July 24, 2014, 04:53:39 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 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 25
241
Third Party Manufacturers / Where did you read this nonsense?
« on: August 30, 2012, 08:28:35 PM »
Also: when was the last time you shot film side-by-side with digital?

IMAX is close to 6x7 film, which is perceptually about the same as the 5D Mark III--at best.  Scans are done at that resolution to avoid aliasing.  And film has more detail before extinction than digital in this case (due to the larger sensor), but the mtf falls off to <50% or so pretty fast whereas digital stays sharp to extinction.  I've seen 6x7 prints (Velvia) side by side with 5D Mark II prints....it's close.  Really close.  The area under the mtf curves, assuming excellent lenses, is similar with high end full frame and IMAX--and that's the closest measure we have for perceptual sharpness.

Color negative film has more highlight detail but less shadow detail.  At best we're talking 14 stops total....cameras are now 14 bit and getting close, they just clip highlights faster for much cleaner shadows (and thus much higher perceived resolution--6x7 is way grainier than FF digital!).

And who shoots IMAX?  Like no one.  Most people who are shooting on motion picture film (which is still way out of the price range of the average amateur) shoot 35mm, and the Alexa beats 35mm in every possible category except maybe it has about .5 stops less highlight detail.

Film is pretty terrible, technically.  That you need to invoke IMAX, a little-used format, testifies to this.  (Though 6x7, a very common format, has virtually the same frame size, which confuses me.  And 4x5 actually does beat most digital, excepting the 80MP backs maybe.  8x10 trumps everything!).

That said, it still looks really, really great.  But of all the arguments to support it, this is one of the most ridiculous I've read, sorry.

242
As this problem is solved I have another riddle: how to avoid such phenomenons?



Shot @F4, 24mm, ISO 3200, 1/30s.
Hint: it's guessable by looking at the picture :)

Don't shoot through a windshield.

Yes, that's a correct answer!

As a reward you can choose one of:
1. 1dx
2. 5d3
3. EF 400 F2.8
4. d800

You have 5 seconds to make a decision...

sorry, time is over :D

What I really wanted was a D800E, anyway (and a 1DC!).

I think the correlation between aperture blades and sunstars is that if there's an even number of blades you get that many rays, if there's an odd number of blades you get twice as many and that the sharpness of the angle dictates the brilliance of the rays.  Maybe?

I think Tree of Life was shot on Master Primes, which have rounded blades, but it still had beautiful sun stars.

243
As this problem is solved I have another riddle: how to avoid such phenomenons?


Warsaw by marekjoz, on Flickr

Shot @F4, 24mm, ISO 3200, 1/30s.
Hint: it's guessable by looking at the picture :)


Don't shoot through a windshield.

244
Lenses / Re: Choice for a landscape lens
« on: August 16, 2012, 10:31:33 AM »
Since cost is not an issue

17mm TSE or 14mm wide prime....

Why would you shoot landscapes that wide?

The OP only said he/she is in the market for a landscape lens. Who knows what is a "landscape" lens? As Aglet has said it can be any focal length. Correct.

You can also shoot portraits at 14mm, but wouldn't want to.  Maybe he does want a 14mm, but, tbh, I have never seen a good landscape shot with a lens wider than 24mm.  I get that the thinking is "wider is more dramatic is better" but it's just not true.

That said, of course it's a matter of taste.  In that case, I'd choose first between 17, 24, 45, and 90mm and then get the TSE lens of that length.

245
Lenses / Re: Choice for a landscape lens
« on: August 16, 2012, 01:15:51 AM »
Since cost is not an issue

17mm TSE or 14mm wide prime....

Why would you shoot landscapes that wide?

246
Lenses / Re: Choice for a landscape lens
« on: August 15, 2012, 10:49:59 PM »
24mm T/S-E II.  (Which I've never used, admittedly, but I've read up on it extensively.)

Sharp and with very little distortion or CA (important for a T/S lens since you can't correct this easily in post with one).

You can't consistently shoot decent landscapes without T/S.  Rise/fall and scheimpflug are totally necessary.  So that means the 17mm, 24mm, 45mm, and 90mm T/S lenses are your only choices for decent landscapes.

24mm on FF is too wide for my taste (I prefer 35mm-70mm range for lanscapes) but it's not "tacky" wide like the 17mm, which is more useful for real estate photography.  And if you want to go tacky wide you can always stitch.

45mm T/S looks nice, too, and I like that focal length--but optically should be much worse and the trend toward WA for landscapes is pretty aparant.  UWA is bad if you like polarizers because the sky gets wonky and it kind of forces you into bland or cheesy near/far compositions.

247
Lenses / Re: Landscape Question
« on: August 14, 2012, 01:39:19 AM »
I cannot decide between the 17 and 24 at this point.
I have both.  Both are sharp, but the 24 is by far my sharpest lens.  You may want to try that one first, as it is easier to see in LiveView that you are getting tack sharp focus across the entire shot.

+1 for the 24 but for different reasons.  The 17 is much wider, so you either need a strong foreground element to make it interesting or you end up cropping it to get rid of large boring sections (i.e. sky).  If you need a wider lens for landscapes, a quick shift panorama would satisfy most situations.  The 17 is handy when space is confined (indoors) or the object is really large (i.e. skyscraper) and you can't move back.

Agreed.  17mm and the like can get you a big feeling that is dramatic and very cool (plus easier deep focus) but it's kind of a cheap trick that results in a lot of boring photos unless you go for a really "near/far" look.

I asked a photographer whose work I really like what focal lengths he uses--99% 150mm-300mm (and then crops) on 4x5.  So that's like 35mm to 70mm or so on full frame.  But it's harder and your subject must be a lot better to shoot at these focal lengths.  24mm has a nice wide feel without the extreme linear perspective distortion (and t/s will take care of converging verticals) you'd get from a wider lens.  And you can always stitch if you want to go super wide.

I make almost no money and am about to make a lot less so the TSE lenses are out of my price range by far...but I have heard some rumors about a T/S Samyang lens that will be announced in a month.  Might be worth waiting on if the $2000 price is hard to stomach.

248
What kinds of video do you want to produce?

The normal "cinema" kit is 18,25,35,50,85mm with longer (100mm+) and wider (<16mm) optional.  For videography as long as 300mm equivalent is not rare...  This is in super35 (APS-C) terms, so 28-135mm would be the "normal" range for full frame digital.

You can do 24-70mm and get a really nice portion of that range (and shallow focus equivalent to about f1.8 or f2 on super35) and add a longer prime or 70-200mm if you want....personally I am a wide angle enthusiast so 24-70mm would be my "one lens" of choice.  Decent bokeh, not so sharp, but great for video.  But the 24-105mm f4 can still get shallow focus and it has IS.  Not a bad choice at all, but there's more distortion and worse bokeh.

The above post is right on, though, MF nikons are great for the money and the long focus throw and hard infinity stops are excellent.  The 14mm f2.8 II is also a totally fantastic UWA with minimal distortion, phenomenal for stylized video but hard to use well because it imparts such a distinct style.  The new Rokinon cinema lenses (and Rokinon lenses in general) are pretty great for the money so consider picking up a 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm kit composed of their three primes and a 50mm of your choice for a super fast "modern" kit.

As for shooting stops, don't fall into the shallow focus trap.  f4 to f5.6 when there's light looks great.

IS is controversial.  5D III has significantly reduced skew.  IS is less important on a heavier rig with better camera support and if you have steady hands you might not need it.  If you do lots of vfx and have shaky hands better get it.

50mm f1.8 is great if you can pull focus on it and don't mind five-bladed aperture.  Not my favorite but amazing for the price.  As a part of a "serious" kit it might get some frowns.

249
Lenses / Re: Landscape Question
« on: August 12, 2012, 08:57:38 PM »
Get a T/S lens and use Scheimpflug.  You're also losing resolution from correcting for converging verticals in photoshop.  Shooting landscapes without tilt/shift is a recipe for bad photos, one which I follow myself with consistently bad results.

Even with a tilt shift lens in some cases you will need to stop down, though.  The perception of depth imparted by deep focus is much more significant than diffraction limits except in extreme cases (or terrible light where there's no contrast anyway).  Lots of 4x5 is shot at f64 and it can still be enlarged to 40x50'' just fine even though diffraction would have you believe otherwise.  Give hyperfocal technique a try, too, although it's very controversial if it works as well as some would claim.

250
Lenses / Re: Rokinon 35mm T 1.5 CINE LENS FOR CANON VDSLR
« on: August 09, 2012, 11:40:42 PM »
Do the compact primes address breathing?  Or Canon's cinema primes?  I'm not sure there's much in this price range that does.  Granted the focus ring might not be in the ideal place and the aperture isn't geared, but this isn't entirely standardized across cinema lenses, anyway.  For the price, how much can you ask for?  How many dSLR shooters have the camera team necessary to ride the aperture and focus ring, but don't have the budget to rent better lenses?

Yes the CP.2's address breathing, and at $7k/lens I'd hope the Canons do too.

Are the compact primes optically different from Zeiss' line of ZE/ZF primes, then?  Or is it just a matter of those lenses having relatively little breathing to begin with?  I'm genuinely curious, although breathing really doesn't bother me for something as low end as dSLR video.

251
Lenses / Re: Rokinon 35mm T 1.5 CINE LENS FOR CANON VDSLR
« on: August 09, 2012, 01:19:56 PM »
Which cost-neutral design prevents breathing?  The one implemented in the master primes, primos, and summiluxes, which are $20,000-$40,000 per lens and enormous?  A non-standard focus barrel width (and there really is no standard for this; all sorts of cinema lenses have different widths) is hardly a big deal and there's no way a company is going to re-engineer a lens to reduce breathing if even Canon and Zeiss can't do it on their $5000 lenses.

I get that it would be nice, but it's so far from a deal breaker.

252
Lenses / Re: Rokinon 35mm T 1.5 CINE LENS FOR CANON VDSLR
« on: August 09, 2012, 12:57:47 AM »
Two of the objectives of cine lenses are 1) reduced focus breathing and 2) standardized focus/aperture ring diameters and placements so lens interchange is effortless.

Neither of these factors are clear from what we've seen from Samyang so far.

I have to wonder whether the low-rent manufacturer either can't find anyone versed in the art to talk to, or simply ignores them when they do, in the interest of expediency.

But if it's a good lens for the money and doesn't require a $10 rubber strap for gears then OK, do what you wish.

Do the compact primes address breathing?  Or Canon's cinema primes?  I'm not sure there's much in this price range that does.  Granted the focus ring might not be in the ideal place and the aperture isn't geared, but this isn't entirely standardized across cinema lenses, anyway.  For the price, how much can you ask for?  How many dSLR shooters have the camera team necessary to ride the aperture and focus ring, but don't have the budget to rent better lenses?

What would you recommend instead that fulfills those two requirements?

253
Lenses / Re: Rokinon 35mm T 1.5 CINE LENS FOR CANON VDSLR
« on: August 08, 2012, 08:13:02 PM »
Given that it hasn't shipped yet, I'm guessing no.  But it's almost certainly the same lens as their 35mm f1.4 except rehoused with a declicked aperture and standard geared focus ring.

If this is the case, it's awesome for video.

254
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Lens Help: 16-35mm or 17-40mm for video?
« on: July 28, 2012, 09:44:31 PM »
For video its hard to see why you'd spend all that cash on the canon 14mm when you can pick up a manual samyang 14mm f2.8 for a fraction of the price. The difference would let you also pick up the 17-40L and upgrade your 50mm.

Because, although the Samyang has great resolution and contrast, it has a ton of mustache distortion, which renders it useless for anything with straight lines.  For stills it's okay if you can fix the distortion later, but for video it's really hard to use for interior spaces or anywhere there are straight lines, imo.  It's a nice lens otherwise.  The Canon has virtually no distortion.

255
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Lens Help: 16-35mm or 17-40mm for video?
« on: July 27, 2012, 11:27:05 PM »
I'm not wild about the 17-40mm, which has a lot of distortion and corner sharpness/backfocus issues, but it's a nice lens ergonomically and the focal length is useful if you have to get super wide.

The 11-16mm Tokina is rather wonderful for APS-C and you can use it (but with soft corners) at 16mm on the 5D.  Contrary to popular opinion, the corners are really very soft with it on the 5D unless you stop down to f8--worse than with the 17-40mm L, but it's a great lens on APS-C and useable as an UWA for FF.

I am extremely fond of the 14mm f2.8 II L, but the cost is high and it's so wide it plays like an effect.  Super wide, great contrast and sharpness, and minimal distortion, what's not to like (well, the focal length if you don't want it).

There are lots of affordable third party options, too.  The 17-40mm can take filters and is weather sealed, so while that doesn't seem important, it can make it an easier choice.


Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 25