August 29, 2014, 06:37:09 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 - Policar

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 26
Lenses / Re: New Tilt-Shift Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: December 08, 2012, 09:38:09 PM »
I'm interested in the 45mm if it's not too expensive. 24mm is a bit too wide for landscapes... Something closer to 150mm on a view camera could be great.

You know...

Just occured to me...this is all just DATA...wonder why there isn't some way to just stream off the image data via the USB port straight to computer or via a usb wireless dongle to a computer, and just bypass HDMI altogether?

Just a thought...


USB2 has a theoretical maximum sustained transfer rate of 480mb/sec. In practice, it's closer to half that.

HDMI video (8 bit NTSC) is 30fps*1080 vertical pixels*1920 horizontal pixels*8 bit color*3 channels=about 1500mb/sec.

Way too much data.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Canon C100 praise & annoyances
« on: December 06, 2012, 03:29:19 PM »
Fimmakers shoot with film cameras, videographers shoot with video cameras. The C100 is a video camera, not a film camera.

Most directors don't shoot on anything; that's the DP's job and most capable DPs shoot both film and digital, though certainly they have their preferences. Also, film is going away very fast but I doubt the term "filmmaker" will.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Upgrade from 7D to 6D or MK3?
« on: December 06, 2012, 12:24:07 AM »
The 5D III falls far short of the BMC camera in terms of test charts and footage pushed far one way or the other, but you have to weight that against lens availability and how ridiculously easy it is to shoot and post with the Mark III. It's pretty darned good until it's directly in comparison with something better. For video I feel it is very underrated. If you do everything yourself and are very technical (you're either an amateur who shoots very little or a professional house that does studio stuff only) something like the BMC or Scarlet makes sense. But for ease of use and fast turn around times, the dSLRs are great.

The 5D also has darned nice color rendering. And FF lets you use a fast borderline UWA (24mm f1.4), whereas no 16mm f1.4 or 18mm f1.4 exists for APS-C. So for low light the 5D III is AMAZING.

Compared with the 6D I'd get the Mark III for sure--less aliasing, surely better low light, etc.

The 7D Mark II might be even better and you won't need to change lenses, though!

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Do you miss APS-C?
« on: December 05, 2012, 06:44:20 PM »
I have a 60d but I have an opportunity to upgrade it at a reasonable price and get a 5d Mark III. My only worry is that I will miss the extra reach I was getting with APS-C and the vari-angle screen(but thats more of a minor concern). I have a 5d Mark II and love the full frame but worried I am going to miss the reach.
I do weddings, portraits, concerts and videos of all sorts. I dont have any ef-s lenses.
Is the image quality worth the difference and loss in reach?

You're asking for video specifically or for stills? Just wondering because of where you posted this.

Anyhow, you can always buy a longer, slower lens, but for concerts you'll lose something. The 5D has about a 1.6 stop edge in ISO for stills and a two or three stop edge for video and less skew. I thought the super shallow focus would bug me, but it doesn't. The Mark III is a good camera, underrated partially due to its versatility.

Lenses / Re: What's your dream lens
« on: December 04, 2012, 11:25:05 PM »
16mm f1.4 for APS-C only.

For video. Samyang?

35mm TSE would be nice. 24mm is too wide for many landscapes.

200m f2 IS of course already exists.

Lenses / Re: APS-C lens mm are correct
« on: December 03, 2012, 09:19:36 PM »
I've done it myself. I took a picture with the following configuration and the pictures were identical.

Canon 7d with 18-135mm lens at 35mm.
Canon Rebel (film, so full frame) with 35-80mm lens at 35mm.

Why did the picture turn out the exact same? Because the 18-135mm at 35mm is at 35mm on my 7D. Since this is an APS-C only lens, the stated focal length is correct. It was not "zoomed" in to 56mm. The picture was IDENTICAL to the Canon film Rebel at 35mm.

Do it yourself and be amazed.

Get an APS-C-only lens and sent it to XYmm on a crop body. Then, get a EF lens and set it to the same XYmm on a full frame body and the two images will be the same. (I understand that the image will be different if an EF lens at the same focal length will be different when put on an APS-C body). Trust me, do exactly what I said and you will see that I am correct.

Do it right now and report back.

I don't know what to say, but you're the only person who's experiencing this. Everything everyone else is writing is both consistent and correct (even if there are arguments over semantics relating to focal length not being an absolute measure of field of view).

I had a 17-55mm on my t2i and a 17-40mm on my 5D III. Used both very frequently at 17mm.

One of them was a lot wider.

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but you're wrong. "Equivalent" doesn't mean the focal lengths are mis-marked and 35mm on the EF-S lens is the same as 35mm on the EF lens exactly; what equivalent means is it's the equivalent field of view in terms of what 135 film or a FF sensor would see.

If this were true, the 10-22mm would be the widest Canon lens available for any dSLR. But the 14mm f2.8 is wider on FF than the 10mm is on a crop body.

All focal length means is the distance from the focal plane at which the lens's optical center focuses at infinity. That distance and the size of the sensor determines the field of view.

Lenses / Re: Wide Angle on a Budget
« on: November 30, 2012, 12:28:00 AM »
I would also recommend the Samyang 14mm f2.8 if its wide enough for you. I also have a 7D and I've been using the Samyang 14mm alot lately. Its really sharp for the price and my only complain is the distortion (which is expected for such a wide lens)

At the 14mm focal length its very easy to zone focus so the lack of AF wont be much of an issue.

Amazing performance for the money if you don't mind MF, but the distortion is much worse than it should be. The 14mm f2.8 L II has almost no distortion. Even the 17-40mm f4 L has much less. It's really, really bad and needs correction in post more often than not.

Lenses / Re: Wide Angle on a Budget
« on: November 28, 2012, 11:58:17 PM »
I know it's not f2.8, but consider getting the EF-S 10-22 f3.5-4.5.  When dealing with wide angle, losing one stop is not a huge deal.  A used or refurbished version should be less than your budget.

The 11-16mm Tokina is a little worse in terms of IQ (due to some chromatic aberration, which can be fixed in post) but it's f2.8 through the zoom range and build quality is great. It's an excellent lens. Very excellent for the money.

28mm is not very wide on the 7D, fwiw. That said, for landscapes it is my favorite focal length on APS-C. I don't like the distorted look for most landscapes. I prefer tilt/shift lenses but they are expensive.

The 17-55mm f2.8 IS is awesome in general.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Quick help needed: Manual White Balance
« on: November 26, 2012, 04:06:10 PM »
White paper is bad, yes. It will work in a pinch, but why even use it?

For video you don't white balance on a per-shot basis because the final result (the scene itself) has to be consistent. That's why lighting is such an art... you need to make the wide shot look good, then relight the CUs so they look good (usually a little fill and softer light) but they also cut believably in terms of ratios, quality of light, amount of light (retain a similar f-stop), color temperature, and light source with the wide shots. Usually a matter of diffusing and bouncing.

Just buy this book:

It's the most basic book out there and also the best. And despite being basic 99% of us could learn a lot from it; it goes over composition, aperture, frame rate, color temperature, coverage, etc. in the most basic but useful terms I've ever seen.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Quick help needed: Manual White Balance
« on: November 26, 2012, 01:48:28 PM »
I've heard from filmmakers that manual white balance might not be such a good idea for videography. I think it might depend on whether or not you're mixing different scenes, lighting setup, cameras, and the like, along with how much and what type of post-production you'll be doing.

If you do use a manual white balance, you will want to use the same one for the entire production (or at least for portions of the production intended to be visually contiguous) rather than a fresh one for each scene or take. That will take some careful planning, especially if you're using mixed lighting or available light.

And, if you use a manual white balance, you will most emphatically want to use a good target. Avoid plain paper like the plague. Your best bet will be polystyrene, such as the lid of a disposable beer cooler.



Great advice. I personally use 3200K, 5600K, and fluorescent (only if forced to by location lighting) almost exclusively. You can sometimes get away with AWB during the day, because color temperature fluctuates based on cloud cover and amount of shade, but generally all you need are a couple presets. Changing white balance on every take is a bad rookie error.

However, setting white balance to something weird for a scene or location is fine if you stick with it. If you're mixing 3200K and 5600K and want to go somewhere between as neutral, then 4100K might be fine? That kind of thing.

Video & Movie / Re: Wide lens for video
« on: November 25, 2012, 11:14:26 PM »
Yes and yes to the last two posts.

18mm is standard as the widest lens in a cinematic kit (though the popular zooms now are 15.5mm or 16mm at the wide end). 7D is close enough to equivalent to Super35 lens-wise, but that translates to 24mm-28mm on the 5D. So a 14mm on the 5D would be closer to an 8mm, which is as wide as cinema lenses (for Super35) get and they are almost never used, except maybe for an extreme effect or music video.

Gilliam loves going wide and he does it well. Didn't know 14mm was his preferred lens, but I am not surprised to learn that.

Video & Movie / Re: Wide lens for video
« on: November 25, 2012, 07:46:15 PM »
Thanks, that makes a lot of sense.  In the portrait photography world you usually can't get tight enough.  Some how the rules of video appear different.  I also notice it's common to cut people's foreheads off in close ups. 

I can imagine panning at 60mm or greater would require really steady hands and slow movements.  Panning at 100mm+ would give the audience motion sickness.  You'd have to spin 90 deg using a a 14mm to even change the scene.

Is the fact we're mostly using hand held DSLRs a factor in wide lens popularity.  Are large commercial cameras (shoulder mounts) as wide?

Actors are prettier than non-actors, but CUs are still usually shot with tight lenses. Someone once commented that Audrey Tautou had such small features that she looked best shot with a normal/slight wide angle (28mm) lens. And that's Jeunet's preferred style so it works well, but usually actors won't be pleased to see a wide angle lens right in their face. You can always back up the lens and just shoot with a wider frame. Cutting off the forehead is not abnormal, though I worked with a gaffer once who got mad at me for doing that for whatever reason.

I haven't done much videography, but if I remember right videography cameras went to about 28mm FF equivalent or 18mm APS-C equivalent and zoomed in to 10X+ that.

You can get smoother pans with a gear head:

A lot of action directors will shoot action with extreme telephoto lenses and gear heads. The inertia of the heavy cameras helps (a Panavision package can weight 60+ pounds easily even with lighter prime lenses), but I honestly have no idea how people pull this off. I have only seen a gear head in action once and never used one; I've only been on a few tiny small indie sets, nothing big.

Video & Movie / Re: Wide lens for video
« on: November 25, 2012, 06:17:39 PM »
On APS-C 35mm is around "normal" but most directors shoot a lot wider most of the time. Spielberg, Gilliam, Kubrick, etc. love going wide but mix focal lengths a bit. Ridley Scott likes longer lenses. Action directors like Cameron, Bay, and Woo mix wide and tight. The artsier guys stick to one focal length in the 40mm or 50mm range, usually.

For narrative cinema 18-85mm is the normal range you'd usually cover with a set of lenses. As wide as 12mm or as tight as 150mm+ is not unusual.

For location-based photography going really wide is normal because locations are often small.

Fwiw, I like the 11-16mm Tokina for APS-C and the 14mm Canon L for FF, though I use a 17-40mm L because it's cheaper.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 5D3 vs. BMC
« on: November 25, 2012, 05:22:32 PM »
I'm just saying all the lighting in the world can't truly compensate for superior DR, particularly in exteriors or when practicals are used.

As a practical matter, I agree. But as a matter of theory i wonder, if someone could have complete control over the light, couldn't they bake the same "cake" as you would get from doing a film to digital transfer?  Film has 15 stops DR, but even that get's compressed to 8 bit color when being viewed digitally.

So logically there must be some 8-bit input(5D3 with perfect lighting) that creates the same digital projection as film.  It's all about creating the perception of DR. Which film does naturally.

It's not possible to control light like that. When the light source (a practical, a window, even a white tabletop that bounces light and also receives it) is in frame there's a set ratio between the source's brightness and the light it projects on a given subject at a given distance. Change the source's brightness and you change how much it lights the subject. Let's simplify this and say it's a one-light set up. If the ratio between the source that's in frame and the object it hits is higher than the DR of the sensor, you can't capture the subject and the source without under or overexposing one to the point you lose detail.

If you're in a studio you can compensate with off-camera lights, reflectors, etc. but those will change the shape of the light, not just the ratio.

So you can light (very carefully) to simulate high DR and might even get very good results. But you'll never get the same shape to the light, no matter how you light and manipulate in post.

Tree of Life could not have been shot on digital. Except maybe the Alexa. High DR lets you light with fewer sources, less fill, etc. and provides a better look not just in terms of roll-off but in terms of shape. That said dSLR have gobs of DR relative to video a few years back and most good DPs could shoot footage that looks as good as their Alexa or Red footage except for sharpness (and the Alexa rolls of highlights better than either).

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 26