September 17, 2014, 01:45:38 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - dmosier

Pages: [1] 2
Lenses / Re: Size of filters for EOS Cinema lenses?
« on: September 07, 2013, 08:00:24 PM »
Let me rephrase the question then.

I know that a 4x5 filter (4x5.65 really but that's the shorthand) is wide enough for the actual physical diameter of the lens, but not sure about the height. Of course, the image is 16x9 so the filter doesn't have to be as tall as it is wide. But is it tall enough that the entire field of view of the lenses will go through the filter and I won't see the edges.

We actually have Schneider 4x4 filters but that is just shy of 114mm and I'm not sure if they are wide enough. Because even though the physical housing of the lens is 114mm, I'm not sure if the filter needs to be that wide as well to cover the entire field of view of the lenses.

I'm less worried about the physical size than the field of view. I was wondering if anyone else has shot with these lenses and what size filters they used.

Is that more clear?

Lenses / Size of filters for EOS Cinema lenses?
« on: September 06, 2013, 10:01:54 PM »
I'm going to be shooting a short film in a month and we're planning on renting a set of EOS CN-E cinema lenses but I've never worked with these lenses before. According to the specs they are all a diameter of 114mm.

Does anyone know if a standard matte box with 4x5" filters would be the sufficient size?


Side note/question... Has anyone had any experience with the cine and non-cine versions of the same lens?  They're optically identical, but is there any build quality improvement on the cine version?

I'm looking at the 14/2.8 and the extra cost for the cine version would be worth it for a focus ring that isn't sloppy.

Not used the two versions of the same lenses, but I've used the 85mm next to non-cine photo lenses and it is a world of difference in ease of use. We have a 35mm lens at work that has the tiniest lens throw I've ever seen. I'm talking half inch turn that changes focal plan 10 feet. Pulling focus with that thing is a pain.

But the 85 is a beauty to use.

Sure, that sounds like a cool lens and all... but they already had a 14mm so I'm really not sure why this lens exists. Maybe they'll put a 15mm lens out next instead of the 50mm cine lens that is the glaring hole in their lineup.

Just this morning I was shooting video outside with the 60D. Generally speaking, 1/50 is the shutter speed you need to stick with which only leaves ISO and aperture that can be adjusted. Since even at ISO 100 your f/stop is going to be really high that means the only way to get down as low as you want is with ND filters. In a nutshell they are like putting sunglasses on a lens.

So the settings I used were:

1/50 shutter
ISO 160 (I only use multiples of 160, or "native ISOs", but that is a different topic)
ND .9 filter

Like I said, to get down to f/1.8 in broad daylight without drastically increasing the shutter speed is going to take a crap ton of ND.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: How bad is moire?
« on: February 12, 2013, 01:35:13 PM »
Both of them have better ISO options as well.

... unless of course you use Magic Lantern :-) ... but the swivel screen on the 60d definitely is a plus for video amongst other things as landscape/macro tripod work.

T3i has a swivel screen and is the cheapest with equal image quality. Magic lantern takes care of ISO options. For stills I'd take the other two, but for video the T3i is the best bang for the buck. All decent options, though!

I know this probably sounds like a minor quibble, but I can't stand that I have to hold down a button with my thumb while turning a dial to change my f/stop on the T3i. To me it is worth the extra cash just to get the better form of the 60D body. But to each their own, of course. :)

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Anti-Aliasing Filter
« on: February 11, 2013, 12:22:14 PM »
I would like to add something I read in another thread about the 6D and this filter that is worth pointing out here.

That video is presented by a company that is selling a filter designed to "fix" moire and aliasing. So who is to say they didn't make the "before" video look as poor as possible in order to make their filter seem like an indispensable item? The 6D may very well look that lousy by default. How can I tell? I've never used one. But there is also no way to tell that they didn't tweak the camera settings to make it look like garbage just to sell their filter.

So that video alone is not sufficient to judge how good or bad the 6D really is.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 6D not usable for shooting video?
« on: February 11, 2013, 12:15:42 PM »
Actually, that is a very good point that I had not considered. Obviously, they have an vested interest in showing how much better it is with their filter than without and tweaking the camera to make it look as poor as possible would only help them. That just reinforces the fact that it is hard to judge a camera without getting your hands on one as opposed to only have online videos to judge. So I guess I will reserve final judgement on the 6D for now.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: How bad is moire?
« on: February 10, 2013, 07:20:02 PM »
That said, I'd get a t3i, used Mark II, Mark III, or C100 for video if you need Canon.

A T3i? Meh... I think that wouldn't be a good choice. A 60D or 7D would be better. Same sensor, but with better hardware and firmware wrapped around it. 7Ds are tanks and the 60D still has the flip out screen. Both of them have better ISO options as well.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Anti-Aliasing Filter
« on: February 09, 2013, 01:33:37 AM »
I use DSLRs almost exclusively for video so I really want the 6D to be my camera of choice but the moire really bothers me. I haven't used it personally so, unfortunately, the only way for me to analyze its performance is through videos posted online. This is not ideal as I often have no idea what camera settings were used, and there is always the possibility that the image is further affected when uploaded online.

I have used the MkII, 7D, and 60D (MkIII a little but not enough to say I am familiar with it), and I find the moire/aliasing in those cameras to be perfectly acceptable for my needs. But, based solely on what I've seen online, the 6D looks worse than those cameras. All I can find is people stating how much worse the 6D is than the MkIII, which I should expect for $1000 difference. But I still can't find anyone with an informed, personal, experience with the 6D compared to those other DSLRs that can tell me whether or not the moire is the same as, better, or worse.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 6D not usable for shooting video?
« on: February 07, 2013, 10:24:01 PM »
Based purely on footage watched online, and not personal experience, I may have come to the conclusion that the 6D out of the box is not very usable for video.

Sigh. What exactly do you mean by not very usable? As in you literally can't use it? Perhaps your comment about out of the box alludes to a situation before you've attached a lens to the camera (in which case - yes you wouldn't get usable video)? Or as in the 6D suffers from the same issues as the 5dm2/7d/60d/600d in terms of moire and aliasing?

Because plenty of people made stunning work with all those other cameras - the video is a long way from unusable. Yes you have be careful to work around the camera's weaknesses in particular circumstances. And yes if given the choice between a camera that you have to do this with and another body where the same issues are far better managed (5dm3 or 1dx) then choosing the latter (more expensive) model might be worthwhile - especially if you're using the kit to make a living as a videographer.

But calling the 6D's video not very usable isn't very true.

You really don't need to insult my intelligence by asking if I was referring to whether the camera had a lens on it or not. By "not very usable" I mean exactly that. I wouldn't use it. Or not a stock, out of the box 6D as opposed to one that had an AA filter installed such as the one showcased in the video link I provided. Did you look at the video in that link? There wasn't a single thing it was pointed at that didn't strobe like crazy. I have probably shot a few hundred hours of footage with MkIIs, 7Ds, and 60Ds in both narrative and documentary settings and never gotten footage affected by moire and aliasing like that.

In page 3 of this thread I specifically asked if anyone out there had experience shooting on those cameras AND the 6D and could comment exactly on how the moire and aliasing compared. Nobody did. I would still prefer to hear from someone who has. Absent that, I am only able to look at footage online (not ideal) and draw my own conclusions. If you have personal experience that would shed light on this for me I would love to hear it.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 6D not usable for shooting video?
« on: February 07, 2013, 10:41:26 AM »
Based purely on footage watched online, and not personal experience, I may have come to the conclusion that the 6D out of the box is not very usable for video. However, this morning I saw this article about an AA filter that improves it quite a bit.

Of note is the fact that the image looked noticeably darker with the filter on, but I also don't know whether or not the people shooting the video took this into account and just shot it both off and on and never bothered adjusting the aperture.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 6D not usable for shooting video?
« on: February 01, 2013, 03:07:17 AM »
So... nothing?  ???

Nobody has used the 6D as well as the 7D/60D and can say whether or not the moire is the same, better, or worse?

You could try a Photo Basics kit off of Amazon. They aren't the most pro lights ever made but they sure would look like they were to someone getting their portraits taken.

They have small 3 light kits like this one:

That's probably one of the cheapest 3 light kits I've seen. They also have some strobe kits that cost a little more. I have no idea how bright any of their lights are as I've never worked with them.

The Glidecam works great with DSLRs. I personally own an HD4000 with the X-10 support arm and vest.

If you are ONLY going to be putting the camera on the stabilizer (the part that you can use handheld) I would recommend getting the smaller HD2000 as DSLRs are really light cameras. I chose to get the HD4000 because I wanted to use cinema rigs with the DSLRs, or to use actual video cameras that might weigh quite a bit more. With the HD4000 and X-10 arm and vest, I can carry rigs up to 18 pounds. When I put the DSLR on there, even with the extra weight of the rig, I have to add the steel plates that come with the X-10 to give it the inertia it needs for optimal performance.

If you do go with the lighter HD2000, I would not recommend the X-10 as it was designed for heavier rigs. They have a "smaller" support arm and vest system, the Smooth Shooter, but I can't recommend that one either as it only has a single-stage arm instead of the typical dual-stage support arm.

Instead, I would suggest a hybrid system. The Merlin stabilizer is a turd (in my opinion, of course) that, while functioning just fine within its own design, doesn't give the versatility of movement that the Glidecam (or way more expensive Steadicam) systems have. It is also WAY more expensive than comparable Glidecam gear. HOWEVER, the Merlin support arm and vest ARE awesome. They are actually cheaper than the Glidecam Smooth Shooter (at $1500 instead of $1600) AND have a dual-stage support arm. It can carry a lower maximum load than the X-10 but if you are only flying a DSLR sans rig on the thing, that is actually a good thing.

One thing of note about this hybrid system: You will need to adapt the Merlin arm to accept the Glidecam stabilizer. This actually isn't hard to do. Stay away from DIY solutions like using a hammer (not a joke) and buy a custom built adapter like this one:

It is only $45 so well worth having a legitimate adapter instead of the nuts-and-bolts DIY solutions.

I hope that helps.

Pages: [1] 2