Messages

1

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma Announces 18-35 f/1.8 DC HSM Art for APS-C

« on: April 18, 2013, 12:47:45 PM »

For video this does look nice. 15-40mm is the zoom everyone wants (while 18-85mm is the normal "prime" kit) so this fits in ok. A little wider would be nice. The speed is great, in fact about as fast as the fastest cinema zooms for super35.

REALLY nice to see an affordable WA/UWA for video, even ignoring the zoom. The fastest 16mm-18mm options were previously a stop and a half slower. That's big. Let's see how the image quality is. I compared the 17-55mm f2.8 IS (which I quite like) against the Angenieux Optimo 15-40mm t2.6 yesterday and the Canon doesn't even compare.

2

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: The Blackmagic Production Camera 4K

« on: April 10, 2013, 05:37:42 PM »

Well, for all the outputs and controls you get the Canons aren't bad, but in terms of dynamic range, uncompressed RAW with pro res 422 (awesome codecs for editing in post) and likely retaining sharp detail with no moire (the previous BMCC doesn't seem to have any issues with that) the BMCC is just so much more awesome, and look now it's got 4K with a super 35mm sensor and it's a global shutter! I don't think any of the Canons have a global shutter, so they will all suffer from skewed images when panning or shooting fast action. And the BMCC  already has an electronic EF mount too so for strict video work there's no reason to get the 5DIII unless stills are a main as well. Which, it is for me sadly, now the 5DIII isn't a slouch for video, it may be soft and not give options for glorious codecs and data output, but people have been using the system like they did with the 5DII with good results, but looks like I will be needing 60FPS at 1080P for upcoming work and neither system cuts it, Panasonic wins the cake with their GH3 again, and the GH2 is still better for all around in that regard!

So, to keep things simple, the 5D line for video is a thing of the past, the Canon Cinema cameras are overpriced for what the competition is delivering (overpriced can be used for many things but in this case it is very relevant). 4K may not have much use as even 720P can live on, but for editing, shooting in 4k and then exporting at 2K or even 1080P could mean near flawless IQ compared to 1080P only cameras, especially if you can edit in uncompressed RAW

The C100/300/500 all deliver more resolution than the BMCC with much less aliasing. I doubt this camera will have an AA filter so it should be sharp but crispy.

That said, the specs on this are incredible. The lack of skew alone will be HUGE for vfx. Canon's cinema line is designed for professional use in much the way many pros shoot JPEG... you want the product good enough and out the door fast and a good JPEG is much better than a bad RAW shot. The C line has amazing ergonomics, decent technical specs, a good "look," and a poor codec, but it's all about speed and versatility. Local ads and stuff. The BMCC is more about high end personal work (film festival type stuff), for which budget and ease of use are less essential. Fully outfitting one to be field-ready will be expensive, though. Very expensive...

The GH3 seems awesome.

3

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Canon 5D Mark iii HDMI Clean Output?

« on: April 07, 2013, 09:46:52 PM »

So we can all agree that in a 5d3 the codec is NOT the bottleneck?

Maybe for some people it is. For greenscreening maybe. If you expose wrong, particularly in cinegamma, it doesn't do you a lot of favors.

If you want a nice, affordable camera in the EOS system just buy a C100! Or wait and see what comes next. These things are marvels. Amazing IQ. Amazing ergonomics. Great colors. Great pre-amps. Great DR. The best low light available. Just great. Kind of a lot of skew, though, and a dreadful finder.

4

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Canon 5D Mark iii HDMI Clean Output?

« on: April 07, 2013, 05:21:06 PM »

I don't get it, people complain (in other forums like the Magic Lantern one or EOSHD) how bad the Canon 5D codec is, but then the consensus is that using a more robust pro codec like ProRes doesn't make any visible difference.

I'm confused, is the Canon codec bad or not? Because if it is, then using a different and better codec like ProRes should make a pretty visible difference. On the other hand, if the difference will be subtle at best, then how bad is the 5D codec to begin with?

The codec is bad, but so is the image before the codec, relative to the C300/F5/Red/Alexa/GH3. Improve one and the other will still hold you back a bit. But the 1DC footage shot in Super35 mode looks fantastic using the same codec, so I'd err on the side of the soft image being the bigger issue.

That said, both the codec and image are better than the ultra-high-end of four years ago and good enough for virtually anyone. What problems do you have now? Sharpness won't be improved. The "look" won't change. DR won't change. Shadow noise will stay chunky but maybe a little less gross in extreme scenarios, it might have a bit more shape but likely imperceptible. Chroma keying will be improved just a bit. Detail in very wide shots of complex patterns (trees, foliage) might improve insignificantly but enough to be more resilient in the grade when pulling secondaries. This is not a big upgrade. Prores is a great codec, but it doesn't change what you put into it.

5

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Canon 5D Mark iii HDMI Clean Output?

« on: April 07, 2013, 03:40:03 PM »

Will clean HDMI files give me more flexibility doing heavy post-processing in After Effects?

In my experience yes, just a bit. What really breaks the codec is foliage in fast-moving wide shots (or with ALL-I high detail wide shots in general), so for stuff like that you'll bring out more macroblocking the more you manipulate it and your keys and secondaries will be better with HDMI.

But the image itself won't look visibly different except paused and blown up to 400% except in very rare instances.

6

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Canon 5D Mark iii HDMI Clean Output?

« on: April 07, 2013, 03:21:23 PM »

So I heard Canon Announced that in the April of 2013, or next month, the Canon 5D Mark iii would get an update which would allow for a clean HDMI output. Does this mean that we can use an external recorder such as the BlackMagic Hyperdeck Shuttle for external recording? If so, then can we actually record at a higher fps such as 60p at Full HD? if not, then what kind of impact does this have on videomakers? Thank You in Advance!

It won't give 60p. Hopefully the better compression will make a noticeable difference. Depends how much of the problems occur before the compression stage. Maybe not.

It won't give you noticeable difference, trust me. I'm using Canon 1D C with Atomos Ninja 2 external recorder. if you don't do heavy colour grading or keying/compositing, there is no difference at all.

1DC codes a lot better in camera than the 5D3 though no?

Only in 4k, so far as I know...

The 5D has a bad codec but also a bad image from the sensor. Fine for what it is but if you want good video step up to the C-line. In motion there will be no visible different in the HDMI clean signal. Blown up to 400% you'll begin to see something. For chroma keying MAYBE you will get a minor difference. This is a spec sheet upgrade so as not to fall behind the D800 in terms of perception, nothing more.

7

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: mini review: Yongnuo 568EX

« on: April 07, 2013, 02:42:58 PM »

Youngnou is working great. Even the cheapest models are doing its job. Here you definently get the alot of gear for the money.

POLICAR: I would recomend you to also take a look at reflectors. To reflect sunlight with 2-3 reflectors gives the same result, and are probably an easier entry to reach youre goal. You see the light with a reflector,and it stays the same all the time. the problem with a flash is that it has to reload, and it is much more tricky to get it right. And even with a flash, to flash on a reflector will be a great gain for outdoor portraits.

Thanks. The issue I see is that most of those portraits are staged in the shade. And so the fill from a reflector would be less than if the subjects were backlit. Would a single flash bounced from a silver umbrella right off-camera provide enough light during the day for fill? I can bring in reflectors, too. We'll have a full grip truck nearby (6x6, 8x8, 12x12 ultra bounce and lamé, HMIs, bead board, etc.) but the key here is SPEED. As regards metering and ratios, I can chimp fast.

8

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: mini review: Yongnuo 568EX

« on: April 07, 2013, 12:42:58 AM »

The unit performed flawlessly in all the above-mentioned areas.  For example, the photo below shows my YN-568EX firing in optical slave mode, using ETTL metering, HSS and 8:1 ratio set via the camera menu.  Fantastic!   To obtain the photo below I mounted my 580EX ii master inside an Apollo Orb softbox at camera right.

I have the 580EX II and YN-568EX also.  How did you connect your camera to the 580EX II which is off-camera in Apollo?

ahh -- good catch.  I used Syl Arena's ETTL extension cord from OCF gear.   Both camera and flash think the flash is mounted atop the camera.   ETTL works beautifully

my order for two additional 568EXs just arrived; that took about 9 days.  two 568's and the 580 go in the softox, one 568EX outside for rim or other fun.

Forgive me for the dumb question, but it's pertinent to this thread.

I'm a videographer just getting into flash photography and I want to know where to get started. I recently upgraded to a 5D Mark III and miss having an on-camera flash sometimes... Money is tight but I have some upcoming stills I want to knock out of the park so to speak....

I'd like to learn to shoot family photos like these in the short run and then later I want to get into more complex multi-flash set ups like high fashion stuff. But this is my first assignment:

http://www.sistersavealot.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/family.bmp

http://www.dougellisphotography.com/data/photos/73_1family_portrait_pictures_ca.jpg

http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/7500000/Modern-Family-modern-family-7554980-2560-1920.jpg

Looks like the families are in shade or under a 20x20 solid, catch lights show a large soft source from camera right as the most common set up with no fill or back light. Focal length appears to be long, approaching 200mm, lenses at f4 to f11.

The easiest way to do a cheap approximation of this (I imagine) is a flash bounced into an umbrella from as close to camera as possible... would this be bright enough? How would I trigger the flash in this case (radio received) and would I just figure out my ratio/brightness level/exposure by chimping? I'd like to try to do this with one battery-powered flash. Is this possible if I bring it close and shoot off-camera or would I need a much brighter flash than the Yognuo 560/Canon 580 (my two options).

Lastly, I want to shoot TTL like I did with my old t2i, but this isn't a priority. My options are the 560 II, 568EX, and an old used 580EX. Will I notice any real difference between the three? And for multi-flash set ups how can I trigger them all? For off-camera do they use the same radio receiver? Thanks! Mostly interested in the above style but also in getting into flash photography in general but stressed over having a high-stakes paid (low pay, high stakes) shoot soon.

9

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: What does Vincent Laforet Think is a Game Changer?

« on: April 05, 2013, 10:44:30 AM »

It's very cheap. Relative to a $50k budget for a short or $1 million for a very low budget feature it's nothing to rent something like this.

If you want it and can't afford to buy it, rent it. Footage looks fine, but not quite "great" yet. I'd love to use one of these and plan to rent one for a few projects if I can. If these become popular so will ultra small cameras (1DC, etc.) perhaps...

10

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: What does Vincent Laforet Think is a Game Changer?

« on: April 04, 2013, 10:41:06 PM »

Similarly, I kinda doubt it'll be lighting equipment. $3k will get you a most luxurious Paul C. Buff studio with multiple Einsteins. I can't imagine the video hot light equivalents being radically more expensive.

They are:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/417447-REG/Arri_563500_Arrimax_18_12_KW_HMI.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/417450-REG/Arri_562814_Arrimax_18_12KW_Electronic_Ballast.html

That's $34,000 for a single light that still needs more parts to turn on. A decent indie-level grip truck has half a million dollars in gear in it.

But more expensive than lights is renting a crew to operate them and a generator truck, etc. I'm not sure any one light could be that big a deal. Some LED kit maybe?

I think it's stabilization, too. I would love to be able to do the kind of moves I see on bigger productions with cheaper gear, but cheap gear is not steady... or handhold a camera without much shake.

11

Lenses / Re: Landscape Lens advice

« on: March 29, 2013, 02:41:50 PM »

Thing about what focal lengths you like before buying.

I like 45mm and 90mm for landscapes, so I would probably go with the 45mm and 90mm TS/E. Most people seem to like wider, but I do feel too wide is cheesy. What does the 17-40mm L lack? The 24mm TS/E should be sharper and I find lens movements essential for landscape, but the flexibility of a zoom is nice.

I'm weird but I actuall like 100 or 135 .

I do, too, but it's hard to get enough depth of field. Do you ever do focus stacking? I've been thinking about it. Lenses are so close to orthographic when zoomed in that a tilt/shift seems unnecessary if you do focus stacking.

I don't get why landscapes are so often associated with UWA lenses. I prefer much longer lenses for landscapes.

12

Lenses / Re: Landscape Lens advice

« on: March 29, 2013, 01:43:23 PM »

Thing about what focal lengths you like before buying.

I like 45mm and 90mm for landscapes, so I would probably go with the 45mm and 90mm TS/E. Most people seem to like wider, but I do feel too wide is cheesy. What does the 17-40mm L lack? The 24mm TS/E should be sharper and I find lens movements essential for landscape, but the flexibility of a zoom is nice.

13

EOS Bodies / Re: Are 5d3 owners happy with the video, ALL i?

« on: March 25, 2013, 04:44:22 PM »

iPhone 5 video.

14

EOS Bodies / Re: Are 5d3 owners happy with the video, ALL i?

« on: March 25, 2013, 04:43:08 PM »

Straight out of camera, unprocessed:

5D Mark III, neutral, low contrast, 1 sharpening, 17-40mm L at f5.6.

15

EOS Bodies / Re: Are 5d3 owners happy with the video, ALL i?

« on: March 25, 2013, 02:33:15 PM »

I don't know about the iPad but under ideal conditions the iPhone is sharper with better resolution than any Canon dSLR, but with less manual control and a worse "look" obviously. But for exterior video in low contrast light in wide shots in some cases it might produce the better image. I wouldn't count on it, though.

LOL I guess you're including the 1DX/1DC in "any Canon DSLR?"  Look the iPhone is great for what it is, but I don't know how you can say that it's better than "any Canon DSLR" with a straight face  In the Zacuto shootout it was painfully obvious which one was the iPhone, I mean the 7D didn't look that much better but definitely not as bad.

You got me on the 1DC. Never used the 1DX so I don't know about that one, either, but I'm guessing it's close based on footage I've seen.

All I said was it's sharper. Nothing about it being better overall... I implied the opposite pretty strongly.