All is possible

Author: carlomacchiavello Page 12 of 18

What a beautiful TV to see the telenovelas …

The slave Isaura, the first telenovelas in history.

A little paraphrasing a phrase said by a person in Cannes, that the digitization of the films would be able to turn Barry Lyndon into a telenovelas, a little because today among the industry people it is said that a certain image is “from telenovelas” I decided to write two lines about a modern drama in seeing a movie with a television : Reworking images.

Thanks to the advent of the theoretical high definition home, I speak of theory because many television channels broadcast on the channels hd movies from masters in standard definition, or just occasionally broadcast in hd something, houses all over the world have been filled with bright and very contrasted televisions to watch news and occasionally even a movie.

The joke is not causal because all modern TVs, even and especially if they have a higher definition like 4k are thought mainly to reproduce material in very poor definition, and as such to be reworked because otherwise “people would be disgruntled of the TV”, I read last week of a person who complained about the lack of definition of a 4k TV in seeing matches , not on dedicated channels in hd, but on the simple rai SD, and the complaint kept saying that being the 4k TV everything had to be better… and that would change it soon with the x-mark that makes them see better…

it’s for these kind of people representing the average audience that we have to sip horrible images when we go to see quality images.

The explanation is very simple: by calibrating televisions for images that are perhaps a quarter of the definition (fhd transmission) or even a sixteenth of the definition of 4k, the pixels must be inflated, and therefore as such you would see blurry or bad quality images, so they need to be reworked to look better. The concept would be fine if the manipulation were progressive and dosed on the source, that is, if we provide the TV with images of higher resolutions or suitable for the TV matrix these algorithms should disable, instead they work anyway by altering image, color, contrast, and even the perceived movement of images unfortunately not all reprocessing algorithms are editable or disabled, even each manufacturer hides behind different names the different functions and some prevent the disabling HDMI, so even getting a great 4k signal from netflix, I have to use a device with external input to prevent it from being manipulated by the TV by ruining it.

Now let’s see in practice what happens and how the images are altered.
Here we see the most common situation, a native image 4k vs the equivalent broadcast in SD, as most channels broadcast today in 2018, if you do not believe me go into the channel info on your TV and watch the stream to what definition is sent.

I remember that a classic UHD image is made of 3840 x 2160 pixels, the FHD from 1920×1080 pixels (exactly half horizontal and vertical, then a quarter), the HD format is 1280 x 720 pixels, and finally the SD is only 720×576 rectangular pixels, because it is in a more square format and therefore to achieve scaling on modern matrices as well as scale is distorted in the horizontal.

As you can see the difference between UHD (4ktv) and the Standard format seen at 100% is remarkable, because we have a difference of sixteen times of the visible information, so enlarging the SD signal clearly shows the difference.

Since details cannot be invented, in these situations nothing can be done, except chewing images with various algorithms to pretend that there is contrast where it does not exist, but with images with fine details like these, the problem of quality scarcity remains.

If, on the other hand, we go to work with a little more resolution, that is, with the HD format, already the jump is not so disturbing, and they could leave the images to their nature.

If we could always see images in FHD on FHD or 4k TVs, scaling becomes smaller and therefore less noticeable, even if present.

The element that deceives us is the fact that each signal is processed in multiple ways and the same image receives multiple treatments, from the so-called clarity that pushes lights and shadows in two extremes, to contrast masks to make more defined details that can not be defined because too coarse, or even if the detail is present correctly, makes it artificial because it applies the mask linearly on the whole image.

so in reality we wouldn’t see an image where there are few differences between fhd and 4k, but we would see a reworked image of the FHD creating artificially flaws and artifacts where they are not needed.

When we see a telenovelas it is normal a certain flatness of light because to save time and not risk differences between one camera and the other makes the lighting much flatter and uniform, since you turn with cameras the fear of not having sharp images leads to raise parameters of artificial sharpness in the room, in addition the sensors of the study rooms are such that you do not have large nuances and differences between the different colors of the set and the different incarnates. Basically exactly the opposite of what you do with movies to give the cinematic look.

Let’s take an image from the bluray of MonsterSquad, a classic 80s teen movie to which series like Stranger Things have everything, let’s put it on a regular TV, the result at best will be like what you see below, that is a telenoveled version of the original image, with applied the clarity technique to give more local contrast to the image, a contrast mask to define all the details of the image , completely ruining the atmosphere of the image, flattening the image where the cinematographer had decided separating the two floors with light and shade. It is very obvious if you look at how the elements come out of the shadows behind the actor, distracting and compressing the space around it.

Of course, there can be a strong noise reduction because there will certainly be noise between compression and transmission that absolutely cannot be accepted, too bad that the grain and structure of the film is often eliminated in this way, as well as eliminating the fine detail.

The artificial detail given by the contrast mask excessively enhances the hair of the elderly protagonist, but also accentuates the out-of-fire details to his right, because unfortunately the algorithm is applied flat and evenly to each part of the image, while in reality if we have a sharp part (in focus) and a soft (out of the fire) the natural clarity is dosed and distributed increasing the feeling of depth of the images.

These techniques could help a weak image, but if applied to a good image make it much more televisiony and flat, ruining the work of a good cinematographer, and not only. In addition, a frame by frame, area by area with masks, should be dosed in order to make a real contribution to the image, instead on any television they apply these effects flatly on the whole image ruining in several places the rendering of the photograph.

The good Stu of ProLost, expert in vfx, color and images made a great post about how not only spoil the images at the level of color and contrast, but also rework the movement and perception of it, creating artificially superfluous frames, which become necessary because the originals having been too contrasted have lost their original blurring of movement and have become snapped… In short, a snake biting its tail…

We close the speech with a couple of advertising images that make us understand how the ugly vice of manipulating images is not a modern derivation, but for many years we have the problem of being able to see what the cinematographers originally thought, only that once on the tubes with the analog image the reworkings were limited, today unfortunately you can massacre every image beyond all limits of decency.

https://youtu.be/kBTnOmIXnp4

however in my post on the image formats you can find some reference on how once the video proportions were also cut and wildly cut the shots to fit first at 4:3 then backwards to adapt to the 16:9 footage shot with aspect ratio closer to 3:2 (super16mm).

Instead for those who are doubtful, I made time make a post between film and digital, the actual differences in shooting and rendering of the two media, I challenge many people to distinguish at the cinema what sequences are shot in film, such as digital and then printed on film, etc… most people don’t realize how movies contain a broad blend of different media, analog, digital etc.

I’m sure if Kubrick was still alive, not only would he have embraced digital, but he would have been so stubborn that he would have created a system for him to check digital projectors and televisions to properly show the images of his films, which is technically feasible for years, but that apparently does not seem to interest anyone, and this is not my elucubration , but at the premieres of many of his films he worried that the screening was on an excellent quality level to enhance the work he did, so if he did it for the film, he would do it for digital as well.

Side note: The slave Isaura, the first official telenovelas in TV history was shot in film, so ironically little telenovelas as a visual style.


   

 

 

 

 
 

 

   

 
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

   

     

 

 

 

 

 

   

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

 

 

 

    •  
    •  
    •  
  •  

 

 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

       

 

 

   

 



Ultra sensitivity, the new frontier, indispensable or not?

Capture the adventure!

ExplorerMachines have long been more and more sensitive, to resume with the light of a candle… do you know when I heard this sentence?

1988 advertisement of one of Philips' first VHS shoulder pads… just those thirty years ago…

Of course they were images with a gain (an artificial gain) that even on the first phones you could not see… yet for the time it was magic.

Today we find ourselves in a series of contradictory situations that many do not explain, ultra-sensitive cameras such as the recent Sony Alpha that range over 200,000 iso (we speak of two hundred thousand) providing more than decent images if there is a minimum of light, while more professional rooms come to 800-1600 asa le bmc, 3200 asa le Arriflex and Red , which most people don't explain.

The questions that arise spontaneously are:
– why don't such emblazoned companies do it if Sony does?
Do you really need to have this brightness beyond the human?

Honestly at the first question I can not give an answer, or rather, I can only make assumptions, related to the type of technology that lies behind the cameras, and why you do not feel the need to get to sensibilities so crazy, since even with the film in cinema you stop with the 500 Asa produced by Kodak.

What is the use of a greater sensitivity of film or sensor?

The speech might be very articulate, with lots of nostalgic speeches, but I like to be practical.
Cinema is made with light, so to me talk of lowlight shooting without lights or anything I do not give much, especially because they rarely come well even with ultrasensitive sensors, lack the reflections of light in the right places, the games of light and shadow, many things that seem natural, but that are finely constructed by the directors of photography.
A more sensitive sensor helps you work better in certain situations, point …

Let's dispel some myths about natural light?

  • The recent Revenant with photograph of the Oscar-winning Lubensky was shot in natural light, did not use additional lights…
    more or less, it made extensive use of reflective panels, it exploited various natural fires and lights, and it seems that during the colorgrading phase they massaged the images a lot to enhance and amplify much the contrasts of light and the various shades of the images.
    Anyway, being a lover of Golden hour, that sunset time interval when there is a magic light, I know that you can get a result very close to that, but if only Inarritu could afford it, because that interval lasts a few minutes… to make the most of it they went as far north as possible to be able to find the places with a longer duration than the Golden Hour.
  • If I have light, that's enough, why add light?
    often the problem is not the amount of light, but the distribution between areas of light and shadow, the direction, which if wrong spoils the face of actors and actresses, the risk is that the background is brighter than the foreground, so you have to lighten the foreground in order not to burn the background, which is bad to see
  • If the sensor is sensitive why do I have to use light?
    the sensor can be sensitive but not to all light, but only at certain frequencies, so the more we go on the low light, the more you lose some light color frequencies, so even if the sensor is more sensitive it is likely that the colors it can capture are less intense, or worse, that loses some, which means that the images will be poorer and especially limited
  • Why do you use films that are less sensitive to cinema, why should you use less iso in recovery if there are any?
    For a matter of final image quality, when chemical or electronic sensitivity rise, the image worsens by increasing contrast, reducing the finely captured details, so native ISOs or Asas of a sensor or film are always used and do not "pull" in any way. In film to capture more light, the grains must be larger and have a change capacity at the harder exposure, so they quickly become more visible, but offer greater contrast, and the capture of light becomes coarse.
    Similarly, in digital information is amplified, but if it is few, when you amplify it increases the contrast and therefore highlights the image but also the noise itself.

Update 2020 : I am pleased to note that certain topics I covered are taken up years later by the well-known RedSharkNews


Upgrade -> Improvement … mica always

firmware 2.4In an increasingly fast-paced, more hectic world, it seems that upgrading products is essential to work, indeed indispensable and if you stay behind it becomes a problem…

there are hardware manufacturers such as in the case of mobile that even force the upgrade to new firmware and SO by automatically downloading them on devices, taking up space, creating false system errors at the exit of the new os to "unintentionally" cause the need for reset to update the system, and often preventing it from going back, or bringing the user to need to be a super geek to go back. I personally witness the problems caused by two leading companies in the sector, that by resetting the devices to the previous system by hacker methods (because for one of the two there is no way to downgrade, indeed it is blocked by the company's server), you restore functionality perfectly, and to clean device, if you do the upgrade you block or slow down or make the product useless.

Now if you are here is to talk about cameras or cameras, already in the past I have dabbled in the hacking of the firmware of panasonic thanks to the tool made by the Russian hacker Vitality, both using presets already made including the famous Flowmotion, or creating variants on my own, to optimize the rendering of the panasonic GH2, excellent vdslr that with hacking was able to compete with cameras much higher.

Today we see that not always an upgrade equals an advantage. I have long switched to digital cameras, in particular Blackmagic Design, I have evised pros and cons in other articles, and I have expressed my thoughts, then depending on the needs and tastes may like it or not, for my needs are close to perfection, and for the cost that they far exceed the results.

Taken a year and a half ago, when there was still a very basic firmware, slowly with realase increasingly sophisticated firmware the machine has become a reliable and quality production product.

Recently having needed low light recovery, I noticed a defect that I had not noticed in the past, because there was no…

having filmed her granddaughter in the dark, or rather illuminated only by the light of the kitchen TV, so almost in the dark, I noticed a black halo on the left side very dense, and on top of a similar thing, but less intense.

Immediately I became restless, I did some tests at different levels of light, and the problem arose in the absence of light, where pumping in the post the signal (of 5 stop) of an image taken with the cap, was highlighted as per jpeg.

Sure it wasn't before, I started doing some research and I met a post right on the BMD site, related to this problem with the new firmware…

after doing some experiment, with a lot of patience (changing the firmware on the camera takes about 15 minutes each time), I found that depending on the firmware the result in low light was different.

Version 1.9.5 sfirmware 1.9.5hows 5stop – a slight form of banding, absent in the presence of light signal. More than natural on such an image.

firmware 2.0.1to a version 2.0.1 features a slightly more pronounced banding

firmware 2.4version 2.4 that introduces theoretical machine optimizations (I would be inclined to think otherwise) and only adds guides for the 1.84 and 2.40 formats to the screen, which I can use those of the external monitor, or the dear old acetate sheet with the marks on the control monitor, I can avoid at the foot.

so I conclude that to date, being always up-to-date is not good at any cost, and that you have to know how to look back, because what I would immediately trace back to a hardware defect, is actually related to the software of the machine.

Now I already imagine that the detractors of the BMC are already ready with comments of outrage, but I stop them informing them that the first Alexa I tried, machine that costs 20 (twenty) times the bmpc4k on release was in the following conditions :

  • the audio was not recorded in the room because the firmware did not consider the xlr of the camera
  • registered in prores, three types, internally only the fullHD format, and the 2k recording was only available from external recorder that would arrive 6 months later
  • every 3-4 recordings one skipped, without giving notice, so you always had to look at the shootings otherwise you risked having a lack of shooting on the scene
  • the amount of noise from the first release was monstrous, I remember the first footage and they looked like dslr.
  • it has the brand that has been a cinematic guarantee for decades, so people demanded, but they didn't complain about it on the forums, because with that machine they worked on it… From the other, the film cameras jammed, scratched the footage, etc.

so this post not to complain about the problem, of which BMD has been informed with great detail, but to provide a solution to those who have to solve on the fly, that is to go back to firmware 1.9.5

I want to remember that in life those who complain in the wind, waste time
those who are engineered and evolve, go ahead and solve 😀


Page 12 of 18

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén

error: Content is protected !!