August 30, 2014, 08:40:40 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 - SlothLovesChunk

Pages: [1]
1
Lenses / Re: Bridge not sharp - why?
« on: March 11, 2013, 03:14:06 AM »
Eh, this looks like motion blur. Not one thing is in focus, even in what you can obviously see is the focus field. Don't see glare (as if from moisture in the lens).

A few things:
1/20th is waaaay too slow a shutter speed if you're shooting over 70mm...tripod or not. In cinema, even on a 50lb, $20,000 tripod, we never start action until a few seconds after rolling, as you need time for the camera to settle. Remote or not, the mirror flip in a DSLR causes vibration...even when it's locked up, the shutter itself will cause minor vibration. If you're ever in California, like me, you know that there's no such thing as "stable ground". Don't ever count on it. When I shoot long exposures, I always hold a black card in front of the lens before the shutter opens, wait a second, then open it up for exposure...camera shake is a sneaky beast.

125 ISO is way too low. Boost it and increase your shutter speed. Canon sensors seem to be the least noisy in increments of 160, so the cleanest ISOs are 160, 320, 640, etc, so actually 640 will probably have less noise than 125, oddly. There is virtually no significant visible noise until you get past 800...I think even 1250 is very pristine, and better than many of the lower ISOs. Go up to 640 or 800, increase your shutter speed...1/500 and above are pretty safe.

Doesn't really look like a glass issue, but do make sure your filters are awesome. I don't know what you've got on there. L lenses are brilliant and expensive...but the g's you spend on 'em are worthless if you have a murky $25 dollar Japan Optics plexi-glass filter in front of it. B+W/Schneidder filters are immaculate. They're painfully expensive, but they are sharp as a tack and they disappear in front of your lens. I've had a $120 B+W filter take the fall on a volcanic rock in New Zealand for my $1600 L lens, and saved its life. It's like an insurance policy. 

Hope this helps. Sloth hates fuzzy images.

2
EOS Bodies / Re: An Official Canon EOS-1D X AF Article & Cinema EOS FAQ
« on: November 10, 2011, 09:14:55 PM »
Excellent info on the C300. Odd to say this, but the more I learn about the C300, the more I like it. As much as we've all been conditioned to believe that 4k is pro and anything less is for amateurs, I think that's totally overblown, especially when you think about the concomitant burdensome file sizes and render times. This camera puts out a damn beautiful image. The last 3 Star Wars were 1080p...come on, if that's not good enough, who do we think we are?
If the real street price comes down at least 25%, this might be kind of a magical camera. Built in ND's, CF card recording, 190 minute battery life? Red batteries give you 25 minutes! Their SSD's start at $1,000. When you add up the costs required to assemble a full, working Scarlet with Red's over-priced accessories, the Scarlet's basically the same price, if not more, especially if you need a $4k red rocket and extra storage space, etc...it really doesn't seem very special upon closer scrutiny...especially with the ridiculous cropping required to shoot above 12fps. 

3
Lenses / Re: How much!?
« on: November 04, 2011, 10:05:32 AM »
I know a lot of people insist on the superiority of these PL "cinema" lenses, but the idea that they're worth a $40,000 up-charge on any of our L lenses is just ridiculous. They are trying to market these things as "4K rated"...has everyone forgotten that our DSLR's already have 4k+ sensors? I feel like I'm living in a coo coo clock! All of our lenses already ARE 4k lenses! 4k resolution is not new. It's only new to video.
The ONLY real difference in these lenses is the focusing mechanism and manual iris. That's it. Our stills glass is beautiful...the stuff that people are shooting with their EF mount on Epic is absolutely flawless.
If you don't mind dealing with tricky focus pulling, your L lenses are already $45,000-level lenses. Even Gale Tattersall agrees (House DP). Hollywood is an old-money kind of club. Cinema gear is extremely cost-prohibitive for truly unnecessary reasons, but a lot of industry bros love to keep it that way because it makes them feel special. Sadly, Canon's feeding into that crap with a $20,000 1080p camera and $45,000 lenses. This is silly. Apparently the word "cinema" is just a tool to inflate your prices.
Red spanked Canon yesterday. The price and resolution of Scarlet, RAW recording, full upgradability, ef mount standard...kind of a dream camera...but the cropping on Scarlet is a borderline dealbreaker...
It seems we're all still sort of stuck in the middle. It seems like what everyone wants is a FF sensor video camera with good resolution and color space for a price we could put on ONE credit card (<5k). I don't think that's unreasonable, either. The 5DII was so popular because of that big fat sensor! That's it! It just has a look to it that you can't get any other way.
Throw an original 5D 12mp sensor in front of an EF mount with dual Digic V and a Thunderbolt port to record raw or 2k+ res externally. Done. $3k max and it'll still be profitable.

4
EOS Bodies / Re: Dan Chung Talks EOS-1D X Video
« on: October 28, 2011, 06:37:10 PM »
i mean, this is a Photo Camera, and all i hear is about video and video.

WHAT?!?!  Dan Chung, who is a video shooter, made a video about the 1D X, and all he talks about is video?  Whats going on?!?!?!?! 

Did you really expect him to dive deeply into the stills side of the camera?  ::)

+1
We can't expect more than incremental improvements in stills technology, but video tech is burgeoning.

Let's not forget we've been sort of scraping the ceiling on stills tech here for a long, long time...nobody really needs anything more than 12-15mp (we've had over 21 for years now). With RAW, we've got more DR than film. Not sure why everyone's looking for nightvision ISO in these cameras...if you want to shoot in moonlight, stop up to 1.4. AF is fine.
As far as stills go (and that's the majority of my work), I'm more than satisfied with my 5D and 7D. The video, however is nascent, and has a LOT of room for immediate improvement. That's why we're more concerned with this right now. The 5DII marked a legitimate revolution in filmmaking...giving us a cheap, fat sensor to put behind our amazing lenses. The stills revolution has long-since passed. Now it's just gonna be minor upgrades that we don't really need.

Only wanna shoot stills? Go grab one of the dozen or so professional-grade models that have already existed for a decade and shoot your heart out :)

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Dan Chung Talks EOS-1D X Video
« on: October 27, 2011, 05:53:00 PM »
Though there definitely seems to be some welcome improvements on their video features, it's troubling to see this artificial limiting of their tech...the fact that they refuse to simply remove the bitmap from the HDMI out (and the rep's stuttering reaction when asked about it) is perfect evidence. This fix would not require any additional board space, hardware, or technology...simply strike the one line of code for the bitmap feature in the firmware and you have a clean feed. This isn't like with the audio-vs-ethernet port (which I understand)...the whole "this is a stills camera" argument doesn't really apply...just ditch the bitmap. The way he responded, too...they thought this would step on the toes of the video camera department? So they're deliberately crippling the video features so you'll be forced to commit to a video camera for video or a stills camera for stills (or blow your savings on both), instead of accepting that this division in camera technology is history. RED makes hybrids. They're making EF lens mounts. On November 3rd, they're probably going to release an (actually) affordable hybrid camera that will probably destroy what Canon releases that day. We're sort of running out of reasons to stick with Canon and their table scraps. I've loved my Canon cameras, and I'll always buy their lenses, but I think if RED drops something under $7K, a lot of people are jumping ship. They actually seem to give a damn about delivering the best product they have.

True they did nerf the tech on the camera to differentiate it from the upcoming video cameras, but I think your wrong about Red's upcoming product. Canon has a lot more resources than RED, and I think they have been planning for this showdown for a while, I'd be surprised if they allowed themselves to get upstaged.
 
It'd be funny if the two companies announced a merger(aka Canon buys Red out) on the 3rd.

Agreeeed. And a merger would be cute hahaha. Canon's definitely got the edge in manufacturing, R&D, marketing, but the advantages of being a massive corporation come with the drawbacks...they seem to have a pattern of simply making number-crunched business decisions, whereas Jannard kinda seems like a rogue millionaire who just enjoys the street fight and wants to pump out a really great camera...even if he doesn't turn profits. I think Canon's gonna get gut-punched on the 3rd...probably a bit cheaper than RED, but I think RED will finally close that "is it worth the extra cost?" gap with a much better and upgradeable camera. Guess this will be settled next week! :):):) Either outcome is great for us. I love the competition.

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Dan Chung Talks EOS-1D X Video
« on: October 27, 2011, 05:16:40 PM »
Though there definitely seems to be some welcome improvements on their video features, it's troubling to see this artificial limiting of their tech...the fact that they refuse to simply remove the bitmap from the HDMI out (and the rep's stuttering reaction when asked about it) is perfect evidence. This fix would not require any additional board space, hardware, or technology...simply strike the one line of code for the bitmap feature in the firmware and you have a clean feed. This isn't like with the audio-vs-ethernet port (which I understand)...the whole "this is a stills camera" argument doesn't really apply...just ditch the bitmap. The way he responded, too...they thought this would step on the toes of the video camera department? So they're deliberately crippling the video features so you'll be forced to commit to a video camera for video or a stills camera for stills (or blow your savings on both), instead of accepting that this division in camera technology is history. RED makes hybrids. They're making EF lens mounts. On November 3rd, they're probably going to release an (actually) affordable hybrid camera that will probably destroy what Canon releases that day. We're sort of running out of reasons to stick with Canon and their table scraps. I've loved my Canon cameras, and I'll always buy their lenses, but I think if RED drops something under $7K, a lot of people are jumping ship. They actually seem to give a damn about delivering the best product they have. 

7
EOS Bodies / Re: The New EOS [CR3]
« on: October 15, 2011, 12:35:13 PM »
Doesn't anyone else notice the inherent problem with calling a camera "3D" unless it shoots...3D?
Seems that's already a longstanding moniker that would confuse the hell out of people. We ought to find another name for our imaginary cameras...there are plenty of digits available...2D,4D,6D,8D,9D, eleventy billionD, etc.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: someone identify this crazy video attachment/camera?
« on: October 10, 2011, 01:35:52 PM »
That 3rd picture clearly shows an inked out "Mark [something]" insignia below the lens release, but this is definitely not a 1-series camera...just look at any pictures of a 1-series body and you can rule it out. It looks similar to a 5D Mark II, but it's different...slightly different body shape. This is probably a 5D Mark III. Considering the ridiculous disguise, it's likely a prototype or pre-release tester that they want to keep under the radar. The big over-the-shoulder body could certainly be hiding an external video recording module (though it'd probably be a fraction of the size). Or this is an old-shcool ENG guy with a 5d Mark II, and he modified his old OTS camera instead of dropping a grand on a Zacuto rig hahaha.
If Canon were nice, they'd put out an awesome 5D III and sell an external video module to enable RAW or better-than-line-skipped-1080 video for those of us who want to shoot HQ full frame video. That's if they were nice. They seem to make a lot more money by just doling out periodic upgrades and dribbling out pre-existing technology

Pages: [1]