October 01, 2014, 08:33:03 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 ... 143 144 [145] 146 147 ... 255
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mark III Frustrated Focusing problem
« on: December 10, 2012, 02:38:56 AM »
I am rather frustrated with some of the shots I am getting, in particular when I have two subjects I want to get in focus, but the one closest to the camera only comes in focus?

Don't use all AF points at once, chose on and put it over the subject.

Also what is a good setting for getting the whole frame in focus, I have only been get certain parts of an image in focus when I want to get everything in focus?
Please help

stop down the aperture, try f/8 or more and don't focus too much towards the front of the scene

Lenses / Re: Why no L primes from 14 to 24mm
« on: December 09, 2012, 04:58:46 PM »
I have recently added the 24-70mm f2.8L II, and I am considering droping my 16-35mm f2.8L II for a prime of around 18-21mm to save a bit of weight and space.

The Canon 20mm f2.8 is awful, but there is nothing else, why such a big gap in Canon's range.

I think my options are the Zeiss 18mm f3.5 or the Canon TSE 17mm.  Of the two the Zeiss would be smaller and lighter.  But looking at 'The Digital Picture' site the Zeiss appears to be slightly worse than my 16-35mm.  If I change I want at least equal optical quality, preferably better.
Are there any other suggestions?

umm the Canon 17TSE IS an L prime

(and 14mm and 24mm L primes too)

(samyang 14mm is $300 and super sharp edge to edge on FF)

HDMI is a data transfer protocol standard, just like TCP/IP or USB. And it's a dumb consumer-level standard...its professional sibling is called SDI. And on the C300 you get both options, and Atomos makes a higher end Ninja they call the Samurai that just does SDI instead of HDMI. HDMI was for HDTV, which for legacy reasons uses 1080i60, sending half the lines 30 times per second, alternating with the other half (all interlaced together) also 30 times per second. There is nothing a camera or anything else can do to alter the protocol...that's how the machines have all agreed to talk, and because it's so dumb a standard, you can expect any HDMI monitor or whatever to understand it.

But we don't want to shoot 30p or 60i (both are offered on the C100 btw), for cinema the standard frame rate is 24p, which gives a nice familiar texture and blur to motion when captured at a shutter angle of 180 degrees (1/48th of a second or 1/50th on the 5D3 is close enough). So how does one send a 24fps signal over a 60i protocol? I forget the technical term (you can google all of this of course, and please do) but they essentially just repeat frames alternating 3 repeats and 2 repeats to match the timing difference of 30:24. And the receiver, to deinterlace that redundant 1080i60 stream to 24p (23.98 is the actual rate on the Ninja also due to legacy concerns with synchronization) must figure out the cadence of repeats and drop the appropriate redundancies, leaving a steady and even stream of progressive frames.

The Ninja has to do this empirically off a moving image being sent so it can see which images are repeats and which are new and drop the proper ones. HDMI can't communicate that information sadly, meaning the Ninja waits with record disabled until it gets enough contrasty motion to see what to do.

As for your growth plans, I understand dipping your toe in, but a lot of this only makes sense when you have the full professional rig in front of you and understood, and then you can learn to make do with less. Good luck with your exploration however you go about it.

24p works perfectly fine over HDMI, many HDTVs handle 24p signals just fine and many computers and blu-rays players can output it as well as some gaming systems for disc output

you can send all sorts of signals over HDMI, my computer can send 1920x1080x60p over it too just fine

Hi all,

I've been looking about and I can't figure out if the latest Magic Lantern out there, supports the clean HDMI out....I thought I heard it would/could but I can't find confirmation on  this.

If so...has anyone used it? If so..can you tell your set up, what are you using to record externally?

Another question I have about this...in this set up..what format is the video coming off? Would this be the equivalent of RAW video out?  I'm wondering if anyone can fill in the blanks for me to let me know what can and cannot be done with the 5D3 and clean HDMI out (if not out already).

Would this be the equivalent of the Blackmagic camera shooting RAW video?

Anyway, hoping to start a discussion here to learn what exactly is needed to capture this (external recorder hardware), what it means for using and Post Production of footage captured this way...advantages and disadvantages...

And if it is available now...

Thanks in advance,


Sadly, it is totally worthless. I got a Ninja 2 and was all excited, but the ML clean HDMI, while clean, is really bad. I guess Canon figured ML might try something  :D so they not only didn't put out clean HDMI but also put it out at some sort of weird semi-downsized resolution which is something ML simply can't get around (unless they figured how to access things at a deeper layer, but that gets to be really tricky without documentation, which of course, is kept secret). Whatever res it is it is lower enough that it looks worse than just sticking with the internal recorder.  :(

I sure hope the version from Canon gives the full 1920x1080 output and isn't the same as the clean HDMI from ML otherwise it will be totally useless.

EOS Bodies / Re: More 6D sample images - with RAW files.
« on: December 01, 2012, 11:33:59 PM »
a shot that needed +4ev raised in the low tones was not necessarily broken by any means, it just means that it had lots of DR, enough with that nonsense

Thanks for your input, but I think you're confusing available sensor dr with postprocessing. If a sensor has rather limited dr (like Canon) raising shadows a lot won't help much because the resolution in the shadows is very low - in these cases, a real hdr should would be required (or get a d800). So at least with whatever I have been shooting, +2ev was the max to leave enough resolution, and imho only in these cases it's important that banding doesn't kick in - except for emergency cases of course.

Btw, this has been discussed all over when the 5d3 was new and it was discussed if tests like this have any real world meaning: http://a2bart.com/tech/allcamdknz.htm

Yeah but the whole point of what he was doing was to find out if there is a point to bothering with being able to raise that much or not.

EOS Bodies / Re: More 6D sample images - with RAW files.
« on: December 01, 2012, 03:37:36 PM »

But raising shadows +4ev is not a realistic scenario given the dynamic range of the sensor, the more interesting thing is raising +1ev or +2ev at high iso (i.e. less dr) which might often happen in real life postprocessing... a shot that needs to be raised +4ev is either broken in the first place or was with a lens with extreme vignetting, so only the borders have the issue.

a shot that needed +4ev raised in the low tones was not necessarily broken by any means, it just means that it had lots of DR, enough with that nonsense

EOS Bodies / Re: More 6D sample images - with RAW files.
« on: December 01, 2012, 03:31:50 PM »
Quick and dirty tentative result:

Looking at the edge of the frame, the black outer masked part it, looks (SNR as measured in Iris) better than the 5D3 and perhaps even a trace better than the 1DX (5.0 vs 5.3 ADU and 6D also has just a trace more MP) but not close to an Exmor. It might have about the best DR at low ISO that Canon has made so far, maybe about like the 1Ds3. Seems like the 6D,1Ds3,1DX will be Canon's best for low ISO DR most likely. Still a far cry, from Exmor/Aptina/etc., as expected. Rough results though, sometimes the main frame is worse than the masked area, that didn't seem to be the case so much for the 1DX but was for the 5D2/5D3 so perhaps the 6D might end up a touch worse or the same instead of a touch better than the 1DX, probably doesn't realistically matter too much either way.

So not a bad result by any means but hardly cutting age in this era.

It is a bit of a shame that they could not have at least given the 5D3 at least their best effort if they can manage it in the cut down low cost model.... the 5D3 they actually gave a bare trace worse DR than the old 5D2 at low ISO (better at high ISO though). Pretty weak that the 6D will have cleaner low ISO and basically the 5D3 will have the least clean low ISO DR of any body release for the year. That said the 6D is definitely not using some new uber line, not that I expected it, so it's not WORLDS better than the 5D3 in this regard by any means, but it does seem like it will be better and just enough to be noticeable in the real world, looks like you will be able to push it a bit more. At least for low ISO, the sensor seems like it is probably modestly better than the 5D3 sensor.

Doesn't make their 5D3 effort look like they tried so hard and if they can do better in a cheap model then it means they could have done better in a pricey one.

Hopefully this is not off of the rumored new process line otherwise they will still be far behind Exmor for years it would seem, but I bet it is more just a modified 1DX line. Maybe the 7D2 or the new high MP FF later next year uses the new line??? assuming that there really is one

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D vs 5D MKII (Focusing?)
« on: December 01, 2012, 01:29:31 PM »
And the AF is not very fast. I tried the 5D3 next to it. it was much faster.

Oh my, there goes the neighborhood :-( ... if that's true then it's really a letdown, I had hoped at least with center point af it would be as fast as the 5d3 since they're both using the same digic5.

5D3 doesn't use the Digic for AF though, in fact, I don't think any Canon does. AFAIK they all use either share the main CPU (rebels,xxD, 5D,5D2) or a dedicated AF CPU (5D3/7D/many 1 series (perhaps not the very oldest????)). Technically the 1DX also uses a digic iv for AF, but only if all points are selected and you use the face and color tracking mode. Digics are used for dealing with the images.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: The First Canon EOS 6D Video Footage
« on: November 28, 2012, 01:46:44 PM »
5D3 is no sharper.

However, at least the 5D3 delivers a softish '1920x1080' without that nasty moire and aliasing, so it does a WAY better job and can look a bit filmic, this looks super video-ish. This is not a good results. But then gain Canon marketing MBA loves LOVES their internal market segmentation and purposeful crippling (other brands and products capabilities and threats be damned).

Part of me thinks that looks to have a bit worse aliasing than the 5D2 even.

Lenses / Re: Believe it or not, 5D3 user misses the 300D reach...
« on: November 27, 2012, 03:43:30 PM »
I miss the reach of my 300D and the 100-400L. With that combination I thought I got 640 mm focal length. Then I bought the 5D3. And the 400 mm seems to be - well, 400 mm! So I decided to get back to Rithmetic. Well, 400 x 1.4 = 560. 5.6 x 1.4 = 7.84! Wow! that is less than f8. And hopefully, Canon will deliver next year - meaning 2013 on f8 focus.

Now There is the Sigma 150-500 that is a f5-6.3!

So the question is, should I get:
  • The 1.4x III extender for my 100-400L
  • The Sigma 150-500 mm lens. I intend to keep the 100-400L.

What experience do you have on the Canon 100-400L + 1.4x
The sigma 150-500 mm Lens

Thanks in advance.



hmm your 5D3 actually has MORE reach, FOV hardly matters when you are distance limited, pixels per Yeti is what counts, so for once we actually see the beast clearly. And your 5D3 will toss more pixels on a Yeti if distance to Yeti is the same and you use the same focal length lens on both cameras. The 300D puts only 6.3MP onto an APS-C frame while the 5D3 puts a touch over 8MP onto an APS-C frame. Don't let the Yeti win! Use the 5D3!

(Plus it focuses way better and you will get crisp details on your shot and clearly be able to see that it is a man in a white fur coat instead of a mysterious foggy, fuzzy Yeti-like thing taken with the 300D.)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Too much dynamic range?
« on: November 24, 2012, 02:53:34 PM »
An interesting thought came to me before I went to bed. Below you'll find an assumption that came suddenly to my head, so please don't take it too seriously.

So... Let's assume there are two cameras with similar color tones reproduction abilities, but with different possible lightness level capturing ability. For example:
- sensor of camera A has 12 stops of DR, 16 billion tones it can distinguish
- sensor of camera B has 10 stops of DR, 16 billion tones it can distinguish

Having a flat scene (i.e. low DR scene) on a shot we'll push an image with, say, 8 DR to be captured with both sensors. And then both images will be edited in post to retrieve lacking contrast. So we need to add:
- 4 stops for 12-stop camera
- 2 stops for 10-stop camera

So my point is: with lower DR camera we'll have lower tone delta (difference of the initial color tone in the scene with reproduced tone by the sensor) when processing the low DR shot made using lower DR sensor. That happens because of decreased amount of modifications made to the file to achieve required result.

What do you guys think about that?

No. You are thinking about it wrong. It doesn't work like that at all.

All it means is that the camera with more DR has less noise in the lower tones than the other camera. There is no way you can ever lose tones because of that. Whatever you are trying to do you can always exactly match what the other camera can accomplish (plus more things). In fact, since you captured with less noise you have captured MORE distinguishable tones and the captures are linear there is no different expansion you need to do with one camera vs the other, as you compress it to a screen maybe you don't use the extra tones but you won't end up with less and you might end up with more.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Best movie settings?
« on: November 23, 2012, 05:43:44 PM »
Cinestyle takes 5 minutes to download and install and 2 seconds to put the setting on the camera....

Yeah but it is hard to bring the compressed, messy 8bit signnal back that far in post. I've found it works out worse for the most part.

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS Sample Images
« on: November 19, 2012, 04:57:46 PM »
Darn the one I really wanted to see at full size, the 24mm shot, is the only one they decided to only post at a major downscale....

Downscale...or crop?  If the latter, it would minimize barrel distortion at the wide end.  Would Canon deceive us like that?   :-X

Downscale. Way too sharp for that be a 100% crop and if that actually was just a crop the distortion would be the horror story of the century hah.  ;D :o

Seems bizarre to me that they turn sharpening way off, use in cam jpg and set NR to high for an ISO400 shot.... to demonstrate a lens! People want to see sharpness and contrast and color what good just showing they wax-look processed model shot?

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS Sample Images
« on: November 19, 2012, 04:55:50 PM »
Surely doesn't look that sharp @f/5.6 - which is impressive (in the most negative way).

Looks like they set sharpness at 0 and NR on High even though the model looks to have been shot at low ISO!

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS Sample Images
« on: November 19, 2012, 04:51:39 PM »
Darn the one I really wanted to see at full size, the 24mm shot, is the only one they decided to only post at a major downscale.... Same for the 35mm, both are extreme down samples, so you can tell nothing at all about sharpness. Colors look rich at least.

They sure went insane with the NR settings on those 70mm samples, jeez, total wax works. I don't know what is up with Canon and their love for nasty NR. Those, certainly the girl, bright daylight shots with tons of light.

Pages: 1 ... 143 144 [145] 146 147 ... 255