April 18, 2014, 02:29:55 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 24
EOS Bodies / Re: Videographers happy with 5D Mark III?
« on: March 02, 2012, 08:53:27 PM »
Did anyone notice that 5D3 native image resolution is exactly 1920*3 x 1280*3 (5760x3840). It is 3x3 pixel binning for video.

I've been wondering why no one has mentioned this when discussing Canon's supposedly odd 22.3MP resolution choice. This also seems to be a much overlooked factor when assessing moire and rolling shutter improvements.

The resolution certainly seems like a strange choice; it must have to do with video....

However, 1920X1080 bayer pattern (3x3 pixel binning) isn't that sharp.  The F3 has a 3+ megapixel sensor and the Alexa a 4+ megapixel sensor to achieve a sharp 1080p image.  In theory, bayer sensors can resolve about 70% of their stated resolution (not even taking aliasing into account)--so you need almost four megapixels to get a really crisp 1080p image.  And this puts the 5DIII's 1080p mode at closer to 720p, about what the previous cameras have resolved.  So that's disappointing.

The latitude, decrease in moire, decrease in skew (fingers crossed), and great looking colors still count for something, though.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5DIII pre-order thread
« on: March 02, 2012, 06:48:10 PM »
Received confirmation at 9:24 PST from Adorama (ordered a minute after the page loaded)--and yet I just got an email saying it's backordered?  How?  I doubt more than a few people were able to order before me and Adorama should get a huge first shipment.

What have others who've ordered from Adorama found?

Video raw is not going to happen.

Look at the other HDSLRs cameras listed at ted's.  None have jpeg listed as a format.

RAW full HD video processes at roughly 120mb a second. So can you think of a camera / CF card combo that could cope with that? 1GB = 9 seconds of footage. The write rate for it would have to be... INCONCEIVABLE.

Hmm...I notice that Lexar just announced new UDMA7 CF cards. Can't find the sustained write speeds, but sustained read is 150MB/s, so if write is near that it might possibly support the 120MB/s needed for the RAW 1080p30.

Too bad it doesn't have USB 3.0, that would support enough bandwidth to send raw 1080p50/60 streams to an external system to write. Assuming the external system could support the write speeds of course.

If it's 1GB = 9 second, then a $800 128GB card can store 19 mins of footage.  Not very practical I would think.

19 minutes is more than a 1000 foot spool of 35mm film.  That's really not so bad.  But it doesn't shoot full resolution in raw, because why would it shoot 6fps at 3:2 and then 30fps cropped to 16:9.  Makes no sense.

If there were any hope for raw video it would be something similar to sraw.  A quarter the resolution so maybe four times the frame rate?  That would be a HUGE deal, although the video would still suffer from aliasing.

Also, remember that bayer sensors don't record as much detail as their stated resolution--red's 4k isn't as sharp as a IMAX scanned and downressed to 4k...  "720p raw" would look like SD and alias worse than the current generation's output.

But it's not going to happen.  These specs are based on what's posted on one website--one website that erroneously claims the 5DII and 7D record in "avi and raw."  When, really, they record in .mov, raw, and jpeg.

The video samples from the 1DX aren't substantially better than those from the 5DII.  I wish the 5DIII were a killer video camera, but it seems like Canon is waiting on a lower end cinema dSLR until some time in the future.  Fingers crossed, of course--I'd love to order one of these.

Video & Movie / Re: I want a better quality video For the 5dm3
« on: February 29, 2012, 09:47:31 PM »
Curiously, the C300 seems to have the same pixel density as the 5DII...

I wouldn't get my hopes up.  The sample videos of the 1dx at Fenchel and Janisch show a lot of ugly aliasing and only slightly less noise than videos shot with the 7d.  Not even in the same ballpark as the F3 or C300.  Incrementally better than the 7d--at best.

There's a HUGE market at the $3,000 price point among videographers and student filmmakers.  You can buy a couple lenses and have a usable kit under $4,000 or you can spend significantly more and develop something that's almost production-ready for music videos and shorts or as a b camera for a serious rig.  Canon would be foolish not to introduce an EF mount cinema camera in this price range, but for whatever reason it seems they want to start with expensive products and work their way down...

1080p/60fps would be nice, but is trivial compared with a reduction in aliasing and skew and a boost in actual resolution.

The white side does a lot and can easily fill raccoon eyes or an underlit face, but you need to hold it very close, right off frame, because it's not very big.  For a tight head shot it's okay, too small to help with group shots.  If the ground isn't in frame, you can have your talent stand on a white bed sheet.  If you need a big reflector, buy some bead board at Home Depot ($10) or a grip shop ($30).  The gold side is very harsh and nice for a side light or sunset effect, not a naturalistic fill.  Silver side is better for that but still harsh, rally hard to stare into and you'll see shadows.  Fill flash might be your best option for wider shots, a bed sheet under the talent positioned smartly can do wonders, too.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 4K DSLR Pics
« on: February 12, 2012, 01:19:48 PM »
Recording capacity equivalent to an APS-H size? What does that mean in relation to it having a full-frame 35mm sensor?

Does it crop the sensor to get 4K video?

S35mm, the film format used in cinematography, is actually the size of APS-H. RED cameras have APS-H sensors, its the closest standard to the actual size of film.

"Full frame" 24x36mm is bigger than the full frame of cinema frames.

I would say it crops it, rather than resizing it. The idea of using APS-H size is having the correct angle of view for lenses.

Not quite.  Super35 is 24.9mm wide.

The original Red has a 24.4mm wide chip, but it crops 16:9 video to 22.2mm wide.

Canon's version of APS-C is 22.3mm wide.  So Red and the 7D have the same FoV for a given lens, and both can use cinema lenses and EF-S lenses.

The C300 gets it right with a 24.6mm sensor.  The Alexa has a 23.8mm sensor.  These cameras do it right.

The Red Epic and apparently this new dSLR have APS-H sensors for video, between 28mm and 30mm wide, the worst of both worlds--too wide for many cinema lenses (and, crucially important for Canon, too wide for APS-C lenses--the 17-55mm IS being nice for video) and too small to take advantage of big fast still primes.  A bizarre no man's land.  I get that this is just a modified 1dx, but that puts the price (likely) at half a c300.  This is a very weird product.  There are advantages to full frame video (the availability of lenses like the 24mm f1.4 for much less than cinema primes allowing you to go fast and wide) and advantages to APS-C (works with cinema lenses and EF-S, including the very nice 17-55mm IS) but this is an awkward sensor size.  Not a deal breaker, but strange.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Why the hate for video capable DSLRs?
« on: February 12, 2012, 12:39:30 AM »

The cinematic DoF that comes with a 35mm (Cine) sized sensor is wonderful for narative. No you don't have to use super-shallow DoF all the time, it's a creative tool, same as grading in post.

Pro's such as Philip Bloom and Shane Hurlbut don't never shoot at anything below f/4. I was kinda suprised Shane Hurlbut encourages filming at F/5.6

Day exteriors in narrative film are usually shot between t4 and t8 (there are tons of exceptions, Social Network way more open, New World way more stopped down) for the sake of the AC's sanity and so it doesn't all look soft and mushy.  Taking into account the size of a 5d sensor relative to super35 film, that would be more like f5.6 and 1/2 to f 11 and 1/2.  Plus that's where lenses perform best.

You can shoot whatever you want, though.  Social Network was almost all t1.3 (f1.2 or f1.1 likely).  On a 5d that feels like f2, maybe?

EOS Bodies / Re: 2 different 5Ds coming in 2012 ???!!!!!
« on: February 02, 2012, 07:22:17 PM »
A second 5D seems unlikely, but maybe the first camera is the 4k cinema camera?

However:  Canon claims 4k recording to APS-H for their 4k camera.  4096*1.3 is 5325.  That's closer to the 1DX's sensor.    Strange.

I want that 4k cinema camera!  But it looks like it's going to be very expensive if it's, in essence, a modified 1DX.

The moire on the Leica is horrible.  I would love that camera but the images look so bad up close.  Fuji's approach sounds novel, but everyting I've seen shot without an AA filter has been frighteningly bad thus far...unless shallow DoF or diffraction kicks in first as is the case with some medium format backs.  Once you're approach diffraction limited on virtually everything losing the AA filter seems to make sense, until then...not so much.  Kodak's CCDs only lack a filter because Kodak and their clients don't have the equipment to make AA filters affordably and reliably in large sizes.

Same MSRP as the original.  The street price will probably start higher, though?

The two main complaints with the original seem to be the flares (I shoot video so I LOVE flares, but for stills they're annoying) and excessive CA.  A new coating means a reduction in flares (in theory), not a big deal for me personally...  But if the use of ULD glass (though they claim it's the same optical design) means the CA is reduced, that's a big deal as it solves this lens' big weakness.

A local store has one of these "like new" for $550.  Adorama has them for $610 after rebate.  I was very close to buying one today.  Now I'm having second thoughts.  The fact that 99% of what's shot with this lens seems to be terrible HDR made me not want to buy one for the longest time, but ultrawide is so much more fun than telephoto.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon t4i = 7d price drop? videographers PoV
« on: January 24, 2012, 03:32:37 AM »
I have a t2i and wish I had that swivel screen!

I doubt the t4i will be so great for video.  The video from the g1x looks maybe a bit sharper than the 7d or t2i's (and yes, they do appear to have virtually identical iq) but the aliasing seems as bad if not worse.  And that's the same sensor (essentially) with a new chip.

What I don't get is why the 4k cine camera crops to APS-H!  APS-C cropped to 16:9 is Super35 and that's comfortable for most videographers used to 35mm film!  I am glad the c300 is APS-C.  But if you're limited to EF mount lenses and want speed, the 5D is great because a borderline ultra-wide (24mm) is available at f1.4, which is awesome.  The 14.5mm primo and 16mm ultra primes are expensive...  Though the ultra-shallow focus on the 5D can be an issue.  But APS-H is a strange middle ground...  I want to use my f2.8 APS-C zooms and if I can't I want full frame so I can use a fast wide lens.

Canon, give me a $2,000 APS-C camera with a killer video mode with no binning, skipping, or aliasing--and maybe 10MP stills?  And FAST.  I will never buy another brand again.  Until I can afford an Alexa.

Lenses / Re: Going Wide on FF but which.
« on: January 20, 2012, 04:53:33 PM »
canon is lacking in wide zoom L lenses. hands down. this is where nikon kicks the crap out of canon.

come on canon, give us a FF 10-20mm f/2.8 L

Really?  Not just by far the widest rectilinear lens ever made (excluding pinholes), but with a 2x zoom range and fast?  I'm sure they'll get right to that.

As for the first question, for architecture and landscape a T/S lens is the easy choice since you'll need to correct perspective for either.  I'd prefer 24mm to 17mm for outdoor stuff but both have great reputations.  The 14mm is fun but overpriced for what it is and the Samyang seems to have an awful lot of distortion, plus 14mm is kind of a gimmick focal length...  Not that I'm above gimmicks or even use it was well as most.

PowerShot / Re: New PowerShot G1 X Sample Images
« on: January 18, 2012, 06:23:33 PM »
Ah, my bad...  Never used the 18-135mm IS.

The 18-55mm IS is a personal favorite, though I know others dislike it.  At 18mm, I might prefer it to the 17-55mm f2.8.  Better IS, better bokeh, insignificantly slower, and so small....but not quite as sharp.

PowerShot / Re: New PowerShot G1 X Sample Images
« on: January 17, 2012, 11:27:09 PM »
On preview's original sample images there is some serious smearing on high frequency detail (fur, etc.) even at 800ISO and possibly beginning at 400ISO.  But the images look great otherwise.  Nikon has long employed more aggressive NR than Canon and been praised for it so it's no surprise seeing some sacrifice in detail as Canon makes up the difference. 

The video...yikes.  Skew might be improved over the 7D (possibly due to the smaller sensor, possibly due to something else) but the aliasing is really bad!  I'm no longer so sure I want a t4i for video...

As for performance along the lines of the 18-55mm IS, what's wrong with that?  That's a fantastic little lens, a bit of CA and weaker at full telephoto, but overall a remarkable performer.

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 24