October 23, 2014, 07:31:54 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 - LetTheRightLensIn

Pages: 1 ... 118 119 [120] 121 122 ... 262
1786
Canon General / Re: EOS 5D Mark III w/24-70 f/4L IS Kit Coming Soon
« on: June 06, 2013, 01:51:20 PM »
Those who don't want crappy wide end performance on FF??
(I got the 24-70 II 2.8, but I can see people going for 24-70 f/4 IS.)

If the 24-105 has "crappy" wide end performance, so does the 24-70 f/4.0, they are very similar optically. 

Your 24-70 2.8 II of course puts both to shame!

Perhaps. I've never used the 24-70 f/4 IS but the MTF charts from Canon are much better at 24mm and the results at Lens Rentals were also better than the 24-105 L.

The 24-105L is widely panned at the wide end due to field curvature and softness around the edges/corners.

OK, I'll concede that the 24-70 f/4.0 gets the edge in edge sharpness and distortion at 24mm.  However, by 35mm and 50mm the 24-105 is sharper edge-to-edge.  At 70mm the 24-70 is sharper at the edges, but the 24-105 sharper in the center.  at 105mm the 24-105 wins going away! :) 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=823&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

So, overall sharpness is a wash between the two lenses.  The 24-70 is slightly better at both ends and the 24-105 better in the center focal lengths.

Unless you need its near macro capabilities or shoot primarily at 24mm there are no advantages to the considerably more expensive 24-70 f/4.0.

Maybe. I don't always find TDP matches what I've seen though. I trust Lens Rentals (where they also test like 50 copies of each lens) and Photozone more, although TDP has gotten better in recent years. One thing that can make results vary is whether a site refocuses for edges or not (and if not it makes the alignment problem very tricky; as for real world sometimes it tells the much truer picture and sometimes not) and how close the test target is.

24mm and near was always a very key zone for me with a general wide/standard zoom though since the long end is already handled superbly by 70-200/300 type lenses and getting something sharp near 24mm on FF was always a holy grail for zooms. That was always the real trick. Many could handle the other parts decently enough. The 24-70 II 2.8 finally does it at the wide end. It sounds like the 24-70 f/4 IS may more or less do it. If you don't care about 24mm, I'd just as soon stick with a cheap, light, fast 50mm and a 70-200/300 myself.

But yeah I guess it depends how much you care about the wide end or not.


1787
Canon General / Re: EOS 5D Mark III w/24-70 f/4L IS Kit Coming Soon
« on: June 06, 2013, 01:45:05 PM »

Many years ago Tamron did it, IS excluded. Total lemon.


You mean the 28-75 2.8?
That was an amazing lens! Sharper than the 24-105L for like 1/4 the price. AF was VERY slow and no IS of course though.

1788
Canon General / Re: EOS 5D Mark III w/24-70 f/4L IS Kit Coming Soon
« on: June 06, 2013, 01:17:29 AM »
Those who don't want crappy wide end performance on FF??
(I got the 24-70 II 2.8, but I can see people going for 24-70 f/4 IS.)

If the 24-105 has "crappy" wide end performance, so does the 24-70 f/4.0, they are very similar optically. 

Your 24-70 2.8 II of course puts both to shame!

Perhaps. I've never used the 24-70 f/4 IS but the MTF charts from Canon are much better at 24mm and the results at Lens Rentals were also better than the 24-105 L.

1789
Canon General / Re: EOS 5D Mark III w/24-70 f/4L IS Kit Coming Soon
« on: June 06, 2013, 01:16:02 AM »
But, most of all, who the hell and why bought the 24-70/4, seeing the 24-105 is still out!?!?
Those who don't want crappy wide end performance on FF??

In my opinion, if you consider "crappy" the performances of the 24-105, you need at least a 24-70/2,8 II to see a real difference. But distortion at 24mm is evident anyway, so if you need a good 24mm the only reasonable choices are the primes. I can't consider the 24-70/4 anything but useless. Unless weight, dimensions and MFD are crucial.
Anyway, I have to say that I work 99% of the times in the video field, where resolution differences are less evident, I never used the 24-70/4 for pictures, so maybe I'm missing something...

Yeah video is a lot different than stills.

1790
Canon General / Re: EOS 5D Mark III w/24-70 f/4L IS Kit Coming Soon
« on: June 05, 2013, 08:07:25 PM »
But, most of all, who the hell and why bought the 24-70/4, seeing the 24-105 is still out!?!?

Those who don't want crappy wide end performance on FF??

(I got the 24-70 II 2.8, but I can see people going for 24-70 f/4 IS.)

1791
Canon General / Re: EOS 5D Mark III w/24-70 f/4L IS Kit Coming Soon
« on: June 05, 2013, 08:05:57 PM »
I still don't get the point of the 24-70 f4 lens.  It's more expensive than the 24-105, has less focal length range, and is comparable in optical quality.  Why?  Just why?   If you want noticeably better optical quality, then go for the 24-70 f2.8.  Otherwise, you're better off with the 24-105 for less money.

If you're right and Canon is going to discontinue the 24-105, then will they bring something to replace it or do they want to force users to a smaller focal length range so that users spend even more money to add a 70-200 version to make up for it?

Because it's not comparable in optical quality. Word is it is definitely better.

1792
When you say that you want to separate conversion and editing, by editing, are you also referring to color management?

Yes. The optimal workflow for most is to do all non-conversion adjustments in an NLE, such as Premiere, After Effects, Final Cut, along with other programs that maintain a "non-destructive" workflow (e.g., Resolve).

Currently, the ACR/LR workflow outputs a Prores 422 file, into which many people are "baking" the white balance and other adjustments. The reason for making the adjustments prior to converting to Prores 422 is that you get to work on the uncompressed file and get a lot better results (especially with tonal adjustments). But the baking-in of these adjustments violates the non-destructive editing flow. In a non-destructive workflow, adjustments can be made at any point in the process, without the penalty of having to re-bake adjustments (in this case, in ACR or LR).

So the new workflows (similar to basically all other video workflows), will convert the RAW file to a format (e.g., Cinema DNG and CineForm) that maintains the ability to make adjustments at any point in the process, and doesn't require going back and forth between programs to adjust simple stuff like white balance and highlight recovery.

That said, ACR/LR do have some amazing features and I'm sure there will be people who will still use an ACR/LR flow (e.g., for extreme highlight recovery, or specific plugins such as SilverEfex). But personally, I want to take the footage straight into the NLE and/or Resolve, without having to worry about whether I "converted" the files properly.

You can use Cineform with that workflow. I've been using Cineform almost all along. When you make the movie from the PS/ACR or LR/ACR TIFFs in AE just output to Cineform444FilmScan2 or something like that.

1793
Lenses / Re: Sell 24/1.4L II and 70-200/f4L IS for 24-70 II or not?
« on: June 03, 2013, 11:49:54 PM »
.
I've used that 24, but I haven't used the 24-70.

My first thought is I don't think the 24-70 can provide the kind of lush color and contrast you get with the 24. That makes it a real gem for landscapes.

If I were thinking this way, I'd rent the 24-70 and see if you like the look.

On the other hand, if the color/contrast are not important to you, the sharpness of the 24-70 is claimed to near equal anything in its neighborhood.

24-70 II DOES provide the same lush color and contrast as the 24 1.4 II. I compared both and you really can't tell in that regard.

1794
Lenses / Re: Sell 24/1.4L II and 70-200/f4L IS for 24-70 II or not?
« on: June 03, 2013, 11:46:39 PM »
I have been using 24 mm (first the 24/2.8 and later L II) since I got my first FF camera (5D2) in 2009. I currently use 24/1.4L II (with 5D3) as my everyday prime and sometimes 40/2.8 when I want to be less conspicuous.

My third lens is the 70-200/f4LIS which I only use occasionally for portraits and wildlife (however, very limited range). Considering the fact that the new 24-70 is near-prime sharp, I rarely use apertures under 2 with the 24 (primarily landscapes) and the fact that I would not miss the 70-200 immensely (70-200 f/2.8 II next on the list) - I'm contemplating selling my two L lenses for the 24-70 mark II.

My basic goal is to have a more versatile kit, where I don't have to change the lens as soon as I need something between 24 and 70 mm. But still, with superb image quality.

I'm very interested what you guys think about this idea, would there be a noticeable drop in IQ at 24 mm and at landscape apertures? You who own both, do you find that your 24/1.4L II is obsolete with the 24-70 II?

I got my 24 1.4 II because I was fed up with how zooms handled 24mm on FF for landscapes. I got the 24-70 II. I sold the 24 1.4 II. The 24-70 II is optimized for 24mm most of all and it does really well. It's VERY hard (as in basically impossible even at 100% peeping all over) to tell the sharpness apart between it and the prime (maybe the deepest corners are a touch better for the prime).  Contrast and color of the zoom look the same, at worst. The zoom actually has LESS LoCA purple fringing when you get branches against clouds and such than the prime! Prime does have less distortion and the field curvature is slightly different in nature.

If you really are planning on the 24-70 2.8 IS II for SURE and you are SURE you won't mind it's weight and size for everyday usage, then yeah I'd sell both and get the 24-70 II.

1795
I am not sure how I edit the profile of a batch. When I edit these in photoshop, I open them all at once, then I edit them in ACR, but never open them into photoshop. I just save them out of ACR. I don't see anyway to convert the profile. It would take about an hour to open up a 4 minute clip (music video) into PS, but if I keep it in ACR, I only have to wait for all the files to save.

I was opening the first file in ACR and setting the various sliders then continuing on with the file into PS to see if I wanted to apply anything there and a I tweak a line or two in my RAW action. Then I go to automate and apply the action to the whole batch. It's tricky to make it apply the same ACR settings to all the DNGs I forget what needs to be set so I usually first just drag the first DNG to Adove Brige, select copy development attribute and then select all the other DNGs and apply past development attributes.

My RAW action is something like:
open file
optionally apply this or that PS stuff
do the convert to gamma 2.2 profile step
save file
close file

1796
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?

Did you use AE only?
ACR in AE probably was maybe using sRGB.icc and the file was already using sRGB TRC at that point so using no management vs REC709 maybe didn't matter at that point. So I'd expect the same outputfile in that scenario.

But what programs did you use to play the DNxHD file back with that made them look exactly the same as they had in AE when REC709 working space was set? Was it MPC with full color management plug-ins?




1797
Are you talking mac or pc?

PC but I doubt that it makes any difference. If you use different programs then it's a whole new game of course, but I don't see why PC vs MAC should make any difference (maybe most MAC video players are color managed?? even so they'd look a bit off on the avg HDTV or PC though)

1798
Lenses / Re: If you could only have three lenses...
« on: June 03, 2013, 02:25:31 AM »
1. Canon 24-70 II
2. Canon 70-300L
3. Canon 300 2.8 IS (+ 1.4x TC +2x TC :D)
4. Canon 100L

I'm glad I can't count :D. And that I cheat :D.

1799
...working with the DNGs in Lightroom is still really useful though. I find it much easier to tweak and do cool stuff....
I also like using Lightroom better, but some people have reported that using Lightroom with 2012 calibration can cause flicker as it appears to apply some tweaks on an individual image basis.
@LetTheRightLensIn
Please keep us updated with your findings/thoughts on the color management/workflow! Thanks :)

Yeah I am noticing that for certain clips it (ACR 2012 whether through LR or PS apparently since you mention LR and I use PS) does introduce flicker. For now I pretend it is a flickering film projector ;).

Not having use the 5d3 raw or anything, but couldn't you go into Library module in Lightroom and make the individual frames fairly small (I'm guessing they're displayed as an entire set of individual raw images) and just scroll through them quickly to see if there are any that have significantly different exposure to find those flickers?

Tricky when like 300 out of a 1000 appear to. I think some of it was actually there in real life though I think some bushes were blowing around and rapidly changing the lighting in the scene. I think 24fps makes it seem more strobe like that in real life and ACR probably did accentuate it a bit though too.

1800
...working with the DNGs in Lightroom is still really useful though. I find it much easier to tweak and do cool stuff....
I also like using Lightroom better, but some people have reported that using Lightroom with 2012 calibration can cause flicker as it appears to apply some tweaks on an individual image basis.
@LetTheRightLensIn
Please keep us updated with your findings/thoughts on the color management/workflow! Thanks :)

Yeah I am noticing that for certain clips it (ACR 2012 whether through LR or PS apparently since you mention LR and I use PS) does introduce flicker. For now I pretend it is a flickering film projector ;).

Pages: 1 ... 118 119 [120] 121 122 ... 262