So here's a little rant about photo/video editing (not photo manipulation) in terms of achieving the best colour/framing and etc that is related to get the best possible result.
We're in the digital age, stop limiting us. We ain't using film no more.
When I first got my D800, or even my D300s to begin with. I'm always puzzled why Canon users love the fact that they're able to use colour space on the videos and it would "perceive" to look better without much effort or colour grading. As we go into the question of Perceived Dynamic Range and Available Dynamic Range, details and sharpness and etc. If you have no idea what I'm talking about or just vaguely know what I'm talking about. Then watch this video.
Below is an image that was shot on the D800, similar shots but the one on the right was what I achieve when I underexpose certain parts of the image by 5 stops. Same image, I must stress. It boils down to the question of my camera has the ability of so much more ADR, but why am I being constantly pounded by the people who wants more PDR?
There is no question that the Nikon D800 is a beast when it comes to ADR or even when it comes to PDR.
Why must I sacrifice using JPG when I can achieve that much more.
Or I can put it this way.
I can do so much more, why are you stopping me?
I can do so much more, why are you stopping me?
So here comes my second part.
The Hybrid (Jack of all Trades, Master of none)
Because most cinematographers use a Canon DSLR, I thought it would be more appropriate to use a Canon DSLR for this comparison. Also it is the more hybrid camera compared to the Nikons.
Here's an example.
I get a Canon DSLR for videos only and maybe occasionally be able to shoot photos, also I'm not a photographer because well I just do videos, but however I will still do photo shoots however. Ok, I think this camera is limiting me way too much (actually I don't think that way, just that everyone seems to be getting a full frame and I'm starting to feel the pressure) because I can't get enough bokeh so I'm going to upgrade my Canon DSLR and because I don't have enough money to buy L lenses that have big f1.2 apertures, I will just buy multiple Nikkor AIS lenses. Nvm, I've never actually heard of the Blackmagic Pocket camera but I've actually "talked" about it in front of everyone before.
Oh also, I didn't get the latest full frame, I think the big aperture might compensate.
Here are the faults I see in this point of view.
- Lenses > Camera (almost every certain situation. Especially if you're using legacy cameras)
- Lens Resolution on HDSLR
- Being unable to shoot RAW videos
- Unable to work with RAW files to get full capability
- Colours are always more important than bokeh in video
- Bokeh are suppose to help to isolate subjects, not just to look pretty.
- You isolate objects without the use of bokeh
- Being greedy with wanting to shoot photos and videos
- Legacy camera
- Why Full Frame when you can't afford it.
- The previous camera is good enough to handle 1080p video. derp.
Here's my point. Why are you sticking to Canon DSLRs when clearly there is a cheaper and much better option out there. I am also missing out some part to save this dude for further embarrassment like whatever happened to his previous lenses, oh crap..
Oh dammit, I think I figured it out.
CANON FANBOY USING NIKKOR LENSES LOL/
NEVER DO RESEARCH/
IMPULSIVE BUYER
Sorry can't help with the canon fanboy part. It's too funny.
Now for the third part.
When I first got my D800, or even my D300s to begin with. I'm always puzzled why Canon users love the fact that they're able to use colour space on the videos and it would "perceive" to look better without much effort or colour grading.
During my photography mod during Year 2, Sem 1. I was told that I'm not allowed to edit my photos. I was told that I could achieve the effects of whatever I could edit (in terms of colour, exposure and framing). Now I am a photography major student and you would think they would allow me to go deeper in, especially if well you're in an Art School right? Nope. Which points out to this point where I go, "why should I shoot RAW then?, Jpgs are better."
And we go into the whole jpgs out of cameras are not edited shots since they came out of the camera but here is my argument. Editing is a term for processing right? So the camera has to process the image due to the colour space, the extra sharpness, the extra this and that, contrast here and there. You would think that's editing, due to your camera changing what you actually see right (or rather what the camera sees)? According to people out there, it isn't.
I wouldn't let what people think affect me, but the fact that it affected me due to being unable to make my work shine, I think that's a fair reason to be affected by this.
No comments:
Post a Comment