Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,206   Posts: 1,531,801   Online: 833
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31
  1. #11
    jstraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,703
    Images
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Alessandro Machi View Post
    If I view a newspaper photo and I can tell that objects outside of the intended target have been digitally blurred, is it still a news picture? It's one thing to crop a picture or adjust the color and contrast, but has a line been crossed if the newspaper actually adds blur effects and does not announce that the news picture has been digitally altered above and beyond the basics of contrast and color?

    I'd be curious to know what newspapers you read are playing fast and loose with their images in this way. Do you have a link to any doctored images that are not clearly labeled "photo illustrations?" Ever since National Geographic rearranged the pyramids these issues have been under a microscope and materially altering photographs and presenting them as real...happens...and when it does, it's generally a firing offense.
    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. In velit arcu, consequat at, interdum sit amet, consequat in, quam.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Japan
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,957
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Shively View Post
    Yes, I'm one of the naysayers. This doesn't seem to me to be an advantage so much as evidence of indecisiveness and serendipity taking precedent over precision, vision and craft. Instant gratification seems to me to lead to disposability.
    The problem with formats like super8 is that, with some cameras or almost all cameras, the shutter doesn't always run at the very accurate speed, so you're not even getting anything you want to plan out or aim in the first place if your final goal is to get a few stills out of each shot. And it's heck a lot of a job to pick one frame out of... god knows how many, but a lot! You don't have much control, basically. So, from a practical point of view, it doesn't make any sense.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Japan
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,957
    Quote Originally Posted by Alessandro Machi View Post
    The black and white image was a job in which the director managed to give out some VHS copies to the crew before disappearing. I'm not quite sure why you are focusing on that one particular image when it is not a time-exposure image to begin with.

    The color images are from super-8 to betacam sp and then a color 4 x 6 print was made, then scanned. The jpg's are very tiny files of under a 100K each, some are under 50K.
    Since this thread seems picking up some crowd, I would elaborate to ask you one question here: So, are you interested in making the images that you have shown without this digital process as well? I mean, video transfer is necessary for viewing, but not for the final output if you want to have a discussion here.

    So, are you seeking information about how to do that in an alalog way? Or do you just want to show your digital-end images here and talk about the motion-picture film? I think your images are nice, but they have to meet the analog-end somehow. My impression is that you probably are because you know the difference between the steroid users and non steroid users in a bike race...

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    California
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by firecracker View Post
    Since this thread seems picking up some crowd, I would elaborate to ask you one question here: So, are you interested in making the images that you have shown without this digital process as well? I mean, video transfer is necessary for viewing, but not for the final output if you want to have a discussion here.

    So, are you seeking information about how to do that in an alalog way? Or do you just want to show your digital-end images here and talk about the motion-picture film? I think your images are nice, but they have to meet the analog-end somehow. My impression is that you probably are because you know the difference between the steroid users and non steroid users in a bike race...
    The Images you are speaking about have NEVER been put into a computer. They come from film originals. However, the process of transferring the film to video does allow one to optimize the image for video presentation.

    Those images were created in camera, on location. No compositing, warping, shrinking, layering, doubling or dodging of any kind was done. The black and white image is just to display a moment from a Super-8 music video, the shot of the three cameras was done on 35mm. The alphabet shots were done on location and haven't been in a computer ever.

    I explained in one of my follow ups that the primary reason I don't have my motion picture work posted on the internet is I cannot stand dropped frames. There are television broadcasting software programs that actually drop video frames every few seconds so the channel can fit an extra commercial or two over the course of the show, I flinch whenever I see a dropped frame, how could I possibly accept the much lower standards of the internet. Luckily, these outrageous attempts to milk more money while basically ruining the show appear briefly then go away for a long time from the broadcast world, although they do seem to crop up ever year or so.

    There are methods to prevent dropped frames during internet viewing, but apparently they require serious design and is not the kind of thing that is ever offered for free. Although I'm not looking for free, that is what seems to dominate the internet moving images market.
    My Super-8 Still Images
    Super-8mm.net
    Super-8mm.com

    I purchase Kodak Film & Inkjet Paper but can't find Kodak Inkjet Printable DVDs.

    Small Format Magazine
    Super-8 Today Magazine

  5. #15
    bjorke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SF & Surrounding Planet
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,032
    Images
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by jstraw View Post
    I'd be curious to know what newspapers you read are playing fast and loose with their images in this way.
    Yeah, me too. I suspect that images may be blurred to obscure faces of "suspects" but other than that... you'll get fired for that sort of thing from any respectable newspaper.

    "What Would Zeus Do?"
    KBPhotoRantPhotoPermitAPUG flickr Robot

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    California
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by jstraw View Post
    I'd be curious to know what newspapers you read are playing fast and loose with their images in this way. Do you have a link to any doctored images that are not clearly labeled "photo illustrations?" Ever since National Geographic rearranged the pyramids these issues have been under a microscope and materially altering photographs and presenting them as real...happens...and when it does, it's generally a firing offense.
    I'm glad to hear this is considered a serious issue. I believe I have it seen it on two occasions in the sports section. I think it was done to dramatize the sports figure by blurring the objects around them.

    While it is possible that it simply was a long telephoto shot with a wide open lens, something about the shot seemed "off" to me. If the paper in question ever posts such photos in the internet version of their paper in the future, I will definitely provide a link to get some forum feedback.
    My Super-8 Still Images
    Super-8mm.net
    Super-8mm.com

    I purchase Kodak Film & Inkjet Paper but can't find Kodak Inkjet Printable DVDs.

    Small Format Magazine
    Super-8 Today Magazine

  7. #17
    jstraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,703
    Images
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Alessandro Machi View Post
    I'm glad to hear this is considered a serious issue. I believe I have it seen it on two occasions in the sports section. I think it was done to dramatize the sports figure by blurring the objects around them.

    While it is possible that it simply was a long telephoto shot with a wide open lens, something about the shot seemed "off" to me. If the paper in question ever posts such photos in the internet version of their paper in the future, I will definitely provide a link to get some forum feedback.
    That would be great. FWIW "a long telephoto shot with a wide open lens" is pretty much standard for most sports photography.
    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. In velit arcu, consequat at, interdum sit amet, consequat in, quam.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Japan
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,957
    Quote Originally Posted by Alessandro Machi View Post
    The Images you are speaking about have NEVER been put into a computer. They come from film originals. However, the process of transferring the film to video does allow one to optimize the image for video presentation.

    Those images were created in camera, on location. No compositing, warping, shrinking, layering, doubling or dodging of any kind was done.
    I understand you shot with your super 8 cameras and recorded footage on film. I understand that "in-camera" editing part of your production. But what about the seemingly very high color saturation that you have produced? How did you do that with your camera? What film stock did you use? I've never seen anything like that coming straight out any available film stock. I want to know more as a film shooter. You don't have to reveal your secret fomula, but could you tell us a little bit more?

    What about the flag image that looks like oil-painting? Does your camera really take a picture like that for each frame? What about the DJ booth(?) image? How did you make the color so vivid? It looks almost like a poster or something. Does the (normal) video transfer do that? Did you make any adjustment? What adjustment did you make? Did you turn the hue nob all the way? Did you boost up the saturation at any point of the process? Did you use other control devices to enhance certain characteristics of your original shots? Then why is the B&W image look so different from the rest? Is it just because it's from someone else's VHS copy?

    Seriously, could you elaborate to explain more on how you have created those color images? But the thing is, again you need to find an analog-end to even go further in this discussion.

    By the way, the drop-frame issue is there, but you get by okay during the transfer. And non-linear software allows you to adust even more. I don't shoot super8, so I can't speak for that particular format, but many people do that, and I have never heard them complain about the drop-frame issue any more than I should.

    If you're trying to show it online, you will probably have to make your file size smaller and that means you will have to compromise the frame number and quality a little. But that won't show in the viewing on someone's computer screen because the computer screen is not that sophisticated. However, if you want to take it to an actual movie theater for a video or film projection, then you will probably have a little problem if it's serious because you can see everything there. You gotta try a bit more to see exactly what technical issues you are running into.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Japan
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,957
    What I'm trying to say is that it would be great if you came up with a method to take film out of the super8 film cartrige, place it on an enlarger or a scanner, and printed a frame as a physical proof of what you've been doing with your video-transfer-plus-computer-use method. Or some funky method we've never even heard of.

    16mm is meanwhile easy to do both analog and digital; old Omega enlargers have 16mm film neg carriers for enlarging that format, and the high-end Nikon scanner has a 16mm film holder, also. So, you have both options clearly available to you, but I just don't know the technical limits as well as the trend of super8. And why am I the only one bothering to state all this here?

    Anyway the hybird users here are always seeking both ends. Or have you developed the film at home? That would be a great tip for the experiement.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    California
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by firecracker View Post
    What I'm trying to say is that it would be great if you came up with a method to take film out of the super8 film cartridge, place it on an enlarger or a scanner, and printed a frame as a physical proof of what you've been doing with your video-transfer-plus-computer-use method. Or some funky method we've never even heard of.

    16mm is meanwhile easy to do both analog and digital; old Omega enlargers have 16mm film neg carriers for enlarging that format, and the high-end Nikon scanner has a 16mm film holder, also. So, you have both options clearly available to you, but I just don't know the technical limits as well as the trend of super8. And why am I the only one bothering to state all this here?

    Anyway the hybird users here are always seeking both ends. Or have you developed the film at home? That would be a great tip for the experiment.
    Once Super-8 film is shot, the cartridge is turned into the lab, the lab develops it, and then it comes back on a movie reel. In theory it can be put on a magnifier of some kind and enlarged.

    What you are talking about in reference to 16mm and it's flexibility is what I call "preset". What does an image look like if you simply let it "flow" from point A to point B without adjusting it? Most consumers are never taught this basic principle of preset because it can be perceived as being boring, but any editing system that cannot reproduce "preset" tends to be incompatible with other systems.

    You also raise an interesting point about how 16mm can be more easily handled right from the film original and in essence one can avoid the "video" stage.

    Super-8 seems to not be affected in the video realm to any great exteme if one has made a quality transfer from the film original and one goes to a high enough video resolution format. Super-8 to Video can pretty much still looks like the original film, only with color correction added in. I have seen Super-8 transferred to digital and then projected digitally and frankly, I wasn't sure that if the original super-8 film were projected via an Elmo Super-8 Xenon Projector that it would have looked any better. I actually had access to an Elmo Xenon Super-8 Projector for a few years and I recall being rather pleased with how decent the original super-8 image looked when blown up large, especially the Kodachrome 40, the projected digital images of a Super-8 film original transferred to digital video or betacam sp looked very similar in quality to what could be done with a super-8 Elmo Xenon projector.

    In the 90's I put together an analog videotape editing studio. Whenever I edited a video, I would color and video level correct every shot. (This is why I never made a profit, it took longer and I always took time off the sessions). Video Editing controls that I consider completely "normal" and "real time" are "set-up, brightness, chroma and hue". If I was working through an MX-50 analog/digital switcher, I also could control the video clip level, which was a huge advantage. But let me repeat, this is nowhere as manipulative as the hundreds of options that are available on Photoshop. The adjustments that I can make are what I call "the basics".

    I believe that once one exits an interior set that has been meticulously lit and is completely controllable, any type of film that is used can be adjusted even after the film has been processed. I am not of the opinion that raising the chroma level or brightness level on a videotape versus actually importing the signal into a digital domain where it can be manipulated in a myriad of ways is the same thing.

    So while I did adjust the still images on my still image page, the foundation beneath them hasn't been altered in any way. What I do for my images, I do for every project that I edit.
    Last edited by Alessandro Machi; 02-02-2007 at 03:00 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    My Super-8 Still Images
    Super-8mm.net
    Super-8mm.com

    I purchase Kodak Film & Inkjet Paper but can't find Kodak Inkjet Printable DVDs.

    Small Format Magazine
    Super-8 Today Magazine

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin