Messages

61

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How rugged is my 5D Mkiii?

« on: August 16, 2012, 12:28:56 AM »

I understand photogs are visually fixated and perfectionistic...but isn't there glory in the character of well-worn tools?

Imagination, people! Are you obsessed with keeping your equipment sparkling, or your subjects?

62

Software & Accessories / Re: Any Apple Aperture users? Please chime in!

« on: August 13, 2012, 07:09:49 PM »

Show Package Contents on an Aperture library and all your photos are in there organized into neat folders.

I don't bother using Aperture vaults, I just back up the libraries directly.

I use Aperture for just about everything, I don't see much point to it other than that. If I needed to have a complex workflow i would use a modular set of tools rather than an integrated one. I have Aperture and an Intous 4 and a few plugins. The hard part is, and should be, finding something great to shoot in the first place.

63

EOS Bodies / Re: ALL-I vs IPB

« on: August 11, 2012, 10:18:39 PM »

I should note, I claimed I don't see a difference. I don't know whether the output I see would be closer to the good or bad versions; it may well be the bad version. In which case, it's possible there is some resolution enhancing magic going on in your ALL-I version which would be a nifty thing to know if so.

What you need to do is look at your raw-from-camera footage on a Mac in a variety of players/NLEs and see which Windows version you are closest to. If there is damage I could be avoiding with better choices of workflow I would love to know.

64

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Roger Cicala on Canon Autofocus Reality

« on: August 11, 2012, 05:38:03 PM »

It's secret because no one wants to know they just spent $5000 on a set of lenses built with obsolete technology. Once Canon has the range covered with the new technology they will probably make quite a bit of noise about it and the resale value of the old lenses will drop a bit.

This is the best argument yet for Canon's increasing premiums on revised lenses. I am hoping the 24-70II is blazing fast and tack accurate; the MTFs certainly indicate the potential, and with the new bodies that potential can I hope be repeatable in practice.

65

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Roger Cicala on Canon Autofocus Reality

« on: August 11, 2012, 12:06:48 AM »

The article made me more interested in the 24-70/2.8 II and less interested in the 70-200/2.8 II.

I suppose they know only the super-enthusiast would read such articles (and therefore salivate over the new lenses) or else Roger would by now be photographing the fishes...

66

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How rugged is my 5D Mkiii?

« on: August 11, 2012, 12:02:47 AM »

It's equipment. Use it.

67

EOS Bodies / Re: ALL-I vs IPB

« on: August 10, 2012, 02:49:58 PM »

I just did a quick test with white lettering on a red background and I can't tell any difference between 24fps 1080p ALL-I vs. IPB at 100% or 300% crop, either when still frame or playing the movie, in FCPX after opening the clip direct from camera.

So no deal, I think you are having some kind of issue unique to your own setup. I will await confirmation from another source that isn't using your specific workflow, I figure it's in your decoding process that's tripping you up. It is not in the camera or in QuickTime/FCPX, they are not having this problem you are reporting.

68

EOS Bodies / Re: ALL-I vs IPB

« on: August 10, 2012, 11:39:57 AM »

That post clearly looks like a slam-dunk for All-I, but there's a certain Heisenberg uncertainty principle involved. ALL-I is easier for NLE's to render a still frame of, because there is no inter-frame interpolation to be done. IPB relies on the decoder to render a still frame.

So I'm not sure whether these 400% still crops are also affecting your red channel in motion from camera (a ProRes conversion could in theory also introduce the problem). Are they? I should test it myself, if the 5D3 is screwing up the reds in IPB then it's something that's well worth spending the memory/bandwidth to avoid. This is the first I've personally seen of this issue. Thanks for the report.

69

Lenses / Re: Rokinon 35mm T 1.5 CINE LENS FOR CANON VDSLR

« on: August 09, 2012, 12:42:19 PM »

It's a nice sentiment, but when you're looking at a lens that's less than one-tenth the price of the first-party alternative, it sort of breaks down.

What's exasperating is if the compromises in the cheaper product were avoidable just with a few cost-neutral design tweaks coming from freely available feedback of knowledgable users.

I do appreciate that a management so capable may be the cost difference factor.

70

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 review: If you don't own Canon, buy the Nikon D800

« on: August 09, 2012, 11:04:47 AM »

Megapickles are quite tasty, because their dynamic range expands as they shrink.

If you don't have the storage bandwidth then OK they are not for you. But the D800's Sony sensor is a terrific achievement that Canon has no match for right now. Nor can Canon match the RX100 sensor in that form factor. Everything else, including subjective image quality out-of-camera, I award to Canon 5D3 and am not selling mine.

71

Lenses / Re: Rokinon 35mm T 1.5 CINE LENS FOR CANON VDSLR

« on: August 09, 2012, 10:54:39 AM »

I may even buy these myself, I have several of the stills versions. I'm just one who says if you're gonna do something, why not do it right. I look forward to testing these in practice.

72

Lenses / Re: Lens Filters etc.

« on: August 09, 2012, 10:51:56 AM »

I dunno, does diffusion count as a "special effects filter?"

I think most filters on the market are conceivably useful, in that being able to interact with them during capture means that you will make a more appropriate capture rather than just imagine what you're going to do to the image when you get it into Photoshop. Say Antique Suede or Skintone Enhancer or yellow filters in live view monochrome mode...these are going to affect how you perceive your composition and will do so in a way digital ones won't always handle the same way.

For grad filters, going with 4x4 format (via e.g. the Lee 82mm WA adapter) or Cokin P system etc. will allow you free sliding of the gradient point for your composition, as opposed to screw-ins. Both screw-ins and 4x4 are a bit fiddly to deal with changing in practice. I am a believer in using decent UV filters on lenses by default for safety though I don't hesitate to pull them off if there is unwanted flare etc. I am a skeptic when people insist you have to spend a lot of money to get decent filters...there are certainly bad ones but there are also very good bargains I'd challenge anyone to identify damage from blind.

73

Lenses / Re: Rokinon 35mm T 1.5 CINE LENS FOR CANON VDSLR

« on: August 08, 2012, 10:49:44 PM »

Two of the objectives of cine lenses are 1) reduced focus breathing and 2) standardized focus/aperture ring diameters and placements so lens interchange is effortless.

Neither of these factors are clear from what we've seen from Samyang so far.

I have to wonder whether the low-rent manufacturer either can't find anyone versed in the art to talk to, or simply ignores them when they do, in the interest of expediency.

But if it's a good lens for the money and doesn't require a $10 rubber strap for gears then OK, do what you wish.

74

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Product Advisory

« on: August 08, 2012, 01:56:18 PM »

At this price I would think Canon would move heaven and earth to make it a field-upgrade via the body firmware. Factory re-work and reshipment of the thousands of those $199 lenses out there now would nuke their profits.

Of course that means new firmware for all the EF bodies, no? Which means the potential of magic lantern as well I'd think. (Evil cackle) 

I do like the lens although I still hate focus-by-wire.

75

Canon General / Re: Taking DSLRs into olympic venues

« on: August 07, 2012, 01:24:59 AM »

I personally think this is done. We have 38MP cellphones now. For some reason the crowds at events view themselves as amateur cinematographers, and the ticket sellers aren't going to complain. And it would be better for the "talent" and event organizer to look better than cellphone grade, would it not?

So it's done. Four years from now, anything goes...because it will be ridiculous to say you can't bring a professional camera to an event, when that seems to be all people want to attend to do.

Safety concerns? I think photographers would be more worried about someone's head hitting their precious 600mm/4 than their lens hitting some idiot's head. That whole issue is contrived in the desire for usage fees. The usage fees will just become part of the price of admission.

And for the professionals? If they can't earn their keep over the morons in the stands, the hell widdum. You either succeed on merit (not to mention prime seating) or you go home medalless.