September 18, 2014, 08:17:28 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 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 27
if the data is binned before readout by low level sensor circuits as some have suggested, I doubt a firmware induced process change on the post binned data will help resolution.

The resolution isn't really that bad, though, if you look at resolution charts.  Something like 800-900 lines, which isn't terrible.  It's the apparent softness that's an issue, and that's compounded by the bad sharpening algorithm that you can't turn up at all or you get halos.  It's not an elegant solution, but sharpening in post really does help.  But sharpening also brings out compression artifacts.  If Canon or ML could improve the camera's sharpening algorithm (and add focus peaking and zebras) I would be thrilled with this camera for video.

There's little chance of more resolution out of the camera, but either less sharpening or a higher bitrate (though 90Mbps seems pretty high as is in terms of SD card buffer) would make a big difference.  Clean HDMI out would be fine, but at that point, just buy an FS100 instead.  The point of dSLRs is their size and ease of use; external capture can be a pain.

Canon's market cap is much bigger than Sony's if I remember correctly....  Furthermore, Sony has patents on a lot of the technologies that are making their chips better.  And there are no other sensors with the same pixel density as the D800--so how could Nikon be paying Sony for the best of each run?  They're paying for all of these sensors that exist, at least for now.

This just isn't true...Canon has issues with their sensors and they have more read noise.  The 5DIII has a three-year life cycle.  Canon won't disrupt that prematurely.  The 7D may have surpassed the 5DII in terms of monitoring and frame rates, but the 5DII remained the flagship prosumer HDSR in Canon's arsenal through its product cycle.  If you buy a 5DIII, it will have a three-year lifespan as top of its market segment.  Don't wait on something that doesn't exist and won't.  It's also an awesome camera and the video quality is very underrated (it is soft, however).

I really like the Nikon 9000, but it's fairly expensive ($4000-$5000 used).  I am having some weird software issues with Silverfast and my Nikon 5000, and I wonder if compatibility might be an issue with the 9000, too, when using the newest software (on OSX).  You need to scan using multi-pass or else there is a lot of noise, but the results are great otherwise.  The glass carriers are a must; they sometimes give you Newton's rings but not so bad and they make flatness way better.

Just a warning...this will be a very slow process, especially if you use multi-pass.  If you don't want to make big prints but are doing this for archival purposes instead, an Epson flatbed is way cheaper and, from what I've seen, not bad.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 5D Mark III Magic Lantern wish list poll
« on: April 27, 2012, 12:57:43 PM »
If they can improve the in-camera sharpening algorithm so it looks closer to post-sharpened footage but without the compression artifacts and/or increase the bitrate for ALL-I that would be incredible.  Beyond that, focus peaking and zebras would be really nice.  I don't think I'd use any of the other features.

Lenses / Re: Why buy Canon when third party are this good?
« on: April 27, 2012, 12:52:39 PM »
The flip side of bad resale is you can get used lenses affordably.  I couldn't afford the zoom I wanted, but I picked up a used 70-300mm Tamron VC for about half the cost of the Canon version (used) and it's not bad at all!  Fast AF and great stabilization, acceptably sharp, too.  And then there are the unique third party lenses (11-16mm Tokina, which is pretty good, and the 20mm f1.8 Sigma, which is not so good) that seem to hold their value...

Canon's more expensive lenses usually seem really refined, whereas the competition comes close but misses a bit.  The 17-55mm IS f2.8 isn't much sharper than the Tamron or Sigma equivalents, but it's more consistent across focal lengths at the edges and manages acceptable bokeh and low distortion and is a bit longer.  This 24-70mm VC looks good in terms of performance, but the bokeh looks terrible.  But the price of the 24-70mm II will probably make this a popular lens.

EOS Bodies / Re: More colors
« on: April 20, 2012, 02:25:23 PM »
Now, today's sensors still have a bayer filter with a basic R,G,B pattern....These two colors are weak on DSLRs, something I miss after switching from slide films like Velvia.

Velvia only has three layers....RGB.

The weak colors have very little to do with the RGB sensor, they have a lot more to do with the strength of the color filters over the photosites.  Increasingly, manufacturers are using weaker and weaker color filters to get better low light, but at the cost of "pure" colors.  DXOmark measures something similar with their "portrait" measurement and some MBDB do quite well here but dSLRs are worse.  Look at the spectral sensitivity curves on Velvia 50--super narrow.  No matter how much you process, you won't get Velvia colors from dSLRs.  You can probably fake it well enough through processing, but film is still magic.

Did you shoot LF?  If so, lenses are another actor.  Modern dSLR lenses (particularly zooms and fast wide angles) have a lot of longitudinal chromatic abberation so colors are not very pure.  Look at photos taken with a true aprochromatic lens (the Coastal optics 60mm f4).  Colors are incredible, bokeh is flawless.

« on: April 19, 2012, 08:12:15 PM »
If this had better resolution video, focus peaking, zebras, and a slightly higher bitrate codec I would sell my 5D III and pay a disturbing amount more money for it.  And its sad I'm admitting this since I think the 5D III is pretty nice as is, but there is something frustrating about a product being so close to being awesome but not quite nailing it.

I wonder if there's a way to see how long this page has been online for.  It's so weird that it exists at all.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Is the EOSHD guy crazy?
« on: April 19, 2012, 06:30:46 PM »
His views are completely nuts.  Plenty of professionals shoot JPEG and the most popular digital camera for high end TV work (Alexa) records both raw and prores and prores is by far the more popular delivery format and the preference of most editors over arriraw or redcode.  Anyone who has tried doing post on a feature with red knows the pratfalls of shooting with a raw format.  What advantages does raw offer you over a baked-in format?  If you shoot correctly, almost none--just a lot of time and trouble rendering files that you could shoot correctly on set.  What disadvantages does the black magic camera have?  A small sensor with a mount not designed for wide lenses (you NEED the 11-16 f2.8 if you buy this thing), an untested workflow, poor ergonomics, and a battery that's built into the camera.  If anything, this is the ultimate hobbyist camera--totally cool, great price point, likely great IQ for the money--and very ill-suited for actual shooting.

That said, he got you to read his article on an ad-supported website, so...maybe he knows what he's doing even if the article is basically gibberish.  The camera does look pretty cool, though, and it will likely sell well, but I don't see how it could be any more disruptive than the 5DII, Red, and Alexa, all of which were revolutionary within their price range.

The shadow noise it adds is so trivial, and would be 1000 times worse on color negative, once printed.  I use this for virtually everything I shoot during the day, but I don't shoot professionally.  To me the clipped highlights look a lot worse than a little shadow grain that is unnoticeable when printed.

I turn it off when shooting video at 3200 ISO or over or when shooting indoors at high ISOs.  Almost never shoot raw, though.

And if I understand it correctly, I can indeed simply reproduce this by shooting at iso 100 with 1ev underexposure and then apply a tone curve in postprocessing?!

Not sure if it would mimic the process 100%, especially since we don't know exactly what curve Canon uses, but it would probably be very, very similar and more flexible.  But yes, basically, highlight tone priority just turns down the ISO a stop then tags your images as being shot with it.

If your style requires clean shadow detail, expose to the right or use HDR.  If I ever shot landscapes digitally (I might some day!) I'd shoot 100ISO and expose to the right.  But for most of what I shoot (jpeg and video) it's fine for me.

I don't know if this is implemented in more expensive bodies than my 60d - but htp doubles the iso and applies a non-linear curve so that highlights get more resolution while the shadows are compressed. In good light, I used to use it all the time at the beginning ("why not?"), but then discovered that the darks get so little resolution that raising them in postprocessing introduces noise or banding.

It doesn't double the ISO, it halves it (hence 200 ISO being the lowest available with this feature--the camera is really shooting at 100ISO in this case) and then applies a curve that doubles the exposure of everything but the highlights, which roll off smoothly.  I love it.  If you bracket or shoot raw and expose to the right instead of exposing for the shot it's kind of pointless, but if you shoot jpeg and videos or ever use auto exposure outside it's amazing (if you shoot raw you can just expose at -1EV, granted).  If it weren't for Canon's noisy circuitry it wouldn't mess up the shadows, but unfortunately it does just a bit.  But most landscapes worth shooting have a very low scene dynamic range so for that just expose to the right and shoot raw since you might end up shooting at "50ISO" or something after pulling the image digitally and you can get nice contrast and tonality that way.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Entry-level video production
« on: April 14, 2012, 05:43:22 PM »
And some lavs for sure.  Clients love lavs because they make you look professional and they have great sound quality in difficult conditions.  Sound is crucial.  And furni pads are nice.  LED lighting is all the rage now, also carry gels, diff, etc. and a nice tripod--super important.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Entry-level video production
« on: April 14, 2012, 04:23:32 PM »
Sounds like they have more business sense than photographic savvy, in which case they'll do fine.  So long as they can deliver a consistent and marginally better product than their clients themselves would produce and seem professional along the way they will do okay and grow and improve.  All the why-you-can't advice in the world will only dissuade, so just encourage and provide the basics.  Paul McCartney never learned to read music and the Beatles did okay.  Most producers and directors don't know their f stops or lenses when they start, either.  With a dSLR you can expose fine by eye (and btw most cinematographers don't trust Sekonic meters, Spectra is the industry standard, but you don't need anything at all for videography) and if you're shrewd you can easily pick up lighting techniques and composition by watching the competition's reels--or hire someone with more experience until you can do it yourself.

They'll do fine.  Their clients don't know what f-stops are either, and don't care.  There are a million film students who know all the technical stuff and will work for nearly free, but artistic pretensions and technical stubbornness just get in the way (and business savvy people can hire these people dirt cheap anyway).  His clients will care about a professional business approach, professional website, and reliability.  That's what I'd reinforce.  Sounds like a fine kit, btw.  National ads are shot on the 7D regularly so it's not a matter of gear, either.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 1D C suggested price!!!
« on: April 13, 2012, 09:33:24 PM »
Don't get me wrong, I love the 5d3 and think the ISO and aliasing improvements were video upgrades enough. As a still camera you'd have to pry it away from me. Here's to hoping the 5d4 will do true 1080p come three years fromb now

We'll get real 1080p, focus peaking, and everything else we all want three years from now, but then we'll all want 4k or HDR or something, which the high end cameras will have.  When we had the dvx we wanted HD, when we had the EX1 we wanted DoF adapters, when we had those we wanted speed…it won't stop, and filmmakers should stop waiting and start shooting.  (Not that I wouldn't love a little more resolution and focus peaking, myself.)

The issue is that there's a huge market comprised of amateur, student, and casual filmmakers and all of them would like to be shooting on $3,000 Alexas instead of dSLRs--but manufacturers of high end gear have to differentiate it somehow so rental houses will buy high end instead of cheaper cameras.  There are two ways in which they differentiate expensive gear--adding features only "pros" really need on expensive equipment and actual legitimate crippling of low end gear.  I feel like the 5D Mark III isn't nearly as crippled as everyone claims and that if those people who criticize it turned around and tried to shoot an actual narrative film on red (or particularly on film) they'd have a new perspective on the process and what expenses and priorities matter when you're not shooting brick walls.  Sure, the red is king of test shoots, but under time constraints, its advantages diminish for no budget work.  Relative to 35mm film, which is even more difficult to shoot, the Epic and Alexa are pretty awesome to work with, but they're still not point-and-shoot.  And of course 35mm shot properly (for instance, Tree of Life) still looks better than anything other than 65mm shot properly.  So money and effort do buy you something.

But still: working with high end gear is a pain for what are increasingly diminishing returns.  Even if a red epic cost $5000, I'd be wary about using it on a no-budget set.  Batteries last 30 minutes.  File sizes are huge.  Transcoding takes forever.  You need to meter since it's got enough latitude that the monitor will lie to you.  You need external monitors in the first place.  You need to conform and grade properly.  Way harder to hit critical focus in 4k.  Art design has to be better to hold up to that resolution.  It's not a one-operator camera, let alone a one-man crew camera.  That's why so much red footage on the internet is just glorified tech demos and test shoots, it's too hard to make a cheap project on it or an Alexa without money or at least a good crew.  The c300 does seem to hit a nice middle ground, so does the f3/fs100, but even then you've got more work cut out for you.  If you can afford the high end gear, and a full crew and post house to support it, yes…there are benefits over a dSLR, obviously.  If you can't, consider your priorities; is your story so good it needs 4k and HDR for you to tell it, or is it so lacking you need 4k and HDR to hide its weaknesses in technical perfection?

I'd like a little more resolution (or even better in-camera sharpening would be enough) in the 5D Mark III, but all these bells and whistles (high speed, 4k, log modes, etc.) are just more trouble than they're worth to me on smaller sets that can't rent better.  And, fwiw, the fs100 already does it all at under $5,000 but no one is terribly interested in it because it doesn't give great spec.  The two+ stop improvement in low light performance with the 5D Mark III is a revolution in terms of real production needs (say goodbye to the genny truck and those 12k HMIs for night exteriors, we can make do with M18s and residential power now), but it's not on a spec sheet so no one cares.  And of course, M18s are still $10,000, and actors and crew members are priceless...  The 1D C seems reasonably priced to me, and will sell well to its intended market, which I'm unfortunately too poor to be part of, but if I had that money I'd invest it elsewhere, anyway, because I'm not a test shoot kind of guy.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 1D C suggested price!!!
« on: April 13, 2012, 06:35:54 PM »
Currently, I will be renting a C300 the next movie I shoot (or the 1D C to shoot at 1080) and that's going to run nearly $3,000 for a 1 month shoot. I would've definitely preferred to lump that onto the cost of my 5d3 and had an infinite amount of time to practice the camera and the ability to schedule a reshoot without re-renting.

Sure, but $3000 is peanuts compared with craft services ($30,000 or so for an ultra low budget feature, obviously somewhat less for micro budget) or even the lowest-paid crew member's rate for a one-month shoot.  I get what you're saying, but $3000 for a c300 is trivial in movie budget terms.  And then you're saving tons of money by being able to rent a smaller G&E package (due to increased sensitivity over film) and hire fewer grips, and then saving gobs more in post and from not buying film stock.

And that said, incorrigible film snobbery aside, the more prestigious festivals will take a "grittier" video look over a polished one nine times out of ten.  That's why the internet is flooded with red tech demos but most festival shorts are shot on dSLRs.  So while a super 5D would be nice, the market for one simply boils down to people who want it but don't professionally need it.  It already supports the photographer/videographer market, is good enough for a crash cam on theatrical releases (and a main camera for national ads!), and the c300 is inexpensive for the cinema market if you need the extra features. 

Fwiw, the highlight handling on the 5D is great with highlight tone priority turned on, imo it's pretty close to the Red MX at normal ISOs and even if it clips a bit earlier the rolloff is way smoother.  It's not great with highlight tone priority turned off, though.  If you have significant clipping issues it's operator error, bad lighting, or a matter of poor art direction (or artistic decision, blowing out windows, etc.).

Do I wish the 5D Mark III's image were just a bit sharper, though?  Very, very much....

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 27