March 01, 2015, 12:11:47 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 - dirtcastle

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 27
Take a long exposure in the dark and see how interesting it is. Usually, it's not very interesting.

At a certain point, extra sensitivity becomes less useful. Light is what makes photographs interesting. Yes, it will be nice to take photos at night (@f/13) and have everything in focus. And it will be nice to be able to shoot 1/1000 shutter speeds in low light. But it will be challenging to make those shots look as interesting as shots with stronger sources of light.

If you want to use a more photojournalistic approach (as opposed to a strobist approach), you've got three choices:

1. Bring your subjects to the light.
2. Bring the light to your subjects.
3. Use both available light and strobe light.

In this case, your subjects are in the shade and your strobe lighting is insufficient.

For a quick fix, I would move the subjects into the sun (or position them facing a big reflection). Don't use the flash as your primary key light, use it for shadow fill (if at all). Position your subjects against a background that will allow you to get the proper exposure, and reduce blown-out highlights. Or, better yet, against a dark background that will allow you to use pretty much any exposure you want.

Then take your shot into post and lower highlights and raise shadows.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study
« on: June 01, 2013, 05:57:47 PM »
LOL eyeland  ;D

In all seriousness, as Phillip Bloom said, it is an awesome accomplishment for ML and it is phenomenal that they have allowed DSLR owners to shoot RAW.  However, do most people need to shoot RAW - no.  Unless you're super well off, you are going to be blowing alot of cash.  I'm gonna wait to get a 5DIII after they fix the kinks.

That word "need" is a funny one. Six years ago, there was no "need" for a smartphone. Now everyone "needs" a smartphone. It might take more than six years for RAW video to be a "need". But it will probably happen.

That flickering (aka color/luma shifting) is probably the one caused by automatic adjustments in Lightroom 2012. The following is a post about it on the Magic Lantern forum.

It happens when changes in the image (such as a person walking across the screen) triggers automatic Lightroom adjustments.

The good news is that you can selectively revert batches of frames back to "Process 2010" (which does not automatically adjust it) in the Settings > Process menu. The bad news is that you lose several years of LR feature advancements. But obviously, it's still better than reverting back to H.264.  ;)

For sequences with lots of motion and histogram changes, use Process 2010. For relatively calm and stable shots, use Process 2012. Or you can just use Process 2012 until you see a flicker/shift, and then revert.

More early-adopter penalties.   :'(

Start off by using in-camera metering and firing off test shots to get it dialed.

Once you reach the limit of that approach, then go to the next level.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study
« on: May 31, 2013, 04:23:09 PM »
Yes, of course it is extra work over H.264, Blackmagic Prores, Canon Cinema, etc. But consider a few things...

Blackmagic is the only direct competitor. Let's stay away from apples-to-oranges debates. It's just an option. There are pluses and minuses to everything. If you are comparing the 5D3 to Red or Canon Cinema... you are comparing a Camry to a Porsche. Apples to oranges.

ML RAW is brand new. We just had a breakthrough and the situation is in flux. We won't know the final details of the RAW workflow until the dust settles and the development dominoes have all toppled. Who knows?... maybe there will be a plugin for Adobe or official support in CS7. Again, this is all completely new.

The Workflow. Will there be improvements to converting bundled DNGs to single files? Currently, the weakest link in the chain is the conversion of files in ACR/LR. A batch process here would save a lot of time (especially if it exported to single files, instead of bundles of files). It would be great to bypass ACR/LR altogether. The question is whether the resulting loss of quality would negate the benefits of conversion.

Hardware Requirements. Clearly this will require more than simply having a 5D3. It requires a very fast computer, lots of big drives, fast CF cards, etc. These are similar requirements to the BMCC (again, the only direct competitor).

The Editing Process. I agree that it would be unfair to dump thousands of DNGs on a full-time editor (who was previously receiving single files). Magic Lantern is camera firmware and, as such, I would see it as the responsibility of the shooter to supply the required format to the editor. In this regard, I think pushback from editors is good, because it will provide an impetus to improve the file conversion process.

Good times.

Good stuff!

When I first saw the timelapse, I was like... "Good God!... How did he get that much RAW footage???". Duh.  ::)

I only have one 64GB 1000X card so I had to use some of the crummy stock Canon video (see if you can spot it!) for some of the shots.  Luckily most of these climbs are not very far from your car so I was able to run back to the trail head and dump the files onto my laptop.

I think a lot of us early adopters are accumulating similar stories about how we're getting around the temporary limitations. My own personal limitation is a 2011 Macbook Pro, which has no USB3. Most card readers use USB3. And so there won't be any rushing those files into the MBP.

Pretty soon we'll be looking back and laughing how much extra time/effort we had to spend just to move and convert RAW files.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study
« on: May 30, 2013, 10:36:52 PM »
Yea, sounds like Canon is doing some crazy tricks. It's funny, Canon engineers clearly could have made a better/simpler output pipeline I'm sure with more or less the hardware that's in there, but I'll bet much of it was marketing & feature segmentation decisions to avoid that. Yet ML still has managed to coerce the camera into giving us this crazy high quality output.

Or maybe Canon decided to just reuse whatever work they had done for the 5D2 in order to shorten the time to market for the 5D3 by cutting out extra software R&D?

At this point in time, a very small number of CF cards work with this feature. Had Canon of brought this out in the mainstream model, it is highly likely that they would have received a large number of complaints/returns because people would expect it to work with all CF cards.

Business is all about marginal return. The extra effort and headaches probably wouldn't have translated into proportionally larger sales for the 5D3. The 5D3 is already a winning product without RAW video. And the directly competing DSLRs (D800, for example) don't yet have it, so there was no major competitive advantage to including it.

RAW video seems revolutionary now, but in 3-4 years it will be standard for high-end DSLRs. It will be relatively easy to implement for smaller resolutions. Already, the cards are more than capable of handling the lower resolutions. And eventually 1920x1080 will be supported.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study
« on: May 30, 2013, 09:02:33 PM »
[smell of coffee]

Pros are already using this.

Here's my latest short/test with this firmware, I continue to be amazed:

This was shot over a Memorial Day rock climbing trip to Idaho.

You've got some nice crispy footage in there!

I'm curious how you got the timelapse. What's the best way around the 4GB limit? I'm using an older build, has that been fixed? I've also had trouble using to convert files over 4GB.

Did you drag each clip, one at a time, into raw2dng? Or do you have a batch process?

Any time-saving tricks you've found would be great to hear about.

Portrait / Re: My photos look so dull
« on: May 29, 2013, 07:46:49 PM »
I prefer to take a challenge rather than mock.

As I was saying, a BW helps you to get rid of a bad color balance.

(Half an hour in LR.)

NotABunny's B&W edit gets my vote for best edit.

Most of the other edits I've seen do not improve the shot. Sometimes the inability to get a good edit is the result of the shot, sometimes it's due to lack of editing/post skills.

You gotta have a "feel" for this sort of thing, based on experience, observation, and intentions. People are quick to give guidelines and rules (and their own crappy edits). But you've just gotta be able to feel what's right while you're editing. No amount of suggestions will help in the long run if you don't have a good eye. BUT, if you do have a good eye, and you can tell the difference between a good shot and a bad one... then just keep practicing and you'll get it. :-)

Wow, that sucks!  What site was it?  Amazon lists the write speeds, thankfully, or I would've suffered the same fate!  I almost pulled the trigger on the 128GB until I saw that.

It was on ebay.

The key is always to buy from someone that allows returns, even if you've opened and used it. B&H and Amazon would be my first choice. But lots of ebay sellers (some of which are big companies) have good return policies.

I'm cool with having to buy small, high-priced cards. For me, the time involved in the post-processing workflow is where I'm looking for alternatives/improvements. In time, there will surely be a one-shot tool that will convert RAW to a single edit-ready file. It will be a great day when that comes out. :-)

I'm also coming from the stills arena. But this RAW video is amazing. I'm hooked. Game over. I even sold my fanciest stills lens to make room for more video gear.

For those complaining about the Komputerbay memory cards: DO YOUR RESEARCH.  It clearly states on the product info that the 128GB cards have slower write times than the 64GB cards.  Don’t just blindly buy any card that says 1000X, that rating comes from the READ speed, not the WRITE speed.  (as it has since I’ve been using CF cards on the original 5D)

I have a 64GB Komputerbay card, I was originally a skeptic but, it works just fine.  I’ve already shot over 256GB of RAW video with zero issues.  The 64GB card is the one to get right now.  If you need more space just get a couple.  If you need to do single clips longer than 64GB in size…you would probably be better served by the crappy on-board video.

Also, these cards seem to use the same chips as the Sandisk ones…so enjoy paying for brand names.

The place where I ordered my KomputerBay 128GB advertised a "minimum 90MB/s write speed", which was not accurate and I am returning it today. No big deal. On a side note, James Miller shot part of his "Genesis" video using this card (shooting 1920x720).

I ordered a Transcend 1000x 128GB about 10 days ago. It just arrived. The fastest write time I could get was around 83MB/s. It's not useless, but it won't get 1920x1080. I'm returning it today. No big deal.

Fortunately, I have a Lexar 1000x 32GB and a Hoodman 1000x 64GB, which both write in the low 90s. Next up for me is a KomputerBay 1000x 64GB (probably sold out most places by now). And then I'll be on the prowl for a Toshiba.

It doesn't matter. Raw is raw, just like with stills. Picture style doesn't have any impact on the resulting raw file. Same goes for white balance.


One less thing to worry about. :-)

EOS Bodies - For Video / Which picture style for video on the 5D3?
« on: May 27, 2013, 07:25:28 PM »
Which picture style should I be using when I shoot RAW format on the Canon 5D MKIII?

  • Neutral
  • Cinestyle
  • Cineplus Cinema
  • Marvels Cine

I plan to do heavy post processing.

Have I missed one here that is better than any in this list?

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 27