Getting "film look" with EX1

[Mike Stevens]

Originally Posted by James Carl

EVF on EX1 vs Z7? What is the actual difference?

From reading all the posts on "film look", I think that there is a wide range of subjective qualities but I think the point can be summed up as, "not video look". I agree that seeing the Show Scan 60p film projection demos, proved to me that for artsy stuff, I don't want film to look like reality. But for sports and reality shows, 60fps is the way to go, baby.

I second Carl. As there is so much superfluous and silly talk about what is "film look" the other side of the coin, IE "not video look" is so much more sensible as it is so easy to judge. I always say to myself "does this look like home video?"

Avoid the things video cameras can't do like high contrast or extreme bright light that kills shadow detail and you are well on your way. That's why I believe polaroid and graduated filters are a must.

[Piotr Wozniacki]

Originally Posted by James Carl

EVF on EX1 vs Z7? What is the actual difference?

From reading all the posts on "film look", I think that there is a wide range of subjective qualities but I think the point can be summed up as, "not video look". I agree that seeing the Show Scan 60p film projection demos, proved to me that for artsy stuff, I don't want film to look like reality. But for sports and reality shows, 60fps is the way to go, baby.

Well, the actual difference is some 200,000 vs 1,200,000 pixels of resulution between the two.

Of course, this has nothing to do with the "film look", hence with the second part of your post.

[Mike Stevens]

Originally Posted by Piotr Wozniacki

Well, the actual difference is some 200,000 vs 1,200,000 pixels of resulution between the two.

Of course, this has nothing to do with the "film look", hence with the second part of your post.

Piotr: And getting the film look is all about the skill to make 200k pixels look like 1200k pixels. The look is about photographic skill not pixels. I could make a 1200k pixel clip that looked like home video and there are lot of great cinematographers like Phil who can make 200k pixels look like 1200k film.

[Piotr Wozniacki]

Mike, I only mean it's easier to judge focus with a higher resolution VF !

Hope this is obvius

[Serena Steuart]

Originally Posted by Mike Stevens

I second Carl. As there is so much superfluous and silly talk about what is "film look" the other side of the coin, IE "not video look" is so much more sensible as it is so easy to judge. I always say to myself "does this look like home video?"

Avoid the things video cameras can't do like high contrast or extreme bright light that kills shadow detail and you are well on your way. That's why I believe polaroid and graduated filters are a must.

Mike, quite right.

[Serena Steuart]

Originally Posted by Piotr Wozniacki

The answer is simple: the great EX3 wievfinder works best when the camera is shoulder monunted, i.e. with the EX1 body shape.

For shooting EX1 handheld, or on additional mount like the "El Cheapo", its original EVF would be better for me, should it have enough resolution.

Piotr, there is no impediment to shooting the EX1 on a shoulder mount when using the LCD. Not that I believe you wish to consider this.

[Piotr Wozniacki]

Originally Posted by Serena Steuart

Piotr, there is no impediment to shooting the EX1 on a shoulder mount when using the LCD. Not that I believe you wish to consider this.

Serena, how on earth can you know about all shoulder mounts/shooting techniques one can use? Using either the PAG Orbitor, or the "El cheapo" shoulder mount (I have both), the camera is quite high and the LCD just too close to my eyes (I'm 53, so I'm getting more and more long-sighted). One way of course is to use strong reading glasses, but since I don't wear them permanently, and when you add the sun reflections problem to the equation - using the "tranditional" EVF is the best solution.

And all I am saying is that the EVF on the EX1 is poor resolution-wise, so replacing it with that from the Z7 would solve two problems at once.

[Serena Steuart]

Yes, Piotr, I understand that perfectly. I guess you'd be surprised that some body would have that breadth of knowledge. You have taken on a rigid rejection of alternatives and I respect your unwillingness to see other approaches. If you were to check out the photos I posted you might have to find more excuses, but that's OK. Good luck with getting Sony to re-engineer the EX1.

[James Carl]

Originally Posted by Piotr Wozniacki

Well, the actual difference is some 200,000 vs 1,200,000 pixels of resulution between the two.

Wow - that is unbelievable. How does that work out pixel dimension wise?
360x640 vs 1280x720 would make sense, but the numbers don't match.

What is Sony thinking, why would they do this? Now I am curious what the resolution on my Z1 EVF is, anyone know or where I could find out?

[Piotr Wozniacki]

The Z1 and EX1 EVF's are nearly exactly the same - i.e. very poor.

The Xtrafine one on the Z7 resolution is counted differently (multiplied x3 for R, G, B values) - but nevertheless, it's a marvellous viewfinder.

What were they thinking? Well, I guess they already knew about the EX3 coming soon after the EX1, and wanted to make the difference even bigger!

[David W Williamson]

Its great to see this discussion unfold! If I didn't know any better, I'd swear that Philip Bloom's stuff was film all the way. Whatever his formula is, it works! I remember reading in his blog that he shoots most of his stuff at 25p (PAL). he doesn't have a lot of fast-paced footage, though. He also is big on Magic Bullet Looks. Anyone know anything else about his methods/settings/work flow?

http://web.mac.com/philip.bloom/Bloo...2_29F3881EDCB6

Philip's entry is about half way in the comments.

[Mike Stevens]

Originally Posted by David W Williamson

Its great to see this discussion unfold! If I didn't know any better, I'd swear that Philip Bloom's stuff was film all the way. Whatever his formula is, it works! I remember reading in his blog that he shoots most of his stuff at 25p (PAL). he doesn't have a lot of fast-paced footage, though. He also is big on Magic Bullet Looks. Anyone know anything else about his methods/settings/work flow?

http://web.mac.com/philip.bloom/Bloo...2_29F3881EDCB6

Philip's entry is about half way in the comments.

As an ex-Limey I can tell you one reason is the soft diffused (read cold and grey) English light. Secondly he avoids color - a lot of Phil's stuff is almost monochrome, and he generally has his camera locked down - no pans or zooms. I believe he told me he shoots 24p not 50 PAL. And yes he is heavy on the Bullet and I've asked his settings but he didn't (wouldn't?) tell me.

[Andrew Hollister]

Originally Posted by Mike Stevens

I believe he told me he shoots 24p not 50 PAL. And yes he is heavy on the Bullet and I've asked his settings but he didn't (wouldn't?) tell me.

Bloom shoots 30p, and I am quite sure he has his picture profile listed in his blog. i know because i copied it onto my EX1.

You gotta love that Google...
http://web.mac.com/philip.bloom/Bloo...ngs_i_use.html

[Robert Young]

Phil Bloom does (at least a while ago) use the Cine 1 profile detailed by Bill Ravins in the profile thread of this forum. He also nearly always uses the Letus adapter with 35mm lenses. He is virtually shooting in 35mm. I think this is a big factor in the "look" of his films, as well as the use of Magic Bullet Looks in post.

[Serena Steuart]

Originally Posted by Andrew Hollister

Bloom shoots 30p, and I am quite sure he has his picture profile listed in his blog. i know because i copied it onto my EX1.

You gotta love that Google...
http://web.mac.com/philip.bloom/Bloo...ngs_i_use.html

Phil Bloom: "I generally shoot 25p"