September 18, 2014, 03:47:53 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 - cayenne

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 81
16
I tried magic lantern before on the 5D3 , the bootflag thing was terrible, it made your camera boot up slow even if you took the card out.

This new version is great, you take the card out with magic lantern on,put another card in and the camera wakes up instantly.

I really like the dot tune as well, done all my lenses, +15 on a canon 300mm f4 IS  ;D

That is fantastic news!!  I've been waiting on this to try ML out on my 5D3.

I'm likely gonna let it mature just a 'tad' longer...since this is a new version working on the newer Canon firmware.

Like with most things on this level, I rarely test the water with BOTH feet.

;)

17
Just installed on 1.2.3.  So far works perfectly.  Little complaints from me other than the slow start up time after sleep.

Messin around with Dual ISO now.
Dang, was hoping that would be fixed.

Can you confirm that the slow wake times go away after you remove ML?

18
"Not alpha, not beta, nor zeta, just a bleeding edge that happens to work for me. It might work for you or it might not. (note that my standards are fairly high, so what I call bleeding edge, others may call semi-stable or whatever)"

These Magic Lantern disclaimers are about as unstable as ML hacks.

I'm going to look into this more tho...

I've been holding off on my 5D3 with ML so far, due to that problem with having to set an unchangeable boot flag, which also seemed to increase boot and wakeup times significantly for the camera even after ML was uninstalled.

This sounds exciting!! I'll be researching this MUCH more before I try it out, but this does sound exciting.

I've been dying to try out the camera functions for stills and of course for RAW video!!!

cayenne

19
Lenses / Re: just hit the purchase button
« on: March 14, 2014, 09:43:48 AM »
Congrats!  We got a larger tax return but instead of buying the camera equipment we wanted to, we have to pay it on a new baby and insurance and copays and all that other fun stuff that comes along with it.

Geez, man...get your priorities in order, eh?

;)

20
HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Post your HDR images:
« on: March 13, 2014, 09:28:49 AM »

21
Video & Movie / Re: The 2013 New Orleans Bridal Crawl Video
« on: March 12, 2014, 01:44:08 PM »
I've just put this up on Vimeo too, I think the quality is better there….

http://vimeo.com/user16498390/neworleansbridalcrawl2014promo


Do ya'll think Vimeo is better than YT?


cayenne


Very nice job on the video.

I was interested to see how you did on the focusing as it is all manual.

Did you use any kind of rig?

I am just starting to play with video on the 60D I just bought.  I never shot much video with the T3i I had because I was discouraged by the manual focus.  However, having played around with it over the weekend, manual focus is easier (not easy - just easier) than I thought it would be.  Still need much practice, but I am encouraged by the initial results.

I mostly played with the 50 1.8 and the Sigma 10-20 which gives some unique results.

I like being able to move the focus where you want and not where the camera thinks it should be.

Thank you for watching!
No, no rig...I shot pretty much EVERYTHING using the camera mounted to my manfroto monopod with a video head on it.

Everything was manually focused by me as I was shooting it.  My secret? Editing.
:)

I would move, focus and shoot....move, focus shoot...etc.  When editing, I looked for action I liked and then hoped I had sections of that part that were in focus.  This was truly a run and gun type thing.

Yes, most all of the wide shots were with the Rokinon 14mm.  Most everything else was with the canon 50L f/1.2 lens.  I rented it for this, and really fell in love with it.

I"m currently saving to buy the 50L.

But with manual focus...I just would set the mono pod down, and try to focus through live view. If I had time, I'd magnify the focus to get sharp as I could, and then hit record immediately...and got what I could.

My problem is, I'm horribly nearsighted, but with age, somehow getting farsighted too. So, during this or any shoot I do with manual focus, I find I canno wear my contacts so I wear my glasses, and when focusing, I look over my glasses to get very close to back of camera to focus, but when moving about, I just do it best I can and hope I get good focus shots.

For instance the clip of all the brides dancing on stage where the guys run up with them, the focus isn't great on that...and I had to crop in which makes it worse, but I liked the scene so much that I just threw it in for a short time. I was actually using the 14mm with that I think..and it was on my monopod  which I was holding up way over my head about 10ft or more in the air total with my height figured in.

They were happy with the video and asked me to do again this coming year. This year, I'll get footage of people with interviews and all too...and try for something more than just a montage.

Thank you,

cayenne


22
Video & Movie / Re: Time Reloaded - 5D2
« on: March 10, 2014, 04:49:22 PM »
Very cool!!

How did you get your camera set up to stay in place all day into the night? Some looked like public places where leaving a camera might not be safe...?

23
Software & Accessories / Re: Large Prints from RAW files
« on: March 06, 2014, 05:28:07 PM »
I regularly make large prints and can help you with workflow questions, but please let me know what your specific questions are - capture, upsizing, sharpening? Generically, the capture is most important - you need to use a tripod, timer/remote release, and the best apertures and techniques to get the sharpest capture possible.  Mild sharpening should be done in Camera RAW and after re-sizing to the printing size (usually at 300dpi) for the appropriate printing media.  Photoshop CC has much improved re-sizing quality and sufficient for most printing. 

Also, if you are serious about printing, then yes, a calibrated monitor (using a colorimeter or spectrophotometer) is necessary.  You can calibrate other ways for free, but you'll still end up with color casts and brightness issues.  The easiest way to make high-quality large prints is to calibrate your monitor, work in AdobeRGB, and use a printer who supports ICC profiles.  If you're printing yourself, the difficulty and expense goes up considerably.

Just curious, why would you not do all your work in the best possible color space, like ProPhoto RGB....?

Thanks in advance,

cayenne
That's a great question and while ProPhoto RGB is considerably larger than AdobeRGB, there are very few printers who can take advantage of the extra gamut that it offers.  This is especially true of commercial CMYK presses since Hexachrome never really caught on (due to cost).  When the full imaging chain - camera, software, monitors, and printers are all true 16-bit devices, it will make sense, but the reality is that even Adobe RGB's extra colors get clipped along the path in most cases.  I'm not saying it's not possible to get the full benefits of the ProPhoto, but it takes a very sophisticated set up and most of the industry has adopted AdobeRGB (and sRGB for consumer work) as the standard.  There's certainly no harm in using ProPhoto and saving files in it, but the real-world advantages aren't really there in most cases. 

It's sort of like 4k video - sure, you can record in it, but it gobbles up lots of space, takes much more horsepower to edit, and in the end, there are very ways to distribute and view it.

The great thing about shooting RAW is that you can go back five years from now (if ProPhoto catches on) and export into that space  :)
Thanks for the reply!!

Would you recommend maybe doing your work within PS/LR...doing ProPhoto while manipulating the images, but when exporting to print...sending it out as CMYK?

I'd think that way, you'd have the best of both worlds...keeping large color space while working, and archiving for maybe later higher quality printing abilities to come as you alluded to, but only drop in color space quality when sending to print, and dropping to appropriate levels as can be handled by print shop?

Thoughts?

cayenne

24
Software & Accessories / Re: Large Prints from RAW files
« on: March 06, 2014, 01:48:01 PM »
I regularly make large prints and can help you with workflow questions, but please let me know what your specific questions are - capture, upsizing, sharpening? Generically, the capture is most important - you need to use a tripod, timer/remote release, and the best apertures and techniques to get the sharpest capture possible.  Mild sharpening should be done in Camera RAW and after re-sizing to the printing size (usually at 300dpi) for the appropriate printing media.  Photoshop CC has much improved re-sizing quality and sufficient for most printing. 

Also, if you are serious about printing, then yes, a calibrated monitor (using a colorimeter or spectrophotometer) is necessary.  You can calibrate other ways for free, but you'll still end up with color casts and brightness issues.  The easiest way to make high-quality large prints is to calibrate your monitor, work in AdobeRGB, and use a printer who supports ICC profiles.  If you're printing yourself, the difficulty and expense goes up considerably.

Just curious, why would you not do all your work in the best possible color space, like ProPhoto RGB....?

Thanks in advance,

cayenne

25
Pricewatch Deals / Re: New Lens Rebates From Canon USA
« on: March 03, 2014, 11:02:06 AM »
Hope to see double dips again like what happened during the holidays last year. Come on now b&h, adorama and amazon.......make these deals sweeter  ;)

What do you mean by "double dip"?


Hmm…the 50L or the 100L macro are sure looking tempting…I was hoping to wait till maybe summer for a sale tho.
Hmm…..

Thanks in advance,

cayenne.

26
Software & Accessories / Re: updating to Maverick 10.9?
« on: March 02, 2014, 02:48:58 PM »
Now that Maverick has been out for a while I am wondering if all (most of) the bugs have been worked out?  Specifically is anyone having trouble running the EOS capture software/DPP/ or  CS6 Photoshop/Premier?

Thanks for any insights, 

Jeff

Don't do it if you have a non-retina MAC or anything but the latest MAC Pro otherwise you won't be able to use the hacks to drive UHD monitors! I actually got a MAC MINI to drive 3840x2160 perfectly! But it only works pre-Mavericks!


What hacks did you have to do?

I have a macbook pro, late 2011 model, non-retina.  I was able to drive a Dell U2711  at 2550x1440 merely by getting a thunderbolt to display port adapter to connect them.  Seems to work just fine with no "hacks" of any type.

Can you explain what you had to do to get yours to work?

Thanks,

C

27
They are still readily available for less than $145, though some people are charging more.

I just pulled the trigger on one from ebay'er in Hong Kong. I got it for about $145.80 with free shipping.

It indicated I'd not get it till March 3 through March 20th....

Now....I'm already getting impatient on waiting for it to arrive!!!

:D

cayenne

I got word that mine got held up by HK customs. THey ebay seller asked if I wanted to cancel or have them try again…I asked to try again, so waiting to see if it comes in….

Hope mine works better than PBD's did…

:(

28
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Dual Pixel Tech Coming to the EOS 5D Mark III?
« on: February 28, 2014, 02:54:20 PM »
I thought Magic Lantern had already done this with the 5D3??

cayenne

29
I've owned the 50 L a number of times and I do agree that it's wonderful when it comes to
Color, contrast, bokeh, build and weather resistance .handling and AF is also superb, small size and nice
Weight .

The reason I keep selling it is because of sharpness , or lack of
It. It's good enough in the center, but I like to compose off center, and especially with the new 61 pt system and it's simply horrible off center, really bad wide open. It has nothing to do with it being a tricky lens to master. It's just extremely soft off center wide open, period.

I'm one of it's big fans, I really am, I love almost everything with it, but when you can't tell where you have focused when going off center it's pretty limiting.

I have the 85 L II and it's a completely different lens now with the 1dx and the new firmware and it's awesome and a really nice useful 1.2 lens , also in the far corners. For video though the manual focus ring is pretty bad.

The Canon 85mm f/1.2 is on my lens list too....but like I'd mentioned, I will get the 50L first, for video as much as photography at this point in time. 

I rented teh 85mm f/1.2 and loved it, and used it to shoot at Voodoo Fest in New Orleans here last year...it was fun, but I found I had some problem nailing focus on it...and I wasn't trying to recompose either.

However, I did like it and will get one, but it wouldn't work well for video with the way manual focus is handled on the 85L.

I'm gonna invest in FoCal too...especially when I get the 50L and the 85L. I'm of the thought that those lenses with such a narrow DOF, definitely need the micro adjustments to get the most out of them. Like was part of my problem of the 85L I rented....

C

30
Canon General / Re: $4 Million Photograph
« on: February 28, 2014, 02:00:46 PM »
I actually think Wrecking Ball is a very good pop song, but I agree music has gone downhill.

The bands that are talented and clever enough to write raw, gutsy music (like the Stones or Nirvana or even the Pumpkins or Pixies more recently) are now for whatever reason doing esoteric music that’s too cold and intellectual and difficult to access. And the emotional immediacy isn’t there; it’s just very formal and cold and you need to think about it to appreciate it.

I like the immediacy of Miley or Britney Spears, but the music is written by committee and takes no risks whatsoever. It’s garbage, but some of it is good, well-crafted garbage...

The loudness wars… that’s another issue. Speakers are so bad music needs to be compressed to fit into a tiny dynamic range. Reminds me of HDR, actually, which I think is hideous and only looks good on a small iPhone screen or something (never printed large) and is why I like these 8x10 photos.

That said, Gursky to me falls into the visual camp that’s analogous to bands that are talented musicians but too distant and self-aware to make anything raw. Which is why this photo is so silly in many respects. And why high art is so silly (it’s too intellectual). But I do think a lot of his work is good, and prefer this photo to any HDR. (There is some good commercial photography, too, but most of it is in print… actual commercials. A lot of middlebow “art” is horrible. Stuck in Customs is the worst photography I’ve ever seen. It's like Kinkade's paintings. I’m sorry to be a snob, but this stuff is the worst of both worlds. There has been good stuff that occupies this space, and it's the best stuff… Beatles, Spielberg, etc.)

I honestly think Miley is someone who can only be appreciated by people near her age, who haven't lived through when music meant more, concerts meant more, and it wasn't all promoted and pigeonholed to where it had to either be idiot "hip hop pop", just "hip hop", "rap", or "country". 

Rock is dead, because that's how the industry wants it.  If they promoted it, kids today would love it.  Just ask what type of music most kids in Northern and central Europe...and South America like.  Bands like Iron Maiden couldn't tour the way they have in these places, if the youth didn't love them.

I also disagree that MTV kept rock music alive.  The fans kept it alive IN SPITE OF MTV.  MTV really promoted "new wave" and top 40 pop music such as Madonna and Boy George ("Culture Club"), more than "rock" acts of the time.  It wasn't until the late 80's that "hair metal" became the rage.  And plaid shirts, saggy pants, the whole Seattle cultural takeover, was a direct reaction by the music industry, to find something that was the opposite of hair metal, but that was still "rock".  After a time they needed to modify it further, so was born "heavy industrial"...but then in the late '90's, there was a brief European influence of "techno pop", because people got tired of angry plaid wearing Seattle artists whose daddies died when they were age 13...then when they discovered Neil Young could be their surrogate daddy, a lot of their fans stopped thinking of them as relevant. 

In the 1980's, we would have never liked the type of music that most kids like today.  We still like the music from that era, when our favorite bands tour, we attend in droves.  Some of today's youth also attend, even without their parents.  I've seen them.  U2 set the record for highest grossing, and longest single tour, with "360" (2009 to 2011).  It also cost the most to produce.  Having seen it twice, I feel it was worth it.  But those counted toward the nearly 50 large concerts I've attended in my life.

In 2000, for KISS's "farewell tour" of that time, they actually sold more tickets than Britney Spears (and that was at Spears' peak).  Her tour however, grossed more money, because ticket prices were jacked up a lot for her, and those fans paid.  But 2000, was 24 years after KISS was at their peak (1976).

24 years from now, will Cyrus, or Spears (in her case 10 years from now...and pathetically she's Cyrus' "idol")...be able to tour and sell more tickets than whatever the current popular act is of that time?  Nope...no way.  Why?  I say because their "fans" are not fans of them or their music, only of a culture of idiocy promoted by people who don't care a whit about artistry. 

Music today, is simply a much smaller industry than before Napster and MP3 music sharing took off (and eventually before Apple's iPod took over).  The profit margin is a lot lower, because of downloadable music.  So the industry, promotes a few acts, to a degree...but ignores the rest.  And the music companies, apparently hate rock music.  That's why it's not promoted...not because the artists are too esoteric.  There are plenty of local rock bands in every city that are good enough to have made the big time (at least one from each city I would guess), were they in a different era in time.

None of today's acts in the USA are "mega artists", on the level of the Beatles, the Stones, Zeppelin, or even U2.  Why?  Well, because their music is not as good, and as artists, they aren't as good.  History will show that.

Lady Gaga, in my opinion, is more of an artist than most of the other females who have made it big.  She actually sings, dances, plays piano, and writes much of her own music.  The others don't seem to be able to play a musical instrument.  Miley can play an acoustic guitar on occasion, but I don't get the sense she enjoys it.  Taylor Swift enjoys playing guitar, but she's another story.

As for speakers being bad, compressor limiters have been around since the 1960's.  The whole reason for it, has more to do with ambient noise in the end user's listening environment, rather than speakers.  It's also the reason compression is used for live performances (that and to put less stress on the PA).  Basically, popular music needs to be compressed, because it needs to sound loud, even when it is played back fairly quietly...because most consumers are listening in a car, or in some place where people are trying to shout over the music. 

Ever been to a party or concert where people don't try to yell over the music?  I've not.

In summation, what I'm trying to say is, it's a good thing Jay Z wasn't around to stomp out early blues and rock from the 1950's, that southern people (and people in Chicago and especially Detroit)...of his own race, invented.  I'm glad it took so long for rock music to die.  Hopefully it will be resurrected for the youth culture, but I guess it will be different than it was. 

Youth culture today, musically celebrates thuggery, vulgarity, misogyny, in a way that is very hypocritical...not to mention it sounds really lame.  And it's because the people in charge of what music gets promoted and played on air, want it that way.  It's got little to nothing to do with a spontaneous desire for such, by the consumers of that music.

When I see very young kids today, wearing AC/DC and Zeppelin and Stones tshirts, and actually also LISTENING to the music of my day, I'm torn on how to feel about it.

I mean, I'm happy that it shows the artists of my day put out good material that has stood the test of time, but I also feel bad for them in that, there SHOULD have been a number of bands that had taken their place over these past few decades with solid music that the world would be enjoying and be a common language for the youth of generations past mine, but it appears that got side tracked along the way somewhere.

I find it funny to be wearing on occasion one of my genuine concerts shirts from the day...and seeing a kid that is about 12yrs old, wearing a reproduction of it.  I drove into a parking lot at a grocery store the other day, it was a friday afternoon after work, I had the top down and was jamming to old Zeppelin Dazed and Confused, the 30 min version on The Song Remains the Same soundtrack album. I guess it was blaring.

I shut it and the car down, got out and walking in, one of the very young stock boys was sitting outside on break and started kinda head banging my way and shouted "Hey, great song man, I love zeppelin".

I smiled, but when I got inside, I wondered, how the hell did a kid that young know that song well enough to know what it was?  I mean, it was in the middle of the part where Jimmy was playing a heavily effects driving guitar with a violin bow...unrecongnizeable to most anyone that was a Zep fan from my age I'd have thought.

Interesting...interesting.

Oh and yes, I'd love to talk stereo some too....stereos that "glow" are cool.  EVerything is better in audio with tubes IMHO.

:D
cayenne

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 81