September 19, 2014, 08:10:16 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 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 27
256
Another vote for Color Correction Handbook except most of it is extremely obvious and basic and, if you're serious about grading, you should be way beyond any of its techniques.

As for Resolve training, I have no idea! I need to make the transition from Color myself! I have heard that there are some good video series (Ripple, Lynda, I think?) online, but have not watched them.

257
The DR of the 5D Mark III does not seem that great. DXOMark shows it only DR of 11.7 at best. It just gets worse at the higher iso. I was considering of upgrading to the 5d Mark III. I am not sure now after seeing this video. I am now waiting for Canon to come out with DSLR camera with 1080p at 60 fps under $3k. 60fps with MagicLatern HDR video would allow someone to cheat a little bit to increase the DR. I am hoping that Canon is going to come out with something better next year.

If I was just into doing video I would consider the Blackmagic.  I currently need something to do both video and photography.

These lighting conditions were meant to stress the cameras, and they really don't get much more punishing, and the 5D would have done much better were highlight tone priority set to on although that would also make the dark areas noisier (if it was, then these tests reflect really poorly...), but it's clear that the BMC camera does very well. It's the softness that really gets to me, though. If Canon can fix that a bit I can surely live with the poor DR. The DR is also much better for stills, particularly when shooting raw.

I think the issue is that Canon's sensors have a ton of read noise and the technology to prevent it is proprietary to Sony sensors. It's introduced between the sensor and the ADC and it's not terrible in stills, but since the sensor bins on-sensor, in effect the read noise is 4X more present (or scaled up 4X larger) for video. And when using highlight tone priority it really gets noticeable, but that can help the highlight detail a lot.

258
The returns are diminishing, but if you need the better AF and better low light performance that's pretty significant.

The finder is GREAT on the Mark III.

The low light for video is much better.

The look of fast, sharp, wide primes wide open can be really striking on full frame, but the differences in IQ at normal ISOs are not that startling otherwise.

259
Lenses / Re: Canon 24 f/1.4L and 24mmL TS-E ii
« on: September 03, 2012, 09:28:08 PM »
STOP THE PRESSES



So can we tell from this photo whether it offers the flexibility of the Canon TSE II or if it is limited to a switchable 90ยบ setting like the older TSE and Nikon lenses?

Because if it's the former...I'm ordering one.

260
"Despite all our "oh I wish I had that feature" comments, the current technology itself is already awesome ... imagine what an Ansel Adams would have done with the current cameras/lenses ... who knows 6 - 8 years from now there could be some very revolutionary advancements that could very well surprise us."[/quote][/b]
Yes. And as I stated: I am absolutely crazy, about the capacity of this cam. Due to rain over here, I cannot go out to do nightskyphotography. This is the next step at ISO 6400 and 12800.  8)
If memory serves me correct, angel Adams didn't even use the top tech of his hey day. You dont need to spend tens of thousands to take a creative picture

No, but I'm taking pictures now that I couldn't have taken just 3 months ago.  So nice to be able to leave your shutter speed at 1/2000 at night at a football game and not have to open up wide.  So nice.

I think that's exactly the trajectory we're following.  8x10 still beats any digital capture; if Adams were shooting today (who am I to speculate?  whatever...) I think he'd still be shooting 8x10 or with a tech camera and MFDB, but would be using photoshop and possibly stitching, hdr, etc.

Cameras aren't getting better at taking pictures under controlled circumstances...view cameras are still better at super high quality landscape and studio stuff.  But in terms of shooting photos under bad circumstances (low light, fast fps, etc.) progress is incredible.

I think we'll be seeing more of a shift toward photography and video coming together.  Super high speed with pixel binning, 24fps full frame, pellicle mirrors, etc.  I would like to see lower read noise on Canon sensors and a better body for tilt/shift work to replace a view camera...but that's unlikely.  The shift from strong bayer filter arrays with RGB to some sort of orange/green/blue thing that's more light sensitive but less color accurate explicates the trend pretty clearly:  IQ isn't what's getting better, flexibility is where we're going.

I don't think high ISO will improve that much since we're reaching the limits, but read noise and highlight rendering are huge.  After working with Alexa footage I can't believe how bad the clippy 5D III seems, particularly in video but also for stills--rough highlights and bad noise patterns.

261
Lenses / Re: Lenses for 1DC?
« on: September 01, 2012, 06:05:26 PM »
Also, although the site is full of absolute garbage information for the most part, the lens section of reduser.com has some good info on affordable high quality glass.

Fwiw, I really love the MF Nikkors and they have hard stops and good focus throws and are almost free (of course you need adapters, which are a pain).  The 105mm f2.5 is a gem so you can put together a great full kit, but...  The 24mm f2 is garbage (I think the 24mm f2.8 is better, but maybe not much and it's slow; the 28mm f2 has spherical aberration wide open but is otherwise excellent), though so the wide end becomes tricky.  For a "vintage" look these lenses are amazing, though, and so inexpensive.

Another option is the 24-70mm and 70-200mm zooms, but then you have issues with pulling focus.

262
Lenses / Re: Lenses for 1DC?
« on: September 01, 2012, 05:54:16 PM »
They're comparable to the Canon L equivalents (well, the 35mm outperforms the 35mm L wide open and the others are not far behind) and, in my experience, they outperform the Cooke S4s and Zeiss Superspeeds as well in terms of sharpness and micro contrast wide open.  Granted the mechanics and "look" are worse, but just because you CAN spend more money doesn't mean you need to, especially when the rest of a decent package (tripod, camera support, matte box, filters) can add up so fast.  I know a lot of Scarlet users are using these lenses, and that's the same price range (though I'd much prefer the 1DC!).

That said, if money is no issue, the Canon cinema primes seem like the best things going; the selection is just very limited and the prices are high.

First off, the CP.2 Super speeds aren't even available until October 14th, so how you're qualified to say the Samyangs outperform them is beyond me.  Maybe you're talking about the older Super Speeds, but that would be just as ridiculous.  And are you seriously trying to say that the Samyang outperforms (as in are better than) $20,000+ Cooke Primes?  Are you out of your mind or just joking? 

I mean don't get me wrong, they're great for the money and if you're on a budget, but you're giving them way, way, way, way too much credit.  Yes, the Samyang 35 is comparable to the 35L in terms of performance, but that's the exception, the rest of the Samyangs have gotten pretty mediocre reviews.  So let's say he does get the Samyang 35, what about every other focal length? 

How you can slam Cooke's and Zeiss CP.2's yet be cool with the Canon's are beyond me, since the Canon Cine's aren't even available, how do you have any idea how they perform? 

And OP was clearly interested in the Canon Cine's and the CP.2's, I suggested the Duclos modded ZF.2's which are reasonably priced cinema lenses.  But if a guy says he wants a Lamborghini and you think it's too much, try talking him down to a Corvette or something first, not a Geo Metro.

What are you talking about?  Super speeds are all time classics.  I am referring to the Mark IIIs.  They're super35 only, of course.  They are a bit older (1980s and 1970s) but still command $35,000 used for a a good set.  Divisive lenses due to bokeh, harshness, coma wide open, and poor close focus but they are my favorite cinema lenses in some respects...so small and fast.  But not as sharp as the Samyang 35mm!  I am also dead serious that this lens is as sharp if not sharper than the Cooke S4 primes, but the Cookes have a beautiful dreamy effect (that actually reduces resolution) and gorgeous bokeh and no breathing--all I'm saying is, resolution isn't everything!

Fwiw, I have the 85mm Samyang and it's pretty close to the best of the best fast 85mms.  There's a bit less resolution, but micro-contrast is still excellent and bokeh is fine.  Build quality is just okay, but your comparison is ridiculous.  Maybe MPs to kit lenses is Lambo to Metro, but MPs don't even cover APS-H reliably (though they are probably fine from 14mm+)....this is more like Benz to Bentley...you pay for fit and finish, performance is better but with diminishing returns....  Worth it to some, of course, but diminishing returns is key and performance and utility wise they are in the same category as the CPs.  Not MPs or Cookes, of course, though performance is surprisingly close in terms of sharpness alone.  If you put a high end cinema lens on a still camera and shot it against still glass I think you would be surprised--performance is not that much better.  The reduction in breathing is something, but the CPs breathe a bit and aren't even true cinema lenses.  (Which aren't really options for the 1DC, anyway, because of its oversized sensor.)

Canon cinema lenses haven roughly the same designs as their L lenses except better coatings and different aperture blades and build quality is better...so speculating on their quality is easy and they will trump the CPs for the price.  24mm f1.4 II is a great lens and I can't imagine the Zeiss lenses are worth it by comparison when price is taken into account.  They are pretty sharp but slow for the money and the super speed CPs should be expensive for a $10,000 kit.  Modified ZE lenses seem like a better idea, but again performance won't beat Samyang or Canon to a field significant extent.  (Canon L is a bad choice, though, only since there are no hard focus stops!).  Zeiss lenses do have nice coatings and good micro-contrast and flare control, so that is worth something.  Whatever you can afford is best, though--having the right focal lengths, filters, and useable mechanics is 1000X more important than a little resolution at stops you will almost never use--who shoots wide open (except David Fincher) and gets away with it?  t2.8-t5.6 are the stops that count--all these lenses will be great at those stops.

The 11-16mm will be fine if you don't mind soft corners with a little CA and zooming in to 14mm or so before using it.  It works great on the Epic, usable with major vignetting even at 11mm, and kind of works at 16mm on full frame.  I wouldn't recommend it if you can afford better, but I wouldn't recommend the 17-40mm f4 L, either, which is optically poor.  These are extreme UWA focal lengths of course, cool for music videos and cramped locations but not classically useful.

Btw, a normal cinema kit needs to cover the 18-85mm on super35 (approx 24-110mm on APS-H) range and then wider or tighter or zooms as needed for the specific project...no one wants one or two good lenses if they don't have the proper focal lengths and in terms of IQ you will not be able to detect a difference between any of these lenses at normal stops.  You are paying for build quality; yes it is worth it but not to the exclusion of having the right focal lengths.  It is worth it if you plan to rent, though.  A Zeiss CP kit with appropriate focal lengths will rent over the alternatives, I would wager, because of the name recognition, important to less experienced shooters who don't realize they're just expensive Cosinas, not that there is anything wrong with that.

Also get a full complement of NDs: .3 .6 .9 1.2 1.5, a polarizer, a set of diffusion filters if you can afford it, a .6ND hard, soft, and attenuator, a follow focus (not cheap) with whip, and tripod of course...

263
Lenses / Re: Lenses for 1DC?
« on: August 30, 2012, 10:34:29 PM »
For the money the Samyang lenses can't be beat.  If a little breathing (not that bad) doesn't bother you and flare isn't an issue they are really on par with the best of the best and super inexpensive.

24mm f1.4 on APS-H "feels" like 18mm on super35, 35mm feels like 25mm, etc.  So a 24m, 35, 50, 85 kit at f1.4 would cover things great.

Optically these lenses are more than up to the task, too.

He's buying a $10k camera and the first lens he seemed seriously interested in is $5200, the Samyangs are great if you're on a budget but clearly he's not.

They're comparable to the Canon L equivalents (well, the 35mm outperforms the 35mm L wide open and the others are not far behind) and, in my experience, they outperform the Cooke S4s and Zeiss Superspeeds as well in terms of sharpness and micro contrast wide open.  Granted the mechanics and "look" are worse, but just because you CAN spend more money doesn't mean you need to, especially when the rest of a decent package (tripod, camera support, matte box, filters) can add up so fast.  I know a lot of Scarlet users are using these lenses, and that's the same price range (though I'd much prefer the 1DC!).

That said, if money is no issue, the Canon cinema primes seem like the best things going; the selection is just very limited and the prices are high.

264
Lenses / Re: Lenses for 1DC?
« on: August 30, 2012, 10:27:02 PM »
For the money the Samyang lenses can't be beat.  If a little breathing (not that bad) doesn't bother you and flare isn't an issue they are really on par with the best of the best and super inexpensive.

24mm f1.4 on APS-H "feels" like 18mm on super35, 35mm feels like 25mm, etc.  So a 24m, 35, 50, 85 kit at f1.4 then a big zoom or optionally an UWA zoom (depending on needs) would cover most things great.

The typical "cinema" package is 18mm to 85mm at f2.8 or faster (in APS-C/super35 terms).

Optically these lenses are more than up to the task, too.

265
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.

266
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.

267
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.

268
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.

269
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?

270
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.

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 27