September 19, 2014, 02:02:35 PM

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 - Policar

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27
1
EOS Bodies / Re: 7DII vs Samsung NX1
« on: September 17, 2014, 06:35:05 PM »
More details of sensor
http://www.photographyblog.com/news/samsung_28_megapixel_aps_c_bsi_cmos_sensor/

Samsung used 65nm process to make these sensors compared to 20nm to make mobile Soc's. I think, Intel uses 16nm process to make processors. As they are keep on reducing this size, SOC's/processors  become more powerful and efficient.  Are there any benefits with similar trend for sensors. Which one Canon uses to make their FF and Aps-c sensors.

Canon uses a 500nm process on FF sensors, but it's possible the 7D and 70D use a 180nm process.

2
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Can Canon Cinema EOS Keep Up?
« on: September 14, 2014, 07:23:20 PM »
Absolutely, and  agree with you. But look at this spec list real quick:

-Super 35mm Sensor
-UHD 3840 x 2160 at launch (DCI 4K is planned for early 2015)
-Dynamic Range: 14 Stops
-Base Sensitivity: ISO 2000
-Internal 4K XAVC 10-bit 4:2:2 (Intra/Long GOP) up to 60fps
-1080p up to 180fps
-MPEG HD, 4:2:2, 50 Mbps (HD only)
-Apple ProRes (with future upgrade and XDCA-FS7 extension unit)
-12-bit 4K or 2K RAW recording (with XDCA-FS7 extension unit and external recorder)
-Slow & Quick Motion for over-and under-cranking
-Dual XQD card slots (with dual recording support)
-Supports S-Gamut3Cine/S-Log 3 encoding
-Environmentally sealed electronics
-Built-In ND Filters

That's Sony's new FS7. Just go head and compare that the C300 for a second. Now, the FS7 body costs $8,000.00 vs the newly reduced C300 body for $11,999. Looking at that, why in the world would anyone choose the C300?

I know I'm starting to sound like a Sony fan boy, but I'm not trying to. I have a bag full of L glass and love my 5Dmk3 and 6D to death, but on a spec vs price ratio, it is ever increasingly making less and less sense to stay with Canon for the Cinema line when for the same price as the C300 I can get a body, external recorder for uncompressed 4k, and a lens.

These cameras are all investments. Once enough of your clients are asking for 4k that you feel you'd make more money investing in 4k, invest.

I do think Canon has nicer colors and the codecs are much more manageable (had a really rough time posting with F5 footage and found the camera difficult to work with on set, too) but if you need these specs, this is sure a lot cheaper than the competition! Remember, though, that the XDCA-FS7 is a necessary requirement to get timecode sync, and that's the key differentiating factor between the C100 and C300 (and the FS700 and F5).

If I had clients asking for 4k I'd take a good look at this. If you do, it looks like an awesome choice! The sample footage looks really bland to me, but I thick SLOG3 seems like a big enough improvement on SLOG2 (which I found quite awful) that it might be less trouble getting nice looking footage out of this than people have gotten out of the F5 and FS700, both of which have very "video" colors, odd noise, and an unpleasant color channel clipping that certain varieties of SLOG3 have mitigated according to Art Adams.

3
EOS Bodies / Re: A Surprise Cinema EOS Announcement for Photokina? [CR1]
« on: September 14, 2014, 04:02:07 AM »
I am told that the surprise announcement has nothing to with new hardware or development announcement. A patent sharing agreement with other cine-camera manufacturers like Red, Alexa, Arri etc like they had it with Microsoft. Canon realizes that it is lagging far behind in sensor development.  Canon is apparently interested in latest RED sensor which outscored Sony at DXO. There is speculation that Canon may slowly concentrate on only lenses.

What's your source? The Alexa sensor is Sony so if so, this is a huge deal! I never liked Red or Sony's color rendering compared with Canon, but if Canon shares color science with Arri and Red we are all in for a lot of magic. But why would Canon go out of its way to share patents if it plans to focus only on lens production... that's what confuses me. Why would the best-selling dSLR company and most profitable by far drop its camera division?

Thanks for the heads up! Leaks like this are what keep the internet running. I would be devastated if this were true as I have a C-series body and 5D Mark III... and many only half as much invested in lenses. :(

Might have to start selling. Not sure where to turn for stills, though, if Canon drops body production. Nothing else has competent autofocus with EF-mount.

4
EOS Bodies / Re: A Surprise Cinema EOS Announcement for Photokina? [CR1]
« on: September 14, 2014, 12:23:06 AM »
I don't see any reason why Canon wouldn't want to go ahead and announce whatever they've got for Cinema at Photokina, before people receive their FS7's.

Canon definitely are not going to want to 4K enable the existing base of C100/C300s. They are going to want to sell you a new camera. This is OK with me.

Canon aren't going to 4K enable the 5D4 either I think. If you're going to shoot 4K video today, you're going to want the facilities of a purpose-built camera rather than a hybrid hack. And 4K is so unforgiving on talent, hair/makeup/wardrobe, set and lighting that anyone shooting it is going to have enough budget for a FS7-style cam. It will overcomplicate the DSLR to be good at 4K video too I think...you probably don't actually want such a 4K DSLR, you just want an FS7 for $3500 and I don't blame you.

The theory is the FS7 sensor is the same as the FS700 sensor, which loses color rapidly at high ISO. There is only 18dB of gain available over a base ISO of 2000, so that yields ISO 12000 if my math is right. Nowhere near the C100's/A7s's ISO100K or whatever it is. Realtime NR is how they do that btw.

I think Canon has to do something and NAB may be too late. There is only one 4K transition in history and this is it right now. Buying decisions are being made and Sony has a camera that, coupled with adapters like the Speedbooster, checks just about every box. I have enjoyed my C100/Ninja rig since the day it first shipped but I wouldn't buy it now most certainly, even now over $2000/20% discounted from when I got it. It still has a few advantages over the FS7 but certainly not enough to sway purchase. I even think the FS7 shoulder ergonomics are much better, the EVF and handle arm are included for the $8K.

Y... my C100 plans are shelved.
If the FS7 can shoot clean at equivalent ISO6400 then that's good enough for me. If it's clean at 10,000 .. awesome.
BTW ... the 28-135 f/4 OSS power zoom lens ($2500) is included at $8000 too!
It's not a big camera either: about 8" long and 7" high (without the handle) judging from the size relative to the lens

Wow. I strongly disliked my time with the F5 and even I would consider this thing strongly. Looks amazing. But I have no clients requesting 4k and don't like using it on personal projects. Still. Wow.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: A Surprise Cinema EOS Announcement for Photokina? [CR1]
« on: September 13, 2014, 01:20:44 AM »
Canon must now offer a 4K option, and a 10bit option, and of course super slow motion. Perhaps in a new model, perhaps in paid firmware updates for the current line-up (that would be a major hit to Sony)

Why? 99% of content is displayed at 1080p or less, 8 bits or fewer, and not in slow motion.

The FS7 looks AMAZING and I hope Canon answers it, but currently the conservative approach is the best for pros.

For hobbyists, get the FS7 already!!!

I do prefer the image on the Canon, but for all the aspiring colorists out there, you can milk the Sony... not that I like to god I hate the way saturated colors clip in SLOG2; oddly WideDR and not Canon Log is the best gamma for this on Canon... Red finally got a handle on it with the Dragon, but not fully. Arri does it right, but Sony has an SLOG3 variant that's close, hopefully that will make its way to the FS7.

Looks amazing, though. The F3 came really close, the F5 was a few steps back and a few others forward...

6
EOS Bodies / Re: A Surprise Cinema EOS Announcement for Photokina? [CR1]
« on: September 12, 2014, 09:16:04 PM »
Keeping it "vague", I think Canon really needs to restrategize their product roadmap to stay competitive with video capable cameras like the GH4 and a7s. With the 1DC and C500 being their 4K shooters at $10k and $20k, how could they possibly do a rumored 5DIV with our sought after 4K video offered at a fraction of the price without crumbling the demand for their high end cinema lineup? Who would be buying a 1DC if the 5DIV competes with it in a smaller form factor at a significantly better price?

The problem is they're sooo heavily invested in their lineup as it stands now. It's going to be a serious challenge for them to shift towards the 4K consumer/prosumer demands. They've spent years and millions developing their lineup as it is now.

With a grain of salt, I think I read someone mention Canon's video-centric customers only making up about 10-20% of their total customer base. So I wouldn't expect them to rush to deliver miracles. Not to mention their current cameras are still selling like hot cakes, so there's no financial burden either. The burden really only exists in meeting customer's high expectations and desires, something large corporations don't always have the luxury of doing.

Canon obviously still reigns in as a major heavy weight, and they definitely deserve it. The EF lens lineup is arguably one of the best in the world. If Panasonic and Sony lens offerings caught up with Canon, they'd be in some serious trouble. But until then, I don't think we'll see landslide shifts in Canon's strategy unfortunately.

I LOVE my Canon system. I've considered going GH4 or a7s for video, but stills work continues to take up half or more of my gigs. Canon's cinema lineup still is very very good, just not the "best" (subjective of course). The DPAF is definitely a step in the right direction.

As far as this CR1 rumor vaguely, I'd be thrilled to see some Mark II's of the C100, C300, and C500 announced or discussed. Those cameras are still beasts that produce beautiful images. Again, I'm doubtful they are being met with the need to replace them, but development and release in maybe late 2015 would be very exciting :)

It seems like they'll need to step up the cinema line SUBSTANTIALLY in order to make some room for their EOS line to grow into 4K shooters packing as much of a punch as the GH4 and a7s. That was a bit of rant haha. Just my opinion of course... any thoughts or corrections to my understanding of this situation?

Canon's number one in the "professional" market because of their conservative approach that fits into well-established workflows. Weirdly, it allows them to charge more for less... like with the Alexa vs Red thing.

If you want an a7s or GH4, buy one! I like the ergonomics and image quality on the Canon, but Sony is making strides. Based on my time with the GH3 and F5, though, I'll take ease of use over 4k for now... But if you want image quality cheap, go for it! Canon will be sticking with well-worn standards and when they introduce 4k it will be when they've developed a codec that's easily ingestible for broadcast and it won't offer the same price/performance other cameras offered earlier.

It will still be my top pic by far, I'm guessing.

7
Photography Technique / Re: Clouds
« on: September 10, 2014, 08:33:34 PM »
Any advice on how to get the most detail out of clouds?

Expose to the right, focus at infinity, stop down to your sharpest aperture and try to focus on an area that has relatively low contrast. HDR makes everyone feel free to go nuts, but any decent landscape photographer knows that the best light isn't sunset, it's just after... "Flat" lighting can be your friend. Exposing for the foreground and clouds is tough so just go with clouds if you want clouds, or if you're lucky enough that they meter in the same range (or the sky is dimmer!) go nuts with foreground. For this of course I use my spot meter (sekonic because I can't afford pentax).

If the cloud cover is evenly lit, awesome. If not, you can use a long lens and isolate one part so the scene DR isn't too crazy, then crank up the contrast in post.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: The Perfect Sensor
« on: August 29, 2014, 08:07:40 PM »
Because photos would look just like real life and be limited only by our own eyes. 

Photos are an interpretation of reality, not reality.  Light and shadows give photos depth and meaning, which is why so many HDR photos are just dull and flat.  The limitations of film are why so many film photos are better than most digital photos in all regards other than sharpness. 

The unconstrained mind is not creative.

-Jack Handy
(these are my Deep Thoughts for the week)

I disagree. The reason film looks better is because it has less dynamic range so you're forced to chase scenes in which the lighting is better, but the reason having less dynamic range in the scene is better in the first place is because...

Printed images have 4-5 stops at most of contrast.

Computer screens rarely have more than 9-10 stops of contrast.

But OLEDs have TONS more. On a perfect OLED display in a perfectly dark room your perfect sensor might look like real life. But even when we get to that screen few viewing conditions will be set up to match it, but if there were that might look like real life and it would look awesome.

Sensors are way ahead. Lenses and displays are behind. The nicest thing I've seen yet is a large format transparency on a light table. HUGE contrast ratio and color gamut of a scene with limited scene DR.

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?
« on: August 27, 2014, 10:44:19 PM »
How do those touting Exmor advantages demonstrate them?  They underexpose by 4-5 stops then push the shadows back up.  While there are valid reasons to do that, it's an 'advantage' that's totally useless to the vast majority of dSLR buyers.

It's essentially an emergency recovery tool for badly underexposed photos. High quality landscape work...where extended DR is often needed...is simply not produced this way. You bracket and blend/HDR, or use GND filters.

This goes back to the reason for the common advice to ETTR: there are few tonal values in the deep shadows. Sometimes I am surprised and find that I can process a single file where I shot expecting to HDR. But if I have to push shadows more then 2...maybe 2.5 stops...I find that the problem is not Canon sensor noise, but the simple fact that the tonality and detail is sub par vs. a properly produced shot.

The need for extended DR in landscape photography confuses me. Velvia, long the standard for 4x5 color photography, had 4-5 stops of DR and produces the most beautiful images.

Even the zone system (the first incarnation of tone mapping) works within a ten stop range.

Printed images only have 4-5 stops of contrast.... if the scene has a huge dynamic range as shot it probably won't look good printed now matter how you shoot and process it.

10
EOS-M / Re: Finally a 50mm for EOS-M...
« on: August 25, 2014, 03:46:16 PM »
...from Samyang without autofocus.  :-\  Why hasn't anyone made this standby focal length yet??

It's sort of an awful focal length on APS-C, imo the most difficult to use in an interesting way. I like the 22mm, 35mm is very nice. Even 40mm and 60mm macro have their uses, but 50mm is boring.

Likewise, 85mm on FF kind of sucks. But with the 85mm f1.2 I guess you get a unique enough look to make up the difference.

Fwiw, 50mm is my favorite focal length on FF. But I think a 35mm or 22mm makes a lot more sense on APS-C, and most seem to agree.

11
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 15, 2014, 11:32:31 PM »
TBH, as far as the 7D is concerned, it's supposed to be Canon's best video product. 

Funny, I could have sworn it was the C500.

12
Photography Technique / Re: Photographer Spotlight. Mr. Eduardo Acierno
« on: August 10, 2014, 05:24:04 PM »
r the job, but - let's fact it - these static, staged, controlled (and to my eyes, stultifyingly dull, banal and clich├ęd) images would hardly present a technical challenge to a cheap mobile phone's imaging capabilities.

I wouldn't go quite that far, but I agree. These are super cliched, over processed... Really remarkably bad photos.

13
16-35 f/4L IS is very steady handheld with IS on. Maybe with a stedicam it would be even better but I'd look into that lens

This seems like a good suggestion, but I haven't used it.

The 17-40mm L is a nice glidecam lens on the Mark III if you balance it right. I have actually found if it's too light it feels wrong... Talked with an MK-V owner and he claimed there is a visual difference, even if stabilized, between heavy and light, for which small stabilizers can't account, heavy being better and the MK-V being able to emulate an Alexa's weight while flying a DSLR-style camera. (He was flying an Alexa at the time.)

So if you can't balance it... it might be on you. That said, if the 24-70mm II (which I've seen used plenty, but only used the original) extends it will lose balance as you zoom. The 17-40mm L doesn't do this and if the 16-35mm L is similar but wider and with IS and sharper then... jump on it. It should be smaller, balanced, and not change the rig's moment of inertia so much and thus not unbalance it. It's SUPER wide, too.

14
Site Information / Re: Critiques
« on: August 06, 2014, 03:54:27 AM »
Based on this community's response to Gursky, I wouldn't dare turn here for "honest" critiques.

This, like most photography websites, is solely for technical information, not aesthetic.

15
Lenses / Re: Why are Cine Lenses so expensive?
« on: August 04, 2014, 09:29:35 PM »
I gotta be honest pablo... kinda harsh, dude!  I have wondered the same thing about C lenses so I don't consider this to be a stupid question or a stupid thread.

So please, next time post something less condescending because your previous post does little to contribute to the discussion other than show everyone a side of you that isn't very considerate.  I mean, really, did someone with a cine-lens kick your dog, call you names or something?   :o

I stand by every word.  They are specialist tools.  I don't know how good or how bad, how rich or how poor the op asking the questions is.  I paint a scenario of where these lenses come into their own, what they are designed for, what no other type of product would do.  I think that goes some way to answering the question of why they cost so much...  sorreeeee.

I also stand by my other comments, and nowhere do I consider them a personal attack on any other specific forum user, I am critiquing the fairly recent trend in photography where everybody wants the latest and greatest and most expensive.  The technology has been static for 5 years as far as bodies go, and probably 10-15 years as lenses go.  Part of that trend is confusing cost with performance or value.  Simply put, a bright ring type USM lens will give a talentless photographer more keepers, but the photographs still won't be that great.  Obviously they would give the talented professional more keepers too, but the talent would shine through regardless.

If the question was, will these cinema lenses make my still photography better, then, apologies if the timbre of my reply frightens the horses, but no, they will not.  They will make your still photography worse.

There, I've just saved you 25k.

If anybody reading this has a spare 25k to drop on a lens, and will buy or not based on what somebody on a forum says... then I really consider that I'm doing them a public service.  Find a charity close to your heart or something instead.  It will be more rewarding.

Quite where you think I'm having a go a cinema lenses or cinema lens users, I fail to see.  Cinema lenses are great.   For cinema.   And in that regard, the answer is in the question, so maybe 'obvious' is kinder than 'stupid'.

This is kind of fair and kind of unfair.

The CN-Es are by all accounts pretty similar to the Ls, not different enough for the 2% improvement in coatings or whatever and 9-bladed aperture to make up for the vastly huge increase in price.

The majority of what makes movie zooms movie zooms (parfocal, lack of breathing, mechanics) are helpful only for movies... but who wouldn't want an 18-85mm f1.8 (for APS-C only) that's as sharp as the sharpest Canon prime. (Okay it's 15lbs and $90k but still Fuji makes such a lens.)

I know of someone who converted a Zeiss Master Prime to his 5D or 7D for astro photography. If you have the money go for it, but as most just cover APS-C (other than the CN-Es, which, again, are not that much different from the Ls) it seems silly to spend up toward a smaller format rather than a bigger one. (IMAX uses modified Hasselblad and Pentax 6x7 lenses is the rumor.)

Also there is a longer history of still lens conversion than people realize. There was a 70-200mm Nikkor I think on one of the Bourne movies, Panavision has a host of converted Leica primes, some of which I've played with... they're nice! But the cost is in the rehousing... although the 280mm f2.8 Leica is sick.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27