Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Romero
Where is the lighting truck on a porn set? Exactly... it's not there.
Quit blaming the quality of the encoding on the computer or the editor and start blaming it on the lighting.
|
I never blamed it on encoding - as I've stated two times already, even raw unencoded footage didn't look as great as I had hoped for. I blame it mostly on camera (1/3" matrix against 35mm on film or similar sized matrixes of high end digital cameras), and lower dynamic range (7 stops against 11 of high end digital cameras and 13-14 on film). And lower resolution of course - 1280x720 against 4K .
Don't know why I hoped our new camera will produce footage that will look close to high end production to begin with
That was silly I guess.
I understand what you're saying about the the lightning though. Yes, that's part of the problem, but no lighting will give you the same results you get with 4K resolution, 1 inch matrix and 12 stops of dynamic range cameras.
I directed several shoots myself when we started shooting with the new HD camera couple of months ago, check this one for example:
http://media.ferrocash.com/video/ero...eland_g701.wmv
(no action, just girl changing several pairs of pantyhose of different colors to check how camera will handle different colors, textures, details etc)
To rule lights out of equation I lit the scene enough, and still image is not good enough imo to view at full HD. After downresing to about 900 pixels it looks fine but not at 1280. I've even intentionally overlit some other scenes to check if that will reduce grain, but no. Still a bit grainy and not crisp enough at full HD.
Again, maybe I'm just being overly critical.