with Zeiss T:1.3 (Mark I) set, that is originally made for 35mm film.

Michael Maier · October 14th, 2005, 05:16 AM

Cool! Good luck.

Obin Olson · October 16th, 2005, 05:31 PM

I see no issues at all! it should work well, you will zoom in the video camera a bit, as your image will be smaller on the gg...I would like to do the same thing ome time, tell Q to start making METAL LENS MOUNTS ASAP.

Aaron McMath · October 17th, 2005, 01:13 PM

Hey Obin,

Are you still using 4 batteries on the Letus? Has this caused any problems?

Is there some kind of restraint on your' motor? What does it look like?

Are you using the new Letus achromat or still the micro35?

Pekka Uotila · October 20th, 2005, 04:40 AM

[QUOTE=Obin Olson]I see no issues at all! it should work well, you will zoom in the video camera a bit, as your image will be smaller on the gg...

Thanks Obin.
Right now there are still some parts of the mount missing....
I will be telling more about this version of Letus35 one day, I hope.

October 12th, 2005, 02:17 PM	#46
Kurt August Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Belgium Posts: 94	Yes a bit Obin, I took the liberty to fool around a bit with your images. It seemed like there was a color shift. I moved some colors (mainly the red channel) a pixel or two. The original: http://www.lesoup.com/fileadmin/user..._h264_orig.jpg The shifted: http://www.lesoup.com/fileadmin/user...4_px_shift.jpg The blurred parts of the paper come out better. Less blue, more paper. Also the annoying red lines where the image is sharp seem to be gone. I don't know what it would do to others objects or talent. All things considered, I still hope for sharper results from these adapters (in my humble eyes, a 'film look' is very very sharp where it should be sharp, so soft seems like nonsense to me). Perhaps, video is the limit for now, which, considering the cost, would be fine for me. I letterboxed it and played a bit more. Well, too much actually, but the point is, with a little help it really can look good. This is a pumpkin that I could eat... Letterboxed as video resolution (pal) and some obvious tricks: http://www.lesoup.com/fileadmin/user...s_tinkered.jpg Just a notice. Those color things can quite easily be corrected in Final Cut Pro and therefore I guess also in Premiere or whatever you are using. Last edited by Kurt August; October 12th, 2005 at 02:56 PM. Reason: Added value

October 13th, 2005, 01:48 AM	#47
Pekka Uotila Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Helsinki, Finland Posts: 51	Thanks Kurt (and Obin ofcourse) for your work, Since I am a newbie with in this internet/codec/format/computer world I was not able to capture any stillimage of this footage and I could not study the material like you have done. Seriously, I really feel that Letus35 is very interesting to my purposes. When I look at your stills, it seems to me that the focus is shifting, it is closer on the right and more faraway on the left. I do not believe that this is typical for Letus35 So far Obin has not said anything about the equipment he has been using so it is difficult to know the reason for this but I guess you did not do that (focus shift) with your tools. In general, about all what I have seen done with Letus35, it seems to me that the most difficult thing with Letus35 is to keep all the surfaces clean. __________________ Pekka

October 13th, 2005, 02:16 AM	#48
Kurt August Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Belgium Posts: 94	Focus Pekka, You're right about the focus shift. My only guess is that depth is so shallow, that the left part in the still is just a bit closer to the lens and therefore not entirely focussed. I also think you are right about the dust. Last edited by Kurt August; October 13th, 2005 at 02:17 AM. Reason: bad spelling makes grown ups look like kids

October 14th, 2005, 04:43 AM	#54
Pekka Uotila Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Helsinki, Finland Posts: 51	Interesting indeed this question about sharpness. It just reminds me of an experience that I had last year. The TV film that was shot by me with Sony's 570 Dvcam and I used some combinations promist and lowcontrast filters to get a nicer feeling to the story. In general it was a good choice until the day of a premier came and the picture was spread to a big canvas in a movietheatre with a very good videoprojector... the only solution for me was to close my yes when the wide shots were screened, it just looked so soft. ( I really should have done some more tests before, for that screening) Obin, I would like to ask your opinion about one thing. I am about to order Letus35 with a mount where I could use normal 35mm cinelenses. Queyn would make a special one. This means that the size of the frame that videocam records from gg would be something like 18x24mm. Since you have been using Letus35 and it seems that you know about these things very much, it would be very valuable to me to hear from you if you see any major problems in my plan immediately? __________________ Pekka

October 14th, 2005, 05:14 AM	#56
Pekka Uotila Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Helsinki, Finland Posts: 51	Hi Michael, no. The mount I have in my mind is Aatonmount. It's flange is 40mm. That mount would allow me to use Nikon's lenses easily aswell. I even have such a curiosity as an Aatonadapter for c-mount, I just have never been able to use it because there is not enough room for that in Aaton. With Aaton mount I could use old Cooke lenses, old Zeiss lenses etc. But I really hope that it would work atleast with Zeiss T:1.3 (Mark I) set, that is originally made for 35mm film. __________________ Pekka

October 13th, 2005, 05:13 AM	#49
Oscar Spierenburg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: (The Netherlands - Belgium) Posts: 735	<<<Letterboxed as video resolution (pal) and some obvious tricks:>>>> Kurt, this makes me wonder...lower resolution, obvious tricks (unsharp masks for one) and it really looks better than the original. It seems to me that real-stream captures the image without the same obvious built-in camcorder tricks and now we know why the manufacturers use those tricks.

October 13th, 2005, 07:08 AM	#50
Obin Olson Trustee Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Wilmington NC Posts: 1,414	I got word that the color shift is a mistake in the offset of the reel-stream output, I can fix it on render to HD...

October 13th, 2005, 09:31 AM	#52
Obin Olson Trustee Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Wilmington NC Posts: 1,414	very very sharp, film "look" is softer then video, video is HARSH. I have you heard about actors hating HD video? it's because it's so sharp on the skin, makes them look older.

October 13th, 2005, 11:09 PM	#53
Glen Hurd Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Burlington, NJ Posts: 59	In response to Kurt, I agree with you. I think people confuse "sharp" with contrast, and video records with greater contrast than film for any given scene, since its exposure latitude is more limited. Assuming identical scenes, and identical exposures, shadows are darker, and highlights peak "earlier" in video. Since we respond to high contrast as being sharp (thus the "unsharp mask" filter in Photoshop), we perceive video as being too "sharp." In fact, film is sharper (referring to resolution). Just kinder to the eyes, since it takes a couple more stops more before blowing highlights or burying shadows. For fun, you can take an HD image, copy it, apply an unsharp mask to it that "sharpens" the image somewhat noticeably, then apply a difference filter between that and the original. Using the result, adjust the levels until white lines are evident, showing where the unsharp mask had the most effect. Converting that to an alpha channel, or mask, you can then mask a contrast-reducing curve applied to the original image. The result is an image with a less "sharp" look, which has not been effected with a blur or sharpen filter at all. Just a selective application of contrast-reduction. By the way, beautiful looking footage. Glen

October 14th, 2005, 04:50 AM	#55
Michael Maier Trustee Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,269	That's interesting Pekka. What cine mount you have in mind, PL?

October 14th, 2005, 05:16 AM	#57
Michael Maier Trustee Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,269	Cool! Good luck.

October 16th, 2005, 05:31 PM	#58
Obin Olson Trustee Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Wilmington NC Posts: 1,414	I see no issues at all! it should work well, you will zoom in the video camera a bit, as your image will be smaller on the gg...I would like to do the same thing ome time, tell Q to start making METAL LENS MOUNTS ASAP.

October 17th, 2005, 01:13 PM	#59
Aaron McMath New Boot Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 15	Hey Obin, Are you still using 4 batteries on the Letus? Has this caused any problems? Is there some kind of restraint on your' motor? What does it look like? Are you using the new Letus achromat or still the micro35?

October 20th, 2005, 04:40 AM	#60
Pekka Uotila Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Helsinki, Finland Posts: 51	[QUOTE=Obin Olson]I see no issues at all! it should work well, you will zoom in the video camera a bit, as your image will be smaller on the gg... Thanks Obin. Right now there are still some parts of the mount missing.... I will be telling more about this version of Letus35 one day, I hope. __________________ Pekka