Messages

1

Lighting / Re: Sekonic Light Meters: Which one to get? Features? Or another brand?

« on: June 18, 2013, 08:04:27 PM »

I use a L-758 as I use the spot on it often when out photographing. In studio, the 3D and flat domes are used for lighting ratio and light level determinations. The 358 is a good meter, but without the spot. Since I also shoot large and medium format film (still!), it's obvious why I use the spot.

The newest generation of the Minolta meters (Auto Meter V) and the Gossen Starlite is also a great meter - used them for quite a while too. Since I have tons of pocketwizards around here, it's the reason I use the Sekonic now. I can test fire in studio without sync cables and outdoors with a bunch of TT5s.

For a basic, beginner level meter, the Sekonic L-328F is great. You can get them used for under $100 - check out KEH. I still have my 328 with spot, flat and dome diffusers. Since I've taken it all over the world, it's my "reference" meter and I check all of my other meters with it.

Cine meters are much more expensive, but the current "standard" meters can also do some of the cine (time) modes. Unless you are doing actual motion picture work (ARRI or Red), you probably don't need a cine meter.

HOWEVER...since you don't mention owning any studio lighting and only have two 600rt's, you probably don't need a meter - just dial the ratios into your flashes and let them do the work. Using and understanding how to read a meter correctly is a lot of work. Properly used, you can do a lot of good, but improperly used, it'll drive you nuts and screw with your technique a lot.

Lots of options, but I'd say unless there's something special in one of the other models, the L-358 is the money spot.  Other models can control your lights from the meter (pocketwizards), but really, the L-358 is all 99% of us need.  I'm curious to see what other folks say, as I haven't played with other brands.

You can add the radio module to the L-358 and get the PW triggering on it...

2

Canon General / Re: Question about editing for online consumption

« on: June 17, 2013, 06:41:39 PM »

Are you exporting for sRGB? And, do you have your screen calibrated with a hardware calibrator?

Exporting for aRGB will make for some whacked colors (usually muted or clipped) and an improperly (or not at all) calibrated screen means that you are adjusting the colors to taste on that monitor, but not to a standard. The export then changes the output to match that.

Yes, I export to sRGB and have calibrated the monitor with a DataColor Spyder3.

I am reasonably sure this is an issue with lower-end monitors. On my uncalibrated tablet and phone these images look as intended. The tablet has IPS display and the phone is an AMOLED. My concern is really all the budget laptops that are out there.

The first image was shot by my brother and edited by me. It looks very contrasty in JPEG on my iMac and tablet as mentioned. At work it's pretty flat. If I max out the monitor's contrast it looks okay. However, no one would set this monitor that way as it makes most pages and OS screens barely readable. I feel like there are a LOT of people in this boat.

The second image shows some clipping on the top of singer's head at home. At work, his whole face looks posterized and featureless. I know stage lighting is very harsh and I over-exposed it. That's not the point. I felt it looked acceptable at home but not on this monitor.

All I can think to do is buy a cheap LCD to preview on while editing. Or just saying, "Screw it. I'm not going to worry about the viewing experience of people with crap displays. If they cared how images looked, they would have spent more money."

I routinely export images for both aRGB and sRGB - the former for print and the latter web. All of my outputs are matched and the print imaging looks just like what the client sees on the web. Never had a problem. The 4-color press outputted flyers/posters/brochures look identical to what the world sees on the client's website. That means via calibrated or cheap monitor.

That second image you've uploaded looks horrid on my calibrated 10-bit aRGB screen. But, it looks the exact same as on the cheap uncalibrated test monitor I use for verifying output in IE6 on Win2K. Since you already output sRGB and have a calibrated monitor, that leaves only one thing: your workflow. It looks like you're over-editing the files, causing clipping via lost data between steps. And the saturation looks like it's too high.

3

Canon General / Re: Question about editing for online consumption

« on: June 17, 2013, 04:13:05 PM »

Are you exporting for sRGB? And, do you have your screen calibrated with a hardware calibrator?

Exporting for aRGB will make for some whacked colors (usually muted or clipped) and an improperly (or not at all) calibrated screen means that you are adjusting the colors to taste on that monitor, but not to a standard. The export then changes the output to match that.

4

Software & Accessories / Re: Recommended Video cards for use with Adobe Premier...?

« on: June 17, 2013, 04:54:56 AM »

AFAIK, there's basically no performance difference betwen a super-expensive quadro card and a $150 geforce gaming card:
http://www.studio1productions.com/Articles/PremiereCS5.htm

This may change with newer versions, but I wouldn't spend that kind of money without being sure it's not a stupid expense.

After reading this, I did some research and found the following.

http://blogs.adobe.com/premierepro/2013/05/improved-gpu-support-in-adobe-premiere-pro-cc.html

This does appear to open up a lot of cards, but it's not like the entire Quadro line is now outcompeted by a $150 card.

I'm looking at the GeForce GTX 680 as an alternative to the Quadro K4000, but I'm wondering if that extra 1GB of memory in the K4000 will increase performance by 33%.

As a hardware engineer, developer and consultant (for 25+ years), I've heard that before from so many people - here's what it translates to: "I have a Chevy Cavalier that'll do 120mph. Why do I need a Corvette? I can run just as fast as them on the road.". Then, 1 hour later "I don't understand why my Cavalier blew up."

The Quadros are more stable, more efficient and have better drivers. They are for *creating* content, whilst the GeForce cards are designed for content playback. All the little gamers out there are screaming that their little gamer cards are just as good as the Quadro, but have dead cards 6 months later. They aren't designed to be pushed to the edge continuously - just in short bursts.

There's obviously more granular reasons why high end gear is what it's worth. I'd take a Supermicro workstation board over any Asus "workstation" board. I'll take SCSI and SAS over any SATA. I'll take ECC RAM over unbuffered. I'll take Panaflo, Nidec and Delta fans over any gamer box Thermaltake fan - faster, doesnt' fail and higher RPM capability. I'll take a solid rolled 16Ga steel case over some pretty plastic gamer case with windows - the shielding is better. And, I'll take my Wacom Intuos w/ mouse over any "high dpi" gamer mouse.

If you're playing around with your computer, then anything is fine. But, if it's something you want to rely on day after day, get the job done and the money made - buy gear that isn't designed for gamers. You don't want the vid card to be the weak link in your HP workstation - don't put cheap tires on your high performance car.

5

EOS Bodies / Re: A Big Megapixel Discussion

« on: June 17, 2013, 12:42:05 AM »

I am really hoping they opt for the 5D series body. I think that would make more sense because the 1D series cameras are built for people who shoot high volume work. High megapixel shooters tend to do low more low volume work.

Plus, for all the 5DII users who didn't upgrade to a 5DIII because of a lack of megapixel or IQ improvements, a higher megapixel 5Dx would finally give them a reason to buy a new Canon camera.

...not always. I shoot high volume at times - and I love my 1 series body. I despise the 5-series because of how small the body is - it hurts to shoot for hours on end with it!

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with? Your point and mine are the same as far as I can tell. The 1 series bodies are built for high volume work. High volume cameras tend to be speced with lower megapixels and higher framerates.

My point is that a high megapixel sensor is not really going to be benficial to high volume shooters in most cases (and some might even consider it a detriment because the larger file sizes slow down a high volume workflow.) So why put a high megapixel sensor into a 1 series body that is built for high volume work?

Hmmm, I use my 1D for high volume, but my 1Ds for low volume, high-res work. The 1 series isn't about speed always - it's about reliability, familiarity, and guaranteed output. I may only shoot a total of 200 frames for a wedding, 20 frames for a product shoot, and 1 frame for reproduction work. That's not very high volume, but does require the *resolution*. I can also share all my accessories that between 1D / 1Ds lines. 10fps with tubes on? Done that shooting macro. 1 shot with a 400 on, done that too.

But wait, I've shot a dance session that was over 2000 frames with the 1Ds. That's pretty high volume and high resolution.

I'm thinking that you actually don't own / have never owned a 1-series body. Holding a 1Ds all day is a lot better than holding a 5-series all day. When it rains during a shoot, I don't stop and put rain covers on, I keep shooting - and at very low volume, 21mp rates. I've dropped my rig in mud, sand, water while shooting landscapes. I've laid my camera in puddles to do low level shots. And, I never worried about the camera once.

I guess you think that ultra high-res Hasselblad shooters also do low volume work - tell that to the shooters who routinely shoot 1500 shots in studio on a daily basis doing fashion/catalog/modelling at 50mp.

The money is in consumer cameras where they'll sell a new model everytime one comes out to the same person - because it has new features and gimicks. That new technology trickles up slowly to the top of the line through the Rebel->xxD->xD->1-series. Most 1 series shooters don't care about the newest, latest/greatest. We want something that works, is tested, stable, reliable and gets our goal done without having to think, worry, or fiddle around. The camera is expected to produce repeatable, consistent response as soon as it's picked up - and for years to come in any condition and no matter if that is 100 or 100,000 frames this week.

6

Software & Accessories / Re: Recommended Video cards for use with Adobe Premier...?

« on: June 17, 2013, 12:14:40 AM »

In case you did not see this, it basically repeats docholiday's response.
 
http://www.nvidia.com/object/premiere-pro-cs6.html
 
Be sure to check the power requirements, you might need a amazingly big power supply which then means better cooling.

That's a definite! I run a PC Power and Cooling 1.2Kw in my box for procs, ram, board and video. There's another box externally plugged into my SCSI for storage that is by itself 1Kw.

The HP workstations should support 2x K600 or 1xK2000 with no problem, as long as you don't have a ton of disks in it. Keeping your 1x1TB would be ok. You might want to also consider adding a striped SSD array (2x256GB or 2x512GB) for capture/swap/rendering - it's one of the major bottlenecks.

7

Lenses / Re: Canon 100mm macro L or Zeiss 50mm makro?

« on: June 16, 2013, 11:47:25 PM »

The Canon 100 is great, sharp and useful. I've shot many a portrait, landscape, etc on it as well as macro work. The 1:1 vs 1:2 ratio for macro isn't as big a deal, as you can slip a cheap extension tube in your pocket and use it with the Zeiss 50 to get closer when necessary (Kenko air is just as good as Canon air, since there are no optics in the tube).

The Zeiss is a more "dimensional" lens - the microcontrast makes macro shot seem to have more depth (not that the Canon 100 is flat, it's pretty good). As a normal lens, the Zeiss is sharp and awesome.

The other advantage of the Zeiss is that you gain a stop in speed, which makes for abit of a brighter viewfinder. You loose IS, but at close distances, IS does absolutely nothing - it should be on a tripod in low light.

The loss of autofocus doesn't affect me either, I come from a Hasselblad background, so zone focusing for macro and moving the camera does just as good as autofocus if you know how to do it!

8

Software & Accessories / Re: X-Rite MSCCPP ColorChecker Passport - Who uses it? Opinions please...

« on: June 16, 2013, 11:33:00 PM »

I use one on location for a few shots, especially during difficult lighting. I also use a colorchecker SG for profiling my cameras. During product shooting, every final frame is shot with a passport to insure color accuracy and dead-on color temp adjustments. When I reproduce paintings, every frame has a colorcheck shot at the bottom of the frame with it also.

The passport occasionally gives hiccups, due to the patches being so small, causing a slight inaccuracy of color, but that's when I pull out a full size cc to do the work.

I also use a Minolta Color Meter to get accurate CT when necessary and to match lighting via gels.

As far as monitors go, yes, they will drift, even the best ones. I generally re-check calibrations once a month, and also right before a critical project on a daily basis. Be sure to warm up the monitor 30-45 minutes (even on the high end Eizos!) before you calibrate, and daily before usage. LED backlit units are a bit better, but I've still had them drift a bit.

I use Dell U monitors often and for the price, they are really good monitors. But, don't trust the presets for aRGB and sRGB, they're close, but never dead accurate. That's why you profile - you should always calibrate your monitor on your own if you care about editing accuracy. It can make the difference between good shadow detail and a black blotch or pure white vs white with a touch of detail.

As far as the packaged cal/checker, it depends on the price. You can get a good calibrator separately from the CC sometimes for cheaper than the prepackaged deal.

If you calibrate and it looks the "same", you're good for a while. But, most times, you'll be surprised how much better the calibrated monitor looks even though the factory preset one didn't look bad.

Also, if you print any of your own work, you'll definitely want a calibrator that does screen AND print. The CC insures accurate capture/reproduction - the calibrator insures accurate editing/output. I tend to set my monitors to 75cd/m² instead of the 100cd/m² that is commonly talked about, calibrate for wide-gamut via an i1 and get dead-on prints to all my printers. If you send out for printing, you'll still want calibration, and use an sRGB profile for best output.

9

Software & Accessories / Re: Recommended Video cards for use with Adobe Premier...?

« on: June 16, 2013, 11:24:28 PM »

Any of the newest generation Quadros - you can use 1x Quadro K2000 or 2x Quadro K600 (Kepler core) in a box and get really good results. The 600's are pretty cheap, but the 2000's are still the best performance-price break. It all depends on what your budget is - a K6000 would perform best with it's 1500+ cores.

The older generation cards just don't have the number of Cuda cores as high, so the newer ones give Premiere more processing power. Too few cores, and it'll be faster processing via CPU than Cuda. Just stay away from ATI cards - they used to be good, but nowadays, they suck a coprocessing and are slower than sh*t. Plus, the OpenCL implementation isn't always successfully supported in software.

10

Software & Accessories / Re: How to make sure checked camera gear is safe

« on: June 16, 2013, 11:17:33 PM »

"How to make sure checked camera gear is safe"

It's easy: don't ever check it.

I'd rather UPS a discreet box with a pelican in it to myself than leave it to the TSA morons that can't even add 2+2 correctly!

11

Software & Accessories / Re: LR5 + Hyper Threading Slows Down Exporting

« on: June 16, 2013, 11:15:46 PM »

Cache-thrashing is the cause and usually in combination with over scheduling the processor resources (too many software threads for available hardware threads, flooding the processor cache). If the data being loaded on one thread fills a processor cache, and the other thread requests a line read, then the cache gets dumped, loaded for the second one. Then, when the first core requests a line, the cache gets dumped again and the first thread's data gets reloaded from RAM (much slower than from L2/L3 cache). The excessive bus traffic and core context switching further affects the slowdowns. LR has been guilty of that many times, I've had exports that just dragged on when I had other apps working and fighting for proc resources.

I wrote an app that has it's own image processing and experienced quite a few thrashes in multi threaded operation using the thread pool until I split the parallel operations up in a method that takes into advantage not flooding the cache when one thread loads data. It sped up dramatically.

It's monitored using the performance monitor via a set of the 'cache' counters and some of the 'processor' counters.

12

Lighting / Re: Radio Triggering-- 600ex-rt + 430exii + ??????

« on: June 15, 2013, 05:21:55 AM »

My 2 cents:  on my 5DII, PW tt mini + AC3, paired with two 580EXII with tt5's- not all that reliable all the time.  I out up with it because I can futz with the exposure  until I get it right, rather than count on it being right shot after shot.  When I can't count on it at all, or when I fall into a ton of money, or when I just get sick of it I'll belly up and get a couple of 600EX- RT's and not look back.

sek

What about Pocket Wizards with the AC3 zone controller vs. 600EXs with ST-E3-RT?  Wouldn't those give fairly similar functionality?  I have 3 x 430EX ii + 1 x 600EX-RT which I currently control with a Phottix Strato ii system, but there are times when I am using 2 or 3 lights and would like to make rapid changes from the camera position.  Applying a flex/mini + AC3 system would probably work out cheaper than moving to more 600's but I'm interested to hear people thinking that the Canon system is far superior.

I've found the Phottix Stratos to be very reliable but obviously they don't have the functionality of the higher models and I haven't used them out to 80 feet as the OP was requesting.

The 580EXII has a lot of problems with the Flex/Mini - I gave up using the socks and the other "shields". Instead, I switched to a set of 430EXIIs, no shielding, and haven't had a single issue up to 250' or so. If I switch over to a Flex instead of Mini to transmit, I haven't had a single issue. It's just that 580 is noisy as all hell. You can always send the 580 out to be converted - it's just as solid then.

The worst was when I had a socked 580 in a softbox outdoors, the sun heated it up and it went psycho. I have yet to see anything out of the ordinary using a 430/no sock/softbox combo.

The AC3 does make setting ratios nice, and in manual mode, I can fire the setup with my Sekonic meter to measure ratios, etc without wires.

This all on a 1d3 and 1Ds3 setup. I've even hypersync'd up to 1/500s with acceptable results that didn't kick in HSS.

The reason I stick with PWs is that my Max's, Multimax and plus units can also be fired in studio without a dumb trigger installed. If I went straight 600rt's, I'd still have to keep a set of PWs (probably all multimax's) to fire all my studio lighting. I'll sometimes fire 6 heads, and still have to add 430s as kickers snooted. So, I just kept what I had and didn't spend on the 600's. It's the problems with systems, you get locked into "that" system once you get started. Since I already have tons of PWs, I just stuck with them.

13

Site Information / Re: banning people for nothing at canon rumors

« on: June 13, 2013, 07:49:36 PM »

I, for one, have to sympathize with the admins. I have been the admin on many a board, a server admin on IRC, and administrated many servers around the globe. It is very hard for an admin (who usually tries to stay out of discussions for political or other reasons) to sometimes get the full gist of what a conversation is about. With many items flying up at you from all different directions, you just can't always get what's going on in a certain post. And, since many people are not so skilled in posting sarcasm, jest, or other emotions, some posts may come through wrong.

Then, there are the users who have given reason time and time again via many different conversations why they get banned "easily". A user who rubs everybody wrong at one time or another, but just shy of the ban line will get remembered quickly. Admin's don't always remember the conversation, but we remember names, faces, and definitely attitudes.

If you don't want to be the person who gets "easily" banned, don't be in the minds of the admins - we have better things to do than look for certains names to appear in discussions with high post counts! And, no matter if we get paid to do the job or not, it's the same amount of work!

14

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: BG-E7 problems.

« on: June 13, 2013, 03:35:28 PM »

I have had nothing but problems with removeable battery grips, starting with the 20D and up to the 5s. Most times, it was oxidation on the contacts, other times, it was just odd. That was with both Canon and 3rd party grips.

Hence, why I got rid of all bodies that weren't 1-series, no more grip problems! I only have one "gripped" body left - 1VHs and it's been fine, oddly enough!

15

Software & Accessories / Re: Mac Pro Humor

« on: June 13, 2013, 01:05:17 AM »

This is still my favorite: