March 01, 2015, 08:01:01 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 - Cgdillan

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 20
Video & Movie / Re: Hip-Hop Video
« on: August 06, 2012, 02:59:55 PM »
Not bad for your first keep up the good work.

Wow these are amazing!

Thank you!

These are much much better than the last ones what did you change in your processing? These are much cleaner and more subtle but still have some nice punch
Possibly the first one could do with a tweak to the black point to restore some contrast back to the shadows though

Before I was using Photomatix. With these I used the LR/Enfuse in Lightroom 4 to generate a very flat image out of my 5 exposures. Then saved a tiff and edited in the contrast and saturation and everything. I agree it is WAY better and cleaner than what i was doing before in photomatix. Also, i was able to use the same settings for every shots in the enfuse plugin which helped speed the whole process up as well. And...... the Enfuse plugin is donation based with a minimum donation of around $3.50 through paypal which I was very happy to pay for and would recommend to everyone after seeing the outcome of the plugin. I agree with you on the first shot. I've been trying to figure out what it is. Something felt wrong about it and now that you say that I totally see it lacking in the shadows as far as contrast is concerned.

Very nice.
The Samyang 14mm has some pretty bad barrel distortion, but these shots don't. Did you de-barrel them in post? Which program?

I did absolutely no "lens correction" in post. =-) I know what your talking about and i have actually been very happy with this lens for my real estate shooting. I'd rather have a 17mm T/S so i could have more control over my verticals, but I just don't have the budget for it right now.

You guys all had great input. Thank you. Just to clear up the photos, it is very popular in RE photography to use heavy HDR and saturation and it's what this particular wanted. Although i do agree with the surreal look they have. For the video, the client asked for a high speed video with poppy fast paced music to attract a younger crowd. It was also only my second RE video =-) my first was

All your points are very helpful and good to keep in my for the next one. btw - if you look closely you will notice dirty carpets and possibly even some trash. The tenant was still living in the house and had not cleaned before we came to shoot the photos and video. So the fast cuts were also partly to disguise the dirty nature of the place as a much cleaner and well kept home. We had to do a lot of clean around the house before we could actually shoot.

Loads REALLY slowly.

I'm sorry. It must be on your end cause it's hosted from Vimeo and it loads effortlessly on every computer i've shown it on. I hope that gets better!

Here is my second RE video. Some improvements from Vivaldi Street. here is Luneta Drive!

I also have the photos posted:

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Real Estate Photography 5D mkIII
« on: August 01, 2012, 11:02:28 AM »
I definitely recommend enfuse and lightroom. It's by far been the quickest way to do RE for me and I the way I end up with the best image quality. It is also easy to get everything balanced properly with out looking overly HDR.

Meh, is Mark III's sensor is anywhere near as good as D800's (DR, noise) I would have got one in a heart beat.

~At the same time someone is posting at Nikon Rumors..."Damn, if the D800 had the AF and high ISO or even was close to the 5D MKIII, I would have jumped at it."~

It's not really surprising; let's ignore the image quality for a moment. People buying the D700 over a 5D2 were those who wanted a more well-rounded product, those like me who chose a 5D2 were prepared to sacrifice AF and speed for IQ (or at least pixels...).

Suddenly the roles are reversed, the 5D3 is a very well balanced camera more fit to replace the D700, while the D800 is a more specialised one that I see more in line with the 5D2 (high IQ but slow, even though the AF is much better on the D800 than on the 5D2).

So while threads like these tend to be much longer than makes sense, I can fully understand a bit of confusion due to this role reversal (and then there's the "other" role reversal that some people like to tout, the one that Nikon generally has overtaken Canon in the sensor department; which adds even more confusion when every thread about one of these aspects is immediately hijacked into a big mush of all possible comparison points-of-view).


The 5D mkiii sensor was the best sensor EVER made... obviously ;-)

EOS Bodies / Re: Should/can Canon keep making its own sensors?
« on: July 22, 2012, 02:14:56 AM »
I see Nikon using Sony sensors, and Sony itself is using its new sensors in its new well-received bodies, and I read people discussing how the Canon sensors seem to be falling behind. 

I wonder if Canon will reach a kind of "Apple Moment", like when Apple quit spending its R&D money trying to beat Intel on a component (CPU's) and started just using Intel chips like everyone else. 

As was pointed out earlier, Apple never built their own chips. Also, Intel aren't the only company who manufactures x86 chips.

Apple made a number of smart business decisions and released several very successful products (imac, ipod, OS X) after Jobs took the helm in 98 (and well before they adopted the intel architecture in 2005)

One of the problems with having Canon drop sensors is that most of the companies who build sensors are either their competition, or companies who would like to become their competition.

Canon makes better lenses than Nikon, and could focus on staying ahead on that.  They could/should take a page from the perfectionist Steve Jobs, and focus on addressing all the 1000 little niggling customer gripes and wishes about cameras, and making Canons just work better and smoother than Nikon (or Sony).  Outclass the competition by thinking of everything, and including it; and by not withholding simple little crap in hardware and firmware that they could instead make standard in all their cameras for very little cost. 

Providing nicer products is always a worthy goal, but the Apple way is not to push high end functionality down to low end models so that users of said low end models may aspire to have high end functionality made available at the low end price. Rather it would be to simplify and clean their product lineup by simply eliminating those "tweener" product lines so that these users are left to choose between (for example) the Rebel and the 5D.

Another lesson from Apple, by the way, is that they have never been leaders from a pure price to performance standpoint. Instead, they always lived or died by the idea that users would pay a premium (in some cases a fairly hefty premium) for a well crafted product.
Canon have an analogous though not identical approach -- their plan is essentially to build a compelling system. A good system is not just about sensor performance. It is a comprehensive product line, which includes professional grade support, bodies, lenses, and even printers. The only other manufacturer who can play in the same ballpark at present is Nikon.

Canon has the part about "not leading from a pure price to performance standpoint" and "charging a premium" down pat.  Do they have the all-important counterbalancing point about superior user-experience/funcionality sewed up, or are they resting on the security of having people heavily committed/invested in its lenses not being able to switch easily?  In the face of real competition to its market share, Canon should compete by being better for the same price, just as is standard practice in all consumer goods.  If you can steal a march against Nikon by putting better firmware into a lower model body, DO IT.  And how much could AMFA really cost to include??

Other than being bitter, having a hard time figuring your logic.  The mk3 is selling quite well as are canon models in general.  I think you got it right for nikon though.  Niokon is smaller than canon and has been trying to catch up over the past 5 years.  I'm not sure if the d800 is priced the way it is due to outsourcing the sensor from sony, or, maybe nikon is trying to undercut canon by selling a product at close to a loss (or, maybe sony is taking a loss on the sensor just to get it out there).  Either way, the mk3 is holding its own.  Amazon is one of the only sites i have found that publish this data and keep it up to date.  Since release, both the d800 and the mk3 have been in the top 20, more often than not in the top 10.  As i write this post, the d800 is at 11th, and the mk3 is at 8th.

So I'm really kind of wondering why canon would listen to you and drop prices?  If they were in trouble, they would.  Hell, I don't even see them scrambling to get a media campaign together to get people on board with the 5d series.  What I do see canon doing is preparing to launch new lenses and new bodies.  Your post describes canon as a company that sinking in quick sand, and they better listen to you or else...or else what?  Sounds to me like listening to you would be a good way for canon to destroy their business.  Would the mk3 sell at $2999, sure.  Would the complainers still complain?  Yes.  Hell, if they released it at $1999 I'm sure people would still complain!  Bottom line is if you want the best studio landscape cam out there then the mk3 may not be the best choice for you.  Suck it up, stay on your current gear and wait, or make the decision and sell your gear to invest in nikon.  Those are your choices.  I made mine - I bought my mk3 a few weeks ago and it is a joy to use.  The files are just awesome to work with, and the high ISO capabilities are just plain outrageous!   

I agree +1 =-) LOVE my mkiii

if you getting a camera just for the sensor then get the mk2 and save some money. Personally I my mkiii for all the other features. only issue i have is the dark focus point. but i still love the mkiii

anyway back on topic 5D2 vs 5D3 sensor

they are a little bit different:
5d3 has a trace worse read noise at lower iso and slightly lower maximum dynamic range than the 5D2 although the differences are likely too small to matter in the real world and they are basically the same

5d3 has almost no horiz banding at low iso while 5D2 has a lot but since the 5d3 has a lot of vertical banding as low iso as does 5D2 in the end they both show banding and once it shows it doesnt really matter if it is one or both directions so it's kinda the same in the again

5d3 has at least 1/2 stop and maybe more like 2/3rds of a stop better SNR, not a huge difference, but it's a difference and considering how good the SNR was on the 5D2 it's not surprising there change was not much larger

5d3 has somewhat higher dynamic range, especially usable DR, at high iso than the 5D2, at times it's a minor difference, other times it make a real difference

5d3 has almost no banding at high iso while the 5d2 can get ugly in darker parts of high iso shots and when you get into super, super, super high iso this can start making a big difference in general and make the effective difference greater than the 1/2- 2/3rd stop SNR differece

5d3 is more color blind and can distinguish less colors than 5d2 (real world implications are very, very complex and i don't know anyone who has looked into the real world differences, all we know is the 5d3 measures the most color blind of any dslr made)

basically they are the same but 5D3 has modestly better SNR and far less uglies and banding and junk at high iso the higher you go the bigger the difference the quality of the high iso noise between the two

the don't rate iso the same, so if you compare both at same iso, then the 5D3 gets put at unfair disadvantage compared to the 5d2

Well said

Perhaps because they offer similar performance and the excitement of 4 years of patience made some sour.

I understand that. But it is better than the mkii in MP, horizontal banding, High iso noise quality/structure. They obviously didn't focus on the sensor as much as they did the other features of the camera. Every other aspect of the camera is better and much improved over the mkii which made it worth the upgrade. Esp. for the ones who needed those upgrades.

Canon will do the minimum amount of R&D into a new camera that's needed for customers to buy it. No more, and some times alot less.

Its funny because nikon did the opposite, Don't change much on the d700 but add a new sensor. Bam, d800.

I will agree with all of that. Is there any company nowadays that will produce something great and give their all?

And the D700 to D800 = 5D to 5DmkII?

Perhaps because they offer similar performance and the excitement of 4 years of patience made some sour.

I understand that. But it is better than the mkii in MP, horizontal banding, High iso noise quality/structure. They obviously didn't focus on the sensor as much as they did the other features of the camera. Every other aspect of the camera is better and much improved over the mkii which made it worth the upgrade. Esp. for the ones who needed those upgrades.

I will  buy the $1999 FF body. It's like a 5d mkiii and 7d fused into a 60d/7d body style. Will take amazing photos and will perform greatly. Not a fan of plastic but i happen to not be going into extreme weather and i take very good care of my gear. So it sounds perfect as a second body to my mkiii =-)

EOS Bodies / Why is everyone calling the mk3 sensor the same as mk2?
« on: July 18, 2012, 11:22:20 AM »
They are different sensors. Similar yes. Same no. Please educate me. They both have read noise, possibly some banding, but they are not the same. 21.1MP vs 22.3MP alone means different =-)

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 20