September 02, 2014, 04:17:01 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 - Drizzt321

Pages: 1 ... 46 47 [48] 49 50 ... 112
706
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Please share your camera settings
« on: April 12, 2013, 07:47:16 PM »
I agree it somewhat depends on your needs and skills at getting the right exposure. However, there are some circumstances where it really does make a big difference. Such as the shoot I'm doing tonight, which is an inside dance/burlesque performance which will undoubtedly have some poor to really bad lighting. So RAW lets me push the exposure a bit and fix the white balance which is undoubtedly screwed up because multiple lights with different gels on them, and use what I believe is superior LR4 noise reduction as opposed to camera NR. I'll try out the Nik Dfine2 that I go through the Google Nik Collection deal.

So, long way of saying, I pretty much always shoot full-sized RAW with long exposure NR (which does darkslide exposure to subtract noise), and otherwise low or no in camera NR. And then after I sort through what I'm keeping, I delete the rest generally to save on storage space.



There was a period of time when I made myself shoot JPEG only because I thought to myself an excellent photographer must be able to get composition, exposure, color balance, and everything else perfect on the spot. The I was introduced to what LR4 could do and I became a convert to RAW shooting.

The reason I asked about size is because large RAW is just too big for storage. I don't know if small is high enough for printing wedding photo sized canvas, which I think is the largest print size I would ever need.

I heard that LR DNG format is smaller than CR2. I never convert format when I import. And I don't know if I should.

Hmm...well, I'd say it depends on the resolution of your S/M/Full RAW sizes. In general, S probably will give you most smaller print sizes. Take the resolution and divide by 300dpi to get how big a high quality print you can make.

Personally, the other use for full size RAW is if you find you need to crop to get framing/fix horizon/etc the extra resolution can be helpful. Then of course output at the size you need. You're right though, full sized RAW is very big, however my solution is to delete the ones that I decide are crap or aren't good enough to use. And then store them all on my ZFS NAS with CrashPlan backup.

707
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Please share your camera settings
« on: April 12, 2013, 07:02:16 PM »
I agree it somewhat depends on your needs and skills at getting the right exposure. However, there are some circumstances where it really does make a big difference. Such as the shoot I'm doing tonight, which is an inside dance/burlesque performance which will undoubtedly have some poor to really bad lighting. So RAW lets me push the exposure a bit and fix the white balance which is undoubtedly screwed up because multiple lights with different gels on them, and use what I believe is superior LR4 noise reduction as opposed to camera NR. I'll try out the Nik Dfine2 that I go through the Google Nik Collection deal.

So, long way of saying, I pretty much always shoot full-sized RAW with long exposure NR (which does darkslide exposure to subtract noise), and otherwise low or no in camera NR. And then after I sort through what I'm keeping, I delete the rest generally to save on storage space.

708
3 sticks, hot glue, bailing wire, and lots and lots of duct tape.

Alternatively, what about something like a gorillapod? You know, the ones that wrap around and hold onto existing uprights like a tree or pole or something? Smallish, portable, and relatively inexpensive compared to good tripods.

If you're actually going to be in the middle of a flat area with nothing to use the gorillapod on, get some of the cheapest tripods that'll hold the camera + lens, and start saving up. I'd recommend $400+ and get a quality tripod, although not top of the line. Trust me, I went from ok second hand, to heavy and sturdy (but heavy!) second hand, to a very nice, new, mid end Benro carbon fiber. It might take some time to save up. Go do more chores, or take some artistic shots of local landmarks and sample prints and setup at your local farmers market and take orders or something.

709
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Introducing the MōVI Stabilizer
« on: April 09, 2013, 06:48:51 PM »

Looks pretty good...but will these other options A) hold up to 15 pounds with the same stability, and B) also allow for remote operator to pan/tilt with a well integrated system?

Home-built or low cost tools are great, and definitely should be encouraged and often turn out great work, but I hesitate to say they are usable for the majority of film makers, especially not for ones with any serious amount of budget. They will be attracted, in general, to very well made, very well supported, and known and trusted tools. The Movi meets the first one, so far seems like it will meet the second, and with Vincent Laforet endorsing it, it has a very great start on the last point.

agree, DIY solutions lack the level of support I would expect from a solution that costs 15k. but its certainly worth a look for indie film makers on a tight budget because you can get the same results for a fraction of the costs. I wouldn't be suprised if this gimbal was actually inspired by the recent developments by DIY projects such as the one from Alex Mos.

Could be, or maybe the DIY was inspired by commercial designs which include the hover copter that those guys have. But I agree, it's something that an indie film maker on a very limited budget might try, and probably would still get good results even if it's not as refined and doesn't quite have all of the same capabilities or as refined as Movi.

710
Lenses / Re: EF 300mm 2.8 IS - Anybody seen anything like this?
« on: April 08, 2013, 08:52:34 PM »
I personally haven't had that, but it certainly looks like some of the samples I've seen elsewhere for a mis-aligned lens element.

711
TDP mentions servo issues with the new Tamron 24-70, seems to be a common issue with 3rd party lenses.  My 35L does very well in servo mode, old though the design is...

Agreed, I have seen some issues on the Tamron 24-70 in AI-Servo on my 5d3. At least under very low lighting. It works, it just doesn't really always work well. Especially if it has to go from near to far or far to near focus at the start, although I suspect that's just a difficult use case on that along with low lighting for any camera/lens to handle.

712
I have the Benro C-0681 travel tripod, and love it. Folds up pretty small, lightweight, and can hold a pretty decent load. Got it back in December, and haven't had any problems with it at all. Except I'm not getting as much exercise anymore, with it being so light and fairly compact.

713
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Introducing the MōVI Stabilizer
« on: April 08, 2013, 06:55:33 PM »
i do aerial filming and we recently already got this thechnology for gopro sized cameras, check this ultimate test: https://vimeo.com/60977570#at=0

a version for DSLRs is already being developed and should be out soon. The controller and IMU is developed by Alex Mos: http://www.simplebgc.com/ and costs no more than 110Euros, e.g. at http://flyduino.net/Alex-Mos-Brushless-Gimbal-BLG

I expect that the DSLR gimbal will not be more than $1500  8)


here is another one where two different controllers are tested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8iwlrilpHQ - seems that these things are not that complicated, just someone had to have the idea ;)

Looks pretty good...but will these other options A) hold up to 15 pounds with the same stability, and B) also allow for remote operator to pan/tilt with a well integrated system?

Home-built or low cost tools are great, and definitely should be encouraged and often turn out great work, but I hesitate to say they are usable for the majority of film makers, especially not for ones with any serious amount of budget. They will be attracted, in general, to very well made, very well supported, and known and trusted tools. The Movi meets the first one, so far seems like it will meet the second, and with Vincent Laforet endorsing it, it has a very great start on the last point.

714
Software & Accessories / Re: What’s up with Lightroom Magazine?
« on: April 05, 2013, 06:49:38 PM »
Welcome to the "Apple rules everything" world. There are plenty of people in it. For the rest of us...well...we can complain and say we won't give them our money for it. About all we can do. Or just give in and buy one, which I won't do.

715
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Introducing the MōVI Stabilizer
« on: April 05, 2013, 06:48:14 PM »
Pretty cool but not a lot of details - or non from what I can see - on how it works. I picked up from a forum on their site that it take LiPO batteries, indicating it's an active system of some kind. Any idea?

EDIT: OK I see from some of the other comments that the active part is for controlling the pan. Neat ... is the stabilization purely mechanical then?

My impression is it's actually active stabilization. So there's a little micro-controller with some secret sauce firmware controlling the motors, which happens to also take into account the pan/tilt that the remote operator wants.

As others have said above, one of the general problems with these types of systems is the motor noise, which from what I saw they say they have mostly taken care of. I imagine if you're using an on-camera mic there might still be some noise from the motors, but if you're doing off-camera mic this device might be quiet enough that you don't have it picked up.

716
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Introducing the MōVI Stabilizer
« on: April 05, 2013, 01:49:55 PM »
I think I'll wait for the Chinese to clone it for $1500/$750.

Not sure I see this happening anytime soon. The secret sauce seems to be the extremely quiet and responsive motors used, as well as the controller used to maintain the stabilization.

Plus the fact that I don't see most of the Chinese knockoffs to work as well. Perhaps they'll work pretty well, but unless you spend the money for high tolerance parts, it won't even match up to what this can do.

717
PowerShot / Re: SX50 outperforming 5DIII +100-400mm
« on: April 04, 2013, 06:22:28 PM »
Try one more thing, locking the focus on fast movement such as birds in flight. I think there you'll find the SX50 might not outperform the 5d3. How was the lighting as well? Good lighting makes a big difference. Almost every camera takes nice shots with good lighting. It's when you've got complex lighting or it starts to fail, you'll probably see the SX50 being quite challenged.

The light was crap for the Robin shot (iso 1600 and 1/160) and dim for the brick wall. A 7D suffers at 1600 iso.  Most of my photos are not of birds in flight.

I have spent weeks doing AFMA on my very expensive lenses and the 5DIII and 7D, and the 7D focus is erratic. This cheapo is spot on focussing every time.

Well, it actually uses Contrast AF, which is known as being more accurate. Usually slower than the Phase Detect in dSLR's. Also it can have trouble tracking subjects in motion, so that's the other bit.

And yes, I'd say that being able to have a much longer effective focal length will generate better quality images due to the higher resolution for similar field of view if you were to crop the 5d3 + 400mm to the equivalent of 1200mm. The 600mm + 2x TC might be another story all together though ;)  But certainly a LOT more costly, that's for sure.

718
PowerShot / Re: SX50 outperforming 5DIII +100-400mm
« on: April 04, 2013, 05:40:29 PM »
Try one more thing, locking the focus on fast movement such as birds in flight. I think there you'll find the SX50 might not outperform the 5d3. How was the lighting as well? Good lighting makes a big difference. Almost every camera takes nice shots with good lighting. It's when you've got complex lighting or it starts to fail, you'll probably see the SX50 being quite challenged.

719
CF > SD

C'mon. Stop supporting CF tech. SD is catching up in a more reliable and convenient package and on top of that its less expensive. At the current speeds they both are way passed practical speeds from what current cameras offer. Let CF die...

My d30 is CF only and I need to support CF until another format like XQD is adopted on canon. SD really sucks on the mk3.

Haha I see ::) I just want camera manufacturers to stop CF slots. It'll save them space for other electronics and it'll make our end a lot easier when all cameras have the same standard and computers can easily take SD.  ;D

Actually, I only see the SD physical interface as being more reliable than CF. I personally think the CF cards themselves (at least electronics inside) tend to be built in such a way as to be more reliable. An SD card has significantly smaller amount of space for NAND dies and controller, while the CF card has more room for more dies and potentially better controller which can do a better job of cleaning up space that's not being used to keep write speeds high.

Now, I very much can't wait to see XQD being widely adopted. Must faster theoretical throughput via PCIe, plus I think with a simple adapter I can stick it into my laptop's ExpressCard slot and read it at extremely high rates. Plus slightly smaller size than CF.

720
I'm just getting into film myself (RB67 6x7 MF though), and Porta is pretty nice color, while the Ilford line has some great B&W films. I believe the Tri-X is also a well regarded B&W film. All those are negative, not positive (slide) film. I haven't tried going into any positive film yet.

Pages: 1 ... 46 47 [48] 49 50 ... 112