August 29, 2014, 12:16:02 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 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 26
Lenses / Re: Samyang 35 1.4 adds grain?
« on: July 14, 2012, 12:59:30 PM »
That's normal.  Put the 50mm f1.8 on, stop down to f22, and press the depth of field preview button--it will look the same.

Most lenses are always wide open through the viewfinder then they stop down briefly before each photo is taken.  The Samyang is fully manual and does not do this; it's like the DOF preview button is on all the time.  The grain is the texture of the ground glass.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Where do you start for videos?
« on: July 13, 2012, 12:06:30 AM »
Good audio requires a good boom mic, good mixer, good lavs placed properly on each actor, and lots of work in post...  That's why it's easiest just to hire someone if you can afford it or live with it if you can't.  Most dialogue is center mix anyway; don't worry about stereo.  That's all done in post.

Cinestyle isn't horrible, it's just that, even though it appears to have better latitude, the tonality is so awful that if you expose even slightly wrong (even if it looks fine on camera it might be bad for the grade) and grade the image can fall apart fast.  If you meter really carefully (not with the camera but with a separate incident meter) cinestyle is relatively harmless, and you can expose in-camera with the built in meter and by eye and get an acceptable result if you set your exposure in another picture style then switch to cinestyle, but given that it has essentially no advantages in a traditional workflow...why bother?

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Where do you start for videos?
« on: July 12, 2012, 01:27:22 PM »
Cinestyle is way overrated IMO. It is a flat picture style designed to be graded, but the codec of Canon cameras is not good enough to stand up to this kind of color correction. As soon as you even drop in a basic LUT the shadows have picked up an insane amount of noise.

Read my post above.  Cinestyle is ONLY for shooting b roll or crash cam footage on shoots where the other footage is in log mode.  For anything else it's useless.  It doesn't have more lattitude, it just places brightness values differently.  There are a few cameras that shoot log (Alexa, C300, F3, film scans) and if those are your A cameras and they are shooting in log then cinestyle will give you (trivially) more flexibility and integrate significantly better into your workflow.  I've used my dSLRs a few times as b cameras for 35mm, Red, and Alexa be honest it doesn't matter that much but having log footage to intercut with log footage provides flexibility and a common starting point.  In each of those cases we also had some footage shot in neutral mode and it was just a matter of grading it differently.

Otherwise, it is worse in every way than neutral.  Worse tonality, saturation, and skin tones.  More difficult to composite.  For sound (excepting videography in which case that would be appropriate) I would buy a shotgun mic and an external recorder.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Insane video noise canon 5d mark iii
« on: July 11, 2012, 10:49:00 PM »
Totally normal, much cleaner than I've seen in similar situations.

Cinestyle raises the shadows and along with them the noise.  The 5DIII has a ton of read noise so it's very grainy in the shadows at all ISOs.  Even in neutral mode you can see it.  With cinestyle and HTP it will be the noisiest camera you've seen at low ISOs and the noise is mighty chunky.

Because you're shooting cinestyle (which is designed specifically and exclusively for integrating into a log workflow) I'm assuming this is b-camera for a 35mm or Alexa shoot, in which case your post house will take care of it with NR anyway.  And if you meter properly those shadows will be dark enough that, once graded, they will not be a problem.  So I wouldn't sweat it.  If it's just test footage to try out cinegamma, well, turn cinegamma off and shoot neutral.  And meter.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Where do you start for videos?
« on: July 11, 2012, 10:44:45 PM »
Neutral really is the best setting (unless you're shooting b camera and your a camera is in log mode in which case you can use cinegamma, but that's a rare situation to be in so don't sweat it!) because of the lack of sharpening (which is poorly implemented) and the color balance is best in neutral; faithful has a bad tint and the rest are all exaggerated and unnatural.  The amount of contrast and saturation are your call based on what look you want.  I keep sharpening at zero but the footage is very soft with this setting; it's still preferable to the halos you get with sharpening, though.  Keep highlight tone priority off to reduce noise in the shadows; keep it on if you have blown highlights (I keep it on always).

This is the best book for video production by far:

It's more for old video and film, but it will give you the idea and you can read it in an hour or two, not that you'll want to because it's surprisingly technical and dense for a beginner's book.

The best single lens would be a 24-70mm f2.8 zoom, imo, but your kit is very appropriate for video.  In general, a set of cinema lenses consists of an 18mm, 25mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm but on the 5D you can multiply those by 1.6X to get the same FOV as super35 and that would be a normal range of focal lengths, 28-135mm (but a 24-105mm zoom will do it, too).  But everyone has different taste.  In my experience, most day exteriors are shot at f4-f5.6, most day interiors at f4, most night interiors at f2.8 and most night exteriors at f2 or thereabouts.  But this varies...David Fincher has recently shot everything wide open and you will see some other movies with very deep focus, obviously, but this is a good starting point, imo.  Use 1/50 shutter (or 1/60 if your source flickers) and ND filters to control your stop.  By a full kit at 77mm:  .3, .6, .9, 1.2, etc. and a polarizer or a variable ND if you don't care about color shifts and step up rings to 77mm for all your lenses with smaller threads.  But the 5D has a bigger sensor than cinema cameras so you can stop down a stop more to get the same depth of field.

Good lighting and camera support (tripod, dolly) will help.  Renting is cheap, too, if you ever need other gear.  The 5DIII isn't great but it's very good for video for the price.  You can do anything with it and a few good lights and lenses.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Entry-level video production
« on: July 01, 2012, 07:44:28 PM »
skip premiere and learn Avid, thats what grown ups use, to edit!

What can Avid do that Premiere CS6 can't do?

It's much better suited for a larger production with more editors working on the same project and with other media sourced out to other programs.

In terms of simple cutting, anything that can output an EDL will do.

It also depends who you consider to be "grown ups."  A LOT of tv, even really huge budget stuff, is edited in FCP7 and finished in Smoke, but most large films are still cut in Avid.  If you're looking to work as a movie editor, knowing Avid might be more helpful to you...  For an independent production company, Premiere Pro might be the best choice--it's very fast, integrates well with the Creative Suite, and for editing Red footage it's unparalleled--so long as you don't try to bring any non-Adobe software into the mix.

It's not about the lack of pixels but the space it affords them.

The pixels are what? 10% bigger than the 5D3's?

ISO stops = 100,200,400,800,1600,3200,6400,12800,25600,51200 - 10 stops.

10% bigger pixels = extra stop of performance.

This is irresponsibly terrible logic.  You found the number 10 twice (incorrectly, and in arbitrary places, I might add) and concluded that there's a relationship.  I'm not sure if you're parodying terrible logic or are serious; my apologies if your post was a joke (subtle humor is lost on me over the internet!).

Assuming gapless microlenses, the 1DX has pixels that are 23% larger by surface area (5760/5184)^2, not 10%.  And it doesn't matter because the surface area that collects light is roughly the same on both cameras.  If the 5D has smaller pixels, it has more of them, and this cancels out almost exactly except maybe in terms of collecting light at very oblique angles.  The D800 is maybe 3-4% less light efficient than the D4 despite having more than twice as many pixels--that's the tiny extent to which megapixel count effects light sensitivity (assuming you have a very clean ADC, as those cameras do).

The issue is likely with read noise.  The 5D III (if I remember correctly) is >50% efficient, an improvement over the mark II that is achieved with gapless microlenses, but it has very high read noise.  There 1DX likely has very similar quantum efficiency but a better ADC.  It obviously has a better sensor but not because there are fewer pixels.

Lenses / Re: Need sharp wide-open
« on: June 28, 2012, 09:01:24 PM »
Although the above is almost always true, there are a few exceptions...the new Leica cinema lenses, which are $150,000+ per set, are apparently as sharp as they get around t2 or t2.8.  No one's going to mount that on a dSLR, but their new Summicron (which is $8000, I think--so that's a little more reasonable, not that I could ever afford it) is f2 and apparently sharpest wide open--pretty incredible, and if their cinema lenses are that sharp, maybe they can match that performance in a still lens.

The sharpest (wide) lens I've used wide open is the 35mm f1.4 Samyang, which is extremely inexpensive but it flares a bit and has some mild CA and, like all other lenses at reasonable prices, isn't at its theoretical sharpest until an f4/f5.6 split (though the center is sharp by f2.8 almost).  It's useless to me for stills, though, due to its lack of autofocus.  The 35mm L is sharper in the center but softer toward the edges.

That said, even at 18''X12'', you'll never notice the difference induced by either spherical aberration (wide stops) or diffraction (stopped down) so long as you're shooting normally.  Technique is thousands of times more important at any normal stop.  The sharpest prints I've ever seen were shot on 4x5 film, often at f64, which limits theoretical megapixels for that format to like less than 20?  And the wall-sized (40''x50'' prints) were absolutely tack sharp.  So I wouldn't worry unless you're printing wall-sized photos.  A 100% crop represents an 80'' wide print on the 5D II or III and I can't tell the difference between f2.8 and f8 on a decent lens at 100%, even if software specifically designed to can.

If you must have sharp wide open, get a Leica M9 and the new Summicron, if you can afford the $15,000 investment.  But it seems silly when a D4 or 1DX will have significantly superior high ISO performance to negate the difference in practice.  What body do you have?  Maybe a 1DX or D4 or other low light monster is a better investment?

EOS Bodies / Re: FIRST Video comparison Canon 5D mkIII VS 1D X
« on: June 23, 2012, 05:41:09 PM »
I have analyzed the full res file.... the 1dx is also much sharper! mayby is true 1080P  ;D

It is possible that the focus was not spot on during the test shot with the 5D3. What would you define as true 1080p resolution? 1920x1080 or 1920x1080? LOL get it?...  ;)

What would I class as 1080? 1920x1080 in all 3 colours. Not just 1080 bayer filter lines.

So you don't consider the Alexa and F3 to be 1080p cameras?

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: IQ difference of FF vs APS-C?
« on: June 20, 2012, 09:30:36 PM »
The relative increase in sensor size between a compact and APS-C camera is much greater than that between APS-C and full frame.  And everything will look good in good light.  In low light there's a big difference, and there's more microcontrast and shallower depth of field (feels a bit like the difference between medium and large format film).  There's a substantive difference, but a good lens makes a bigger difference.  The 5D III is more forgiving of bad lenses, though; the 50mm f1.8 is great on it, even wide open, since the pixel density is less.

The best landscape photography is still shot on Velvia, which has four or five stops of DR.

Thank you, that gave me a good laugh!

Let me guess, you like HDR, UWAs, and instagram?

It's not that important unless you're in a rush and can't wait on light.

The best landscape photography is still shot on Velvia, which has four or five stops of DR.  If need be you can always use grad filters or multiple exposures, anyway.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Film is still hard to beat
« on: May 20, 2012, 08:05:40 PM »
Completely off topic, since we're drifting there anyway, Loren Eiseley was another scientist with a strong artistic side. His essay, "How Flowers Changes the World," should be mandatory reading for any human being.

Drifting further off topic (why not?), for anyone who hasn't heard of him, check out the works of Ernst Haeckel, especially Kunstformen der Natur (Artforms of Nature). I wish I could take macro photos half or even 1/4 as good as his 120-year-old drawings.

Slightly back on-topic, when shooting film, it all depends on how slow film you use to take shots, how good your scanner is, etc. Lots of people making comparisons (not just here, but on the interwebs), are forgetting that they're scanning slides shot 30 years ago on glass that didn't have as fancy coatings as now (although some old lenses are sharper than current counterparts, i'm looking at you, Super Takumar 50/1.4 vs EF 50/1.4).

Aside: i've just thought of a test, seeing as I've got an EOS 3 now (now there's one way film beats digital, Eye control AF), and a roll of Velvia 50 lying around, i'll go ask my friend if he's bought his 5D3 yet and do a direct same-shot-same-lens comparison one day.

Anyway, let't think mathematically.
5D3 is 5760x3840 = 22.11 x10^6 pixels.
Let's scan a 135mm film to 4800dpi:
36/25.4*4800 = 6803x4535 = 30.85 x10^6 pixels.
OK, so scanning all but the finest-grained film is not going to give you the same sharpness as a D800. So let's downscale the scanned film a bit later on.

Now, as is my understanding, an iso100 film has the same grain size, whether it's deposited on a 135, 120, 4x5, or 8x10 negative. (if i'm wrong on that, better stop me here).
So let's scan in a 645 (cropped to 3:2 ratio) film, 56x37.3mm, at 4800dpi.
56/25.4*4800 = 10582x7055 = 74.65 x10^6 pixels.

OK, that's about what I was expecting (i was typing as I worked, so i'm reading the results now too).
Basically, scanning 135 film gives (near enough) equal to the best FF digital in terms of MP (D800), just as scanning 120 film gives equal to the best MF back (IQ180). That's assuming that scanning film to 4800dpi gives just as good results as the digital equivalent, which is a test for later. But the results should scale, if I can only scan a 135 Velvia 50 at 2400dpi (or more likely, to 4800dpi then downscale), I'll get 1/4 the res (7.5mp), and scanning 120 film to the same will give 18MP.

Anyway, that's just from an MP perspective. DR and colours is a whole different perspective, and we could go all day, but they're just not directly comparable (vinyl vs CDs vs MP3s anyone? or transistors vs tubes?).
The best thing about film is the non-linear response curve, so highlights don't get clipped as easily, even if you overexpose a bit too much (if you're good and process your own), you can recover a bit by underdeveloping. With digital, once the photon-bucket is filled, it's filled, no going back (although you can instantly see results and shoot again, another plus on digital). So there's never going to be a direct number-to-number comparison. Knowing your tool is more important than the tool itself in this case.

The best film will always beat the worst digital.
The best digital will always beat the worst film.
I think that's the only thing we can say with certainty...

Except that megapixels mean nothing as a metric and mtf means everything.  And both scanners and sensors are supposed to be designed to oversample by a factor of at least 2 (although they don't) to prevent aliasing.

A D800 shot will put Velvia 50 to shame every time, mm per mm.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Help
« on: May 20, 2012, 03:54:34 PM »
I used some weird free software for OSX and it recovered most of my files for me (.mov and .jpg).  Forget what it's called but it runs in the terminal, kind of weird.  Lexar has software that does the same thing and isn't free.  Just don't shoot any more with it.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Film is still hard to beat
« on: May 20, 2012, 02:34:10 PM »
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this "digital vs film" quality issue doesn't really kick until you start printing at large size (beyond 4x6in and magazine spreads).

I'm guessing that the majority of photographs are consumed (by the public) at small sizes (magazine size or smaller), and often on digital devices. At those sizes, is there a technical difference between digital and film?

Smaller than 8''x10'' anything, including 135, is more than good enough.  APS-C digital will hold up almost flawlessly at 11''x17'' (and probably acceptably at any size) unless you're super picky.  The 8x10 film prints I saw were 80''x100'' and at that point you do get a distinct advantage from large format, however.

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 26