January 30, 2015, 06:29:58 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 ... 30
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: http://www.visualproducts.com/storeProductDetail02.asp?productID=553&Cat=48&Cat2=50#bigPic

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).

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Best movie settings?
« on: November 25, 2012, 05:05:35 PM »
Policar, it's marketing? It's FREE.

Most marketing is free.

The cameras aren't.

I've used both neutral and log extensively. I recently shot some B roll for a made-for-tv feature (A camera was Alexa, B camera Epic) and because it was a log show I shot most of the footage in cinestyle. (Cinestyle was introduced for intercutting with log footage and NOT as a "flat" high DR alternative, as it offers no additional DR over neutral with contrast set at low.) I accidentally shot some footage in neutral with contrast low, too.

Ultimately, even in a log show, there was no material advantage to shooting cinestyle. Sure the corrections were closer to the corrections for the Alexa footage, but not significantly. And there was no more DR and tonality was slightly poorer. A total wash when the footage was exposed well, but cinestyle footage exposed wrong looks dreadful.

As for manual white balance, I disagree very strongly with suggestions to white balance manually. I shoot 3200K for tungsten lit scenes and night exteriors with uncorrected HMIs (personal preference) and 5600K for daylight. Fluorescent preset for fluorescent to ward off the green cast. Then adjust in post. I can understand using cloudy white balance for cloudy scenes or to add a warm pop to a daylight image, but if you white balance every shot or set up manually you will have catastrophes in post. Not all light sources are meant to be neutral and when they are 3200K, fluorescent, and 5600K have you covered for 99% of set ups. I've heard stories of very inexperienced first timers doing this--white balancing every shot--and the cast and crew laughing behind their backs and the footage coming out just horrible. DO NOT do this. It's such a bad idea it's almost comic. At best it's innocuous; at worst it will ruin your footage and cost tons of time in post. DO NOT white balance each shot manually unless you have a very good reason to.

24p is NTSC. PAL is 25fps.

Basti187's recommendation is excellent. You can try cinestyle but you will come to the same conclusion the rest of us have--it's useful in theory for intercutting footage with a log show. In practice, all it does is hurt tonality. Look up prolost flat. That's what his recommendation is similar to.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Best movie settings?
« on: November 23, 2012, 12:47:57 PM »
What about Cinestyle from Technicolor? How does that work? Is it a post color correction thing or in camera? Good option?

Technicolor mode is marketing, mostly. In theory it's for integrating a dSLR into a show that's otherwise shooting on log, but it does not resemble a log scan or Arri's log c one bit and it offers no more DR and worse latitude.

Google prolost flat. Use that.

Meter using a calibrated incident meter.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 5D3 vs. BMC
« on: November 23, 2012, 12:45:26 PM »
Another way of stating my point is, you can't boil down a full 12-stops (in the case of the 5d3) of usable detail in an 8 bit codec.

That's true, and the 5D's capture codec is quite bad even relative to prores. A superior 8 bit codec could do pretty well, but the 5D's does not do great.

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.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 5D3 vs. BMC
« on: November 22, 2012, 11:12:49 PM »
It's all about using raw to manipulate the the exposure curve. You can get the same end result with an 8 bit camera, but the set lighting has to be perfect.

Simply untrue. First of all, everything isn't on a set. This argument holds no weight for location photography, particularly exteriors.

Secondly, on any set in which practical light sources play a significant factor, they will blow out to a greater or lesser extent on cameras with more or less DR. But you want your subjects lit so they are not underexposed. It's a tricky balance. And your light will be shaped differently if you use lights off-frame (not always a possibility, either) to fix your exposure so you can't just do that.

There are reasons that "digital cinema" came to prominence much later than dSLRs did and why only the Alexa (with dual gain paths) has really proved a viable replacement. Highlight headroom is crucial with motion picture film, much more so than with still cameras (for which you can use strobes and dodge and burn or shoot multiple exposures more easily or just wait for the right light, whereas films must be shot fast).

Yours is a bold statement to make. Either somewhat ignorant or extremely hubristic, imo.

That said, the 5D has enough DR for most work. Just because it's only very good for very cheap doesn't mean everyone's entitled to great for just a little more. The BMCC might be great with DR, but sensor size, usability in post and on set, etc. is terrible from the perspective of anyone except the hobbiest who shoots test charts or the small production company that runs a very small, tight ship and only really does one style of work (studio short form).

The Alexa blows them all away and you can shoot on it as you would shoot on film and it's an affordable rental. So thankfully there's that.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 5D3 vs. BMC
« on: November 21, 2012, 01:47:07 PM »
5d3 video looked really crappy in comparison. If u do mostly video i think better get the Cinema cam.

What the 5D has in its favor is that it's incredibly easy to use and durable. The BMCC is more of a studio camera. I can take my 5D out in the rain and use cheap $20 per 32gb SD cards and ergonomically it's great. The batteries are tiny and last quite a while. Lens compatibility is amazing. Low light is incredible; the availability of 24mm f1.4 (UWA equivalent to 16mm on super16) for cheap and 10000 ISO is remarkable. Image quality is not.

There are ways to push the image quality closer (sharpen a bit in post, use HTP when appropriate), but if you shoot exclusively in studio and don't need UWA lenses or a lot of speed, the BMCC has its merits. But trade offs either way.

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 30