Of course you're right but it's nice to dream. I imagine if they did use it, it would be output from the SDI only and run to some recorder or their choosing.

Hey guys, I think there was another thread somewhere but I can't find it... maybe this one is too old.

Anyway I post here because yesterday I saw on my local cinema "El Hombre de al Lado" (The Man Next Door), it's an argentine movie. I was intrigued to find out what it was shot with and after some research I found this:

17: Sundancing Part 1, Reflections | Leitner’s Cinematography Corner

It was shot with an EX1 and it actually won the Sundance Cinematography award. But in my personal opinion, it looked kind of bad... but you have to consider it was very very probably shot without much lightning, in a very indie way. The truth is it looked like that, you know, a lot of burnt sections, underexposed subjects and the general "amateur look", not that it's something necessarily bad (it won the Sundance Cinematography award right?). I personally don't like it. I even saw some very soft exterior shots, as if they were using a high F-Stop instead of using the ND filters. The general look wasn't very appealing to me, it looked videoish and dead. I guess the conclusion is, if you want to make video look like film, don't just point and shoot and edit-as-is. Please remember I'm drawing conclusions without knowing all the facts, I'm just talking out of what I saw in front of the cameras.

At one given point I thought it was shot with HDSLR because I saw some aliasing on a wide shot and even vertical fixed banding but not in noise, in well exposed areas. I have never ever seen banding on my EX1 so I wonder if it was a product of the conversion or something like that. Maybe even the film projector, don't know, anyway, very weird...

Go see it if you have the chance! I'll probably go again with "shot with EX1" in mind. Let me know if there's anything you think it would be nice to look for.

I found a YouTube HD trailer!

YouTube - THE MAN NEXT DOOR OFFICIAL TRAILER

Wow... I'm seeing so much more aliasing, more than I saw at the cinema. Maybe it's YouTube's fault? Sometimes it looks like 720p HDSLR. 0:30, it's just YouTube, right? The next shot as well, inside the van. What's going on?

0:42 pretty much ilustrates what I mean by "amateurish look". Underexposure and blown out highlights...

In general I think the longer focal length shots look better than the wide angles, I think we it's general knowledge that this cameras work that way. Closeups as seen in 1:00 didn't caught my flaw-looking attention in the cinema. The wides were the ones that looked kind of dirty to me.

What do you think?

>> I even saw some very soft exterior shots, as if they were using a high F-Stop instead of using the ND filters.

Closing aperture instead of using ND filters would actually INCREASE sharpness..

>> At one given point I thought it was shot with HDSLR because I saw some aliasing on a wide shot
>> and even vertical fixed banding but not in noise, in well exposed areas.

Probably bad intermediate codec they used for editing. Should've used Cineform ;)

Plus of course it could be that they tried to apply effects or render as 8bit instead of 16 or 32 bit, which would be a banding disaster recipe due to quickly accumulating errors at low bit depth...

"Closing aperture instead of using ND filters would actually INCREASE sharpness.."

?? I think the consensus is around F4 lies sweet spot, if you go higher than that the footage will start to look softer and softer and instead one should use ND filters. I have tested and confirmed this... I think maybe you are referring to using ND instead of going higher from F1.9?

Oh man, Cineform comes in again, I hate it because I don't know what it does! Some guys on the other forum on the T2i/7D section concluded that with CS5 there was no problem editing T2i footage natively, it looked almost the same than using Neoscene. This is not the case with EX1?

Watched the trailer at 720p. Looks just fine for the most part - stop nitpicking, eh :)

Nitpicking is the curse of owning a T2i!

:D

Don't just hate Cineform because it is beautiful. ;)

What it does: provides universal intermediate codec. You transcode your videos to CF to store/edit them with stable results.

Cineform also comes with utility called FirstLight which is non-destructive Color Correction software that's worth its weight in gold! ...Wait, what is the software's weight? ...Anyway.

CS5 is fine with virtually anything you throw at it without Cineform, true. But the results will not be guaranteed as with Cineform; and most importantly, any editing will result in artifacts. CF will have much less artifacts if you choose FS1 or higher; and edit in 16bit or higher. Also CF (I use Neo4K) is 444 color, so again it's great for post work even on the footage that originated as 420 or such (no new color info is gained by simple transcoding of course, but the error in post production math calculations resulting from effects will be less when using CF vs original 420 footage.)

Alex, just a question. Do you have a link to any place comparing CF High (on the EX1R) to Film Scan 1 or 2 with NEO4K?

Just curious, as we haven't had time to compare the two in heads up testing, but are gearing up for a new production. The additional storage space is not an issue, but anything helping hold quality through post and chroma work is certainly welcome!

I'm leaning heavily toward using the FS setting from here on out with the EX1R, just to make sure. Better safe than sorry later...

Any comments?

Well, this discussion seems to cover this very topic - although not naming EX1, but the results will be the same regardless of the source, I think.