No fair, I tried the same composition with my 1987 Civic and it didn't come out quite right...
J/K, great shot!
dash2k8: For those arguing "reality vs art," you do realize that every single movie nowadays is heavily color graded, right? And in many instances, the lighting technicians lit up a scene in the most unrealistic (or visually "real") way. Things that should be completely dark are suddenly given a silhouette to give the room depth. Two people talking in the dark magically happen to stand behind a light that illuminates their face in the perfect angle that adds mystery and intrigue to their dialogue. Is that not another form of HDR, only it's in pre-production? And then in post the warm scene with artificial rain is turned bluish and desaturated to make it look like a tempestuous storm. All. Completely. Fake. But critics "love" the art direction and execution. Go figure.
Not picking a fight here, but the opening words of the first Star Wars itself was CGI. But I get what you mean.
Even without considering CGI, a lot of drama movies use all real sets but still rely extensively on artificial lighting and post grading.
p.s. Does this mean you've not enjoyed any Pixar stuff? I mean, it is ALL CGI.
For those arguing "reality vs art," you do realize that every single movie nowadays is heavily color graded, right? And in many instances, the lighting technicians lit up a scene in the most unrealistic (or visually "real") way. Things that should be completely dark are suddenly given a silhouette to give the room depth. Two people talking in the dark magically happen to stand behind a light that illuminates their face in the perfect angle that adds mystery and intrigue to their dialogue. Is that not another form of HDR, only it's in pre-production? And then in post the warm scene with artificial rain is turned bluish and desaturated to make it look like a tempestuous storm. All. Completely. Fake. But critics "love" the art direction and execution. Go figure.
GaryJP: I guess for me part of the problem is that under the obsession with high dynamic range or extended dynamic range seems to lie the belief that this
is automatically better than this
I guess it's A vision, but it's not the only one. It's a belief I have the temerity not to share.
Most HDR looks like my dog threw up, but I wouldn't go out of my way to go to someone's website to insult it.
I can respect your view. I don't love his images to the point that I'd buy a book of his work, but I don't outright slam HDR as a waste of time, either. You're right that not everything is Columbus, but when he set out on his venture, people also thought he was wrong. If social media existed then, he'd probably have cancelled his voyage based on negative reviews. It never hurts to try something. If it doesn't work out, great, lesson learned!
Again, my only point: like it or dislike it, no one can judge whether something is trash or not. You say 9 trashed a beautiful landscape, I say it gives it a painterly feel.
dash2k8: All commercial forms of photography today are heavily edited. That perfect skin on the perfect body of the perfect supermodel? The skin is fake, the body has extra fat removed, and areas unevenly lit are brightened. I think TR's HDR work is very realistic-looking, not the canned and automated results that come from Photomatix presets. If people are going to slam his work for being over-processed or fake, then they can just go to the mall and start blasting the huge ads everywhere. 99% "fake," all of them.
It's one thing to dislike the HDR style, it's another to outright slam it as garbage or crap or fake. By the same standard, Picasso couldn't paint worth a crap.
@GaryJP, yes, I know that. He has many "normal" works that only came to light afterward. My point is he was judged for his "ugly" paintings (which is only a sample of his entire body of work, just as TR here) when he was really a master inside. (Again, not making any direct comparisons between Picasso and TR). Who's to say TR didn't get bored with "normal" pictures and decided to go surreal?
"Most HDR looks like my dog threw up" is why I appreciate the work posted here. TR clearly puts in the work to use HDR judiciously (good-bye halo), but everyone is eager to insult anything associated with this acronym. HDR is a tool, a process. One can like it and use it, or dislike it and don't use it. To completely deny its right of existence as many are doing is a little 1492. Remember when the world was flat? Mr. Columbus got a lot of hate, too. ;)
@justmeMN, I KNEW someone was going to bite on that. Read my piece again. I never said he was Picasso. I said that by the standard with which we judge things, Picasso was a lower-tier painter who couldn't even draw a straight face. It's up to an artist/photographer decides to present his emotions through his work.
@acidic, I did not say ALL of his photos were realistic-looking. Critics love to take things out of context. I said his work looks realistic compared to the automated stuff we see everywhere. Certainly the stuff posted here look a lot better than the amateurish results that flood HDR forums. And several of his shots looked like they could have been lit that way, not HDR'd. It's his "ability" to control HDR and use it to enhance an otherwise poorly lit scene that I'm referencing. As for the final result, everyone has different tastes.
It's like certain foods: you love them or hate them, but who's to say what's "good" or "bad?"
All commercial forms of photography today are heavily edited. That perfect skin on the perfect body of the perfect supermodel? The skin is fake, the body has extra fat removed, and areas unevenly lit are brightened. I think TR's HDR work is very realistic-looking, not the canned and automated results that come from Photomatix presets. If people are going to slam his work for being over-processed or fake, then they can just go to the mall and start blasting the huge ads everywhere. 99% "fake," all of them.
Leave it to the geniuses at MIT to come up with stuff like this. Who knew you could market parallax-obstruction-removal as a camera feature? Great job.
Photato: Phantom 3 Pro 4K VideoPhantom 3 Advanced 1080PPhantom 3 Standard 2K
Doenst make sense to me.
I disagree that people will catch up very soon. I bought the Phantom 1 two years ago and DJI has now come out with the Inspire and Phantom 3, while everyone else is still producing poor copies of their products. At similar prices, most people would buy a Phantom x instead of a knock-off. Moving up, the S900-S1000 are the standards of the hexa- and octocopter. I'm not worshipping the DJ brand, just want to acknowledge that they are the only ones innovating the prosumer-to-pro drones while everyone else only copies.
ttran88: Sony is making money? I thought they were giving up with cameras, I have been told A mount is dead and now E mount APSC is dead as well.
I recall their electronics such as TVs and BD players were not doing so well.
justmeMN: It's ironic. Sony makes a lot of money selling sensors for smartphones, but their own smartphone division is a money loser.
I totally agree. Sony phones are so hard to see in people's hands, but a lot of the other phones use Sony sensors. Go figure.
dash2k8: For everyone laughing at its price tag... remember that there are already plenty of 30K+ cameras on the market. Arri, Red, Panasonic, Sony, etc, and they're not exactly bankrupt.
A joke? If having a fine market share is a joke, that's a fine joke to me. I can name 25 established pros who use the C500 or C300 for their documentary work when they could easily be using Sony or Panasonic equivalents. And where do you get they only shoot HD? C500 and the new C300 can both record 4K.
For all your defeatist comments, you have not once convinced anyone that the $30K price is not going to be a deterrent to sales. All you do is keep harping "it's not a camera, it's not a camera, it's not a camera." Your real problem is this thing has a Canon label on it.
Donnie G: It'll be fun to see what the creative minds in the motion picture industry produce with this camera. It'll be even more fun watching the Canon bashers beat their keyboards to a bloody pulp as the ME20F-SH goes about the business of generating new revenue for Canon and does its part to help propel EF lens production toward a 120 million milestone. Now that's mirrorless done right, lol. :))
Francis Carver, you seem bent out of your way to discredit a piece of technology that's not even produced yet. What's it to you? All the things you say, I could read from online blogs written by other people or even the manuals.
It's how you use it, not what the spec sheet says. People once didn't think the 5D2 could shoot movies and documentaries as well as "real cameras," but that proved to be untrue. GoPros were only helmet cams... until DJI made a drone that took it in the air. To leave the jurisdiction of video, "experts" once claimed that the iPod would never sell in a market already flooded with MP3 players. I'm sure the big studios will have a use for 4 million ISO. Deep-sea explorations will find this super handy. Even search and rescue operations at sea will benefit from this. The possibilities are endless, but all you can talk about is how this thing can't record on its own? C'mon, you're better than this.
SmilerGrogan: I predict great things in the DPR Challenges once this camera is in stock at your local rental house or LensRentals and BorrowLenses....And I also can't wait to see this thing go into the camera comparison widget—the comments will be awesome.
The Red camera brain also cannot record anything on their own without the dedicated RedMag unit, so it's kinda the same idea. The a7s couldn't record to ProRes 422 without an external recorder, either (yes, I know it can record regular video to SDXC). Cameras have been using external recording forever, why is this a surprise?
I can already imagine this camera being useful for shooting dark scenes in movies. For one thing, the lighting technicians will have a much easier time and there's less need in post to make the brightly-lit shots look "dark." Outdoor night chase scenes on foot or in cars will also benefit tremendously. Ever try to light an action scene outdoors? Yeah, that's a lot of fun. This camera could potentially alleviate all these issues, much as the a7s opened up numerous new opportunities to indie filmmakers and docu-shooters.
I merely point out that "price" is not an issue. An ISO 4 million camera for extreme low light performance at 30K is definitely feasible, especially for the target consumers like, oh, I don't know, National Geographic, Discovery, and other not-so-poor media companies. I do not presume to judge this Canon camera's actual performance.
And why NOT compare this camera to "those" top-tier cameras? Canon already has the C500 and C300 eating up large (not majority, read right) chunks of the documentary market. These two cameras are for real. Only Canon haters automatically presume this camera will be bad. If this were a Sony/Arri/Red product, all the criticism instantly disappears. That's just how it works.
For everyone laughing at its price tag... remember that there are already plenty of 30K+ cameras on the market. Arri, Red, Panasonic, Sony, etc, and they're not exactly bankrupt.
Alternative options to the mainstream solution is always welcome in that it keeps the big dog serious.
whyamihere: I find the level of cynicism of most of the comments to be simultaneously unsurprising and utterly infuriating.
Nowhere else can you find a group of people who are completely defeatist about a production team taking a photography and film tool that the majority of people have on their person at any given time and making a full-length feature.
I'll gladly argue against the use of a 'real camera'. I'm fed up with footage from 'real cameras' being post-processed into appearing as amateur handheld video. This is the real deal, which lends to the character and authenticity of the movie.
For all the concerns about the footage quality, I can't say that I've read a single review of the film thus far complaining of how the film looks. Your average audience member doesn't care about IQ unless it adds or completely distracts from the story being told. It looks like an interesting movie, which means I'll probably take it over the countless beautifully-shot yet otherwise-garbage films out there.
Everything you said makes sense and I agree wholeheartedly with every point, so I'm not here to argue. Just wanted to say that even though the average viewer doesn't give a hoot about IQ, we as shooters should and it's totally reasonable to complain about the IQ of a smartphone versus a Red Epic. I agree that if a good story is told, IQ isn't a problem unless it's absolutely horrible. Just saying that we should care.