Oh well. I tried. -AJ

The other thing about MTF is that there’s no inherent loss of MTF in the image chain and with digital grading we have so much more control of the ways that contrast behaves in different parts of the

Thanks for DITsplaining that to me man, but there’s a bunch of studio execs, post production execs and producers that are in front of you my friend that get to arbitrate these things. I’m all for

John Brawley makes a lot of sense. His section re MTFs was music to my ears. My old mentor Ricky Leacock, when he found out what the early 16mm Mk I Zeiss Superspeeds cost, said “Baltars are good

Yo all I’m gonna say is it’s 2021 so if any of youz still think shooting uncompressed or raw or best quality whatever is “hard” or “not worth the effort” or “Post says...” y’all

In my many years of experience with DNG as a DP, simply because it is such an open format, it’s also the most likely to get screwed up and mangled in the post pipeline. Every system opens it a

Ø [Mitch Gross] Uncompressed RAW is the best quality — so what? It is a more burdensome workflow because it does not deliver an immediate result in the form most clients want and it requires more

This is especially true in the corporate world, a lot of whom now have in house post prod departments. There are lots of factors at work there such as availability of storage (when getting IT to

Yes, but you are misunderstanding what I mean by “workflow.” Clients don’t want uncompressed RAW. They don’t want to deal with it. It is something different and requires different workflow.

I paid $2,120 for 512 GB Sony AXS media ~ $4/GB. It was a ridiculous price even then. USB-c SSD media for the Sigma fp is $220 for 2,000 GB ~ $0.11/GB. Compression does not improve

I was referring to the standard Alexa not the LF. Of course we need objective measurements but ultimately we work in a world where taste is more important than fact. Another story I've told many times

I've had one of these since it first came out and it is an amazing camera for it's size and cost. I've spent a lot of time ripping apart the RAW and working out where it's limitation are (for me),

Ø [Ben Allan] I think the confusion about this was born with Kodak calling their original LUTs a LOG to LIN conversion meaning that it was - “more linear than LOG” ;-) Kodak though, also

Volunteers? Sure, get me a Sigma FP and I'll shoot a comparison. The thing is, we're back at the my number is bigger than your number game, and it's bullshit. The only thing that matters is what the

Of course, Linear is different to Rec.709. Current display technology can’t reproduce a true linear image - ACES is an example of true linear encoding and how it looks. I think the confusion about

Ø 12-bit raw footage with linear encoding clips harshly, and loses some highlight forgiveness (witness the AJA Cion). Log encoding enables 12-bit raw to deliver quality comparable to what's possible

Time is money. Technology is cheaper & faster than ever before of course, but that also means that it’s cheaper & faster for other formats as well as uncompressed RAW. Clients get used to various

12-bit raw footage with linear encoding clips harshly, and loses some highlight forgiveness (witness the AJA Cion). Log encoding enables 12-bit raw to deliver quality comparable to what's possible

Ø I like having a raw option, but I don't see any point in uncompressed raw. It's a waste of space So, how much do you save with Log? 2 bits (20%)? Do you prefer compression artefacts, instead?

Sorry, but having LOG does not mean "huge compression" at all. Maybe you mix up things - like you bring in also AVC or HEVC to the process, those ones have such poor bit depth (8 or 10bit),