March 05, 2015, 01:40:04 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 - JasonATL

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 11
For an AE only workflow it should be possible to do it if you can find and .icc profile that has sRGB/REC709 primaries mixed with gamma 2.2 instead of sRGB TRC. I didn't find one with a quick web search, but I'm sure one has to be out there. I think I will just make my own such. Then you could just use that in AE and it should be good (at worst if you used that for the output conversion profile that should force it to work out).

Thank you for sharing the tip.

In AE, I set the project to HDTV (Rec. 709) in Color Management within Project Properties. When I rendered this to a Quicktime DNxHD file, the result was indistinguishable from what I had with no color management selected. Am I missing something, or does the color space conversion occur automatically in AE or upon rendering?

Anyone have any recommendations for super fast SD cards for my 600D/T3i? I can't seem to get more than 20 MB/s writes with a Sandisk Extreme or Lexar 600x 32GB. Obviously, those rates don't get me very much raw out of the 600D/T3i.

Nice Jason, I didn't even need to shoot charts to be able to tell the difference is night and day, but the most exciting moment was when I pulled down the highlights to reveal a perfectly blue sky, man raw is awesome.  But man I saw the resolution tests on the BMCC and it looks like that thing has pretty bad moire!  But some of the color coming out of that thing is astoundingly beautiful, not sure if you've seen "Meet Me At Big Sur" but I was super impressed with it.  Can't wait for the Production Cam in July!

Axilrod - Thanks. I agree - it was clear that the raw was a significant step up compared to the Canon firmware compressed output. The dynamic range is a beautiful thing. Once you shoot raw, you won't want to go back. Having said that, I'm very happy with the Film Log compressed footage out of the BMCC. The BMCC seemed to me to show moire in a lot that I saw. The resolution chart reflects that, too.

As you suggest, the proof is in the real life shooting, not just the charts. However, the resolution charts are the only way that I know of to hold the conditions equal to see a bit more clearly as to what is going on and, perhaps, how to address certain issues. The BMCC tests, for example, led me to use a color blur or NR on the chroma channel only as a regular part of my post workflow. This helps to make the BMCC footage quite silky - and make the most of both its color and resolution. I do hope someone makes a OLPF for it, though.

For the 5D raw, the moire/aliasing just isn't there in the first place. There is a bit of something weird going on at the highest frequencies, as seen at the bottom of the vertical lines at 900-1000 lines. My guess is that it the frequency hitting the bayer pattern just right. The problem is that it shows up at 100%, too. But, I haven't seen it much in the real world footage, so I'm not going to sweat it. The 5D resolution isn't quite as good as the BMCC appears to be. But, it is great and has me rethinking my pre-order of the BM Pocket camera.

If experience is any guide, you'll be waiting longer than July. It will be a painful wait. But, once you get it, you won't remember that pain at all!I look forward to seeing what you shoot with it.


One less thing to worry about. :-)

Yes, the freedom of raw. It truly is a beautiful thing! You can be very agressive with pushing the color, exposure, sharpness, and you'll get everything there is to get out of each frame. Raw video is just a sequence of stills (just like in film!).

It doesn't matter. Raw is raw, just like with stills. Picture style doesn't have any impact on the resulting raw file. Same goes for white balance.

I finally pried the 5D Mark III out of my wife's hands long enough to play around with raw video.

I threw together a quick resolution chart comparison. There is a link on this Video's description to a similar test shot with my Blackmagic Cinema Camera, for anyone interested.

5D Mark III Resolution: Canon Firmware vs. Magic Lantern Raw on Vimeo

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Canon 5D Mark iii HDMI Clean Output?
« on: April 28, 2013, 07:26:51 AM »
It got leaked and various people had it on dropbox and the like. The link I got it from is dead. EOS HD had a link that had still worked. Don't know if it still does. It's easy to find since the firmware news is on their front page. There are links on POTN and all over. Google google.

Hope to test f/8 tomorrow.

Thanks. I'll just wait two more days until Canon sends me the e-mail. I'm too busy editing my BMCC video footage from a weekend trip in which I didn't even touch the 5D3. My wife got some great photos with the 5D3. If it sounds like I've moved on...

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Canon 5D Mark iii HDMI Clean Output?
« on: April 27, 2013, 09:00:54 PM »
Nobody else has anything to say about the new firmware??

LTRLI: You're talking about the Canon firmware? Where did you get the new firmware? It doesn't appear to be available for download yet. That might be why others, like me, who might be interested in it have not received it yet.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Feedback for first real estate video
« on: April 24, 2013, 05:41:51 PM »
Nicely done.

I've not shot real estate videos, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn... Seriously, I've bought and sold a lot of real estate, so my thoughts center around the selling/buying side in terms of what I'd want to see as a buyer and what I'd want to show as a seller.

As others have said, it needs some movement/interest, perhaps achieved from interesting angles, pulled focus, and something to give it life (I like the food and candles ideas). Since you can't go back and shoot, those are things to keep in mind for the next one.

For this one, I wonder if editing it a little differently might work better. It seemed to jump indoors and out without real motivation for doing so. I can see jumping outdoors after looking through a window, but it didn't seem to flow as is. I favor a more straight-forward approach, such as a "tour" or a one-room-at-a-time style. It doesn't have to be boring, but it seems to me that it should not jump around too much. Perhaps some motion on the stills of the pool table room and the bedroom at the beginning? The outdoors are a real selling point. This means that you should begin and end with the outdoors. Hook them with the best and leave them with a good taste in their mouth. The view of the outside back is impressive. Perhaps that motivates the movement from outside to inside. Then tour the inside and leave them with the walk down the deck and the view from the dock?

Just my thoughts. Nice work overall.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Upgrading...Canon 60D to...GH3
« on: April 24, 2013, 08:01:14 AM »
My own $0.02 on your list of questions. My assumption is that you are trying to stretch a budget.

Camera: The 5D Mark III is a great camera. A refurb will help you save money. You can often find it new for less than $3000 using CanonPriceWatch, so make sure the refurb is discounted below that.

Lenses: For video only, you probably can't go wrong with Canon, Rokinon, Tamron, or Zeiss. I have at least one of each, except for Rokinon (and they seem to have a good bang for the buck). I have bought my Zeiss lenses used from LensRentals and saved quite a bit. I doubt I'll buy another lens new. Don't overlook the non-L primes from Canon. I have the 50mm 1.4 and it is very good. It is about the shame sharpness as my Zeiss 50mm 1.4. I just like the look of Zeiss, so I prefer it. Also, for video, the manual focus operation of Zeiss lenses is much nicer than even Canon L lenses. On operation, the Rokinon Cine lenses are worth a look. Don't go too crazy here. You can only use one lens at a time! I strongly prefer primes. For interviews, a 50mm (on the crop sensor 60D or the full frame 5D Mark III) is nice, as is an 85mm (on a full frame). The 50mm 1.8 would do great for interviews on a 5D Mark III, especially once you stop down a few.

Loupe/Monitor: Axilrod mentioned the LCDVF. I love mine. Best accessory I have!

ND: A variable ND is handy. I've found it to be great in some circumstances and hit-or-miss in others (in terms of negatively affecting the image quality). I find the image quality to be better with fixed ND's. Consider a set of 0.6-1.2 ND (I have Tiffens). Get one set based on the largest filter ring you need (probably 77mm or 82mm), then get cheap step-down rings to adapt to smaller filter sizes. You might then need a cheap flexible screw-on hood, too. You can stack fixed ND's, which is what I find myself doing when I don't need the flexibility of the variable ND.

Slider: I don't have one. Sometimes I want one, but not very often. Might be different if I had one. I do have a skate-dolly (DIY slider). Nice effect, but for interviews, I don't find it critical.

Lights: I would put this as the first priority if you don't have any. Look for sales on 3-light kits at B&H or Adorama. You don't need to spend a fortune on lights, but some money spent on lights probably has a larger impact on the overall image more than the upgrading the camera or lenses that you already have. Good lighting will go farther in making your shot look professional than upgrading your other equipment.

Monopod: I have one. Used it sometimes. Haven't used it much recently. With the LCDVF, I get a lot of stabilization from having contact with my head. When I need more, I prefer a tripod. It is handy if you are moving your position (where you stand) a lot. Likewise, I have a rig. What I love about DSLRs is that people don't get freaked out by them the way they do a video camera. A rig ruins that. Sometimes a rig is great. If you are doing a lot of pro handheld, then you need it. If you are doing set shots, a tripod is often the way to go.

Tripod: You definitely need a video, fluid-head tripod. This is a fairly expensive item ($500+), but worth it.

Follow Focus: I don't have one. Sometimes, I wish I did. You can get by just using the focus ring on the lens. This is definitely a "nice to have" item.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: High noise at low ISO
« on: April 23, 2013, 09:19:52 PM »
Dear Friends,
Have just shot some footage using Canon 5D Mark III @ 500 ISO(!), 1920 x 1080 ALL-I, ZEISS ZE-series lenses.
Here are the grabs from the footage while playing in QuickTime.
Shot in Technicolor Cinestyle profile. No editing/grading whatsoever.
The question is - how come the noise is so bad?
1. Could I mess up the settings?

Yes. Your settings are most likely the problem. For video, the general rule is to use ISO multiples of 160: 160, 320, 640, 1250,... These are the low-noise ISO's for video. You are likely to have much less noise at ISO 640 than at ISO 500. In fact, ISO 640 is less noisy than ISO 200 for video.

Also, make sure that you have disabled Highlight Tone Priority (set it to OFF in the third camera menu).

Cinestyle is fine. You might also try Neutral (0,-4,-2,0).
See this video: 5D Mark III ISO Noise on Vimeo

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: ND filters for video? Suggestions?
« on: April 21, 2013, 09:58:04 PM »
Variable ND is definitely the way to go, I think.  It all depends on which brand you pick.  There are quite a few brands in the market but I think only two have been proven to be the best ones: Singh-Ray and Heliopan.  Singh-Ray gives you up to 8 stops.  Fixed NDs are just too inconvenient.
For convenience, yes. But for highest quality it sounds like there is a sacrifice with variable ND. For me, personally, I will go for better quality, even if it means the inconvenience of switching filters quite a bit.

I also assume that setting the camera to variable ISO will stretch the range of each filter. Anyone have experience with that?

If you are going for better quality, then I strongly advise against setting the camera to auto ISO. If you need variable exposure in a particular scene, a variable ND, even considering its potential weaknesses vs. fixed NDs, will provide a better result than the auto ISO.

Letting the Camera choose the ISO can result in the use of relatively noisy ISOs. Try some shots and then see if you think the results are okay.

I also don't consider the need to switch out ND's to be too much of a hassle when I need to adjust for light between two separate shots. As I said above, if you need the ability to change exposure during shots, a variable ND is worth it, even with the slight hit to image quality.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Upgrading...Canon 60D to...GH3
« on: April 20, 2013, 10:25:07 AM »
I agree with Mt. Spokane. Better yet, if you are considering long-term investments that will eventually cost $1000's over time, it might be worth a few $100s to rent a GH3 (or better yet, borrow one from someone locally) and try it out. Shoot footage on both under the circumstances that you think you will face the most and compare the footage. No expert can tell what you prefer. The thoughts offered here by me (and, I assume, others) is given in the spirit of things to consider. I said it anyway, even though it goes without saying.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Upgrading...Canon 60D to...GH3
« on: April 19, 2013, 04:35:30 PM »
As usual, Axilrod makes some good points. The only thing I think is yet to be seen is how competent of an "A cam" the BM Pocket Camera will be. If it shoots at native ISO 800, then it should be fine in lower light. When properly handled (e.g., a tripod or something to keep it steady), I suspect its image will be better than most DSLRs and perhaps better than the GH3. The GH3 might still have a slight advantage in low light. So, if you are shooting in low light, this may be a deciding factor.

I don't have a 60D, but I have the T3i/600D, which has the same sensor and very similar features. I find the lowlight capability to be reasonably good and have no second thoughts at ISO 640, so I'm puzzled as to why you say "above 600" is no good. To me, the image at ISO 640 is very clean  - to the point that I don't even bother trying to stretch to ISO 320. I've used ISO 1250 with good (not great, perhaps) results. Yes, a faster lens will help a little, but not much compared with what you already have. I have a 24mm 1.4L, but I try to shoot no lower than f2.0.

Not having a GH2 or GH3, I can't say how great they are. All I know is what I read - and people seem to love them. In most of the videos comparing the Canon's with the GH3, I will admit that there is more detail in the GH2/GH3, but I tend to favor the overall image (including color and contrast) of the Canon DSLRs. While this is clearly a personal preference, my point is that resolution isn't everything. Perhaps it is the lens used?

More to your question, "why invest 1000 in glass for a mediocre body?" Answer: because the glass matters more than the body. To me, the most important ingredients to a good picture are: 1) Photographer, 2) Light; 3) Lens; 4) Camera (or sensor). I've based this not only my own experience, but on what I've read most pros believe, too. From a pure cost perspective, the lens should last far longer than the camera body. So, I suggest not skimping on the lenses. Indeed, my original choice of Canon for my first DSLR was based on the glass that I could get. Indeed, I'm not looking forward to getting the Pocket Camera, if only because I don't spend a ton a different set of glass and, therefore, I won't have glass as good as the EF-mount glass that I have (and I have a small-fortune in EF glass that, for the reasons above, I don't regret spending).

Just my thoughts.

Oh, and just for future reference, the 180 degree rule has nothing to do with shutter speed. It's the imaginary line between two people cinematographers use while framing shots. For example, you wouldn't begin a scene that has two people talking with the camera positioned on their left side, and the suddenly switch from one persons POV to their right side as it would look as if they suddenly were talking to the back of the other person's head. The general rule for shutter speed if double whatever your frame rate is.
I think that, in the context of this thread, the 180 degree has everything to do with shutter speed and is well-known to mean specifically double-the-frame-rate, as is already stated in this thread.

And yes, the 180 degree rule that you cite is a common rule of composition.

For future reference, you might want to clarifying the following.
Be careful with bumping up the shutter speed too much on DSLRs though, as at higher levels it can create clipping and rolling shutter, which you definitely do not want.
It is my understanding that rolling shutter is not caused by shutter speed at all, as you seem to imply. Rolling shutter refers to how the data are read off the sensor and occurs on regardless of shutter speed or frame rate. It is most noticeable on fast motion, regardless of shutter speed. I'm also unsure of your use of the term "clipping". I have always used "clipping" to refer to loss of detail in bright objects because the sensor "clips" by reaching its RGB highest value. This is usually caused by an image being overexposed. It seems that a high shutter speed would (holding light, ISO, and aperture constant) go against clipping. But, perhaps I am unaware of another common meaning of the word "clipping" when referring to video.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 11