March 05, 2015, 09:37:21 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 - Axilrod

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 92
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 18-35 F1.8
« on: October 07, 2013, 06:34:41 PM »
I've only used it for video on the Sony FS700 but I was very, very impressed.  Razor sharp, excellent color/contrast and it's very well-built.  For $799 you can't go wrong.

Why is everyone so upset about the price of this lens?  Don't buy it if you think it's too much.  Price aside I'm sure it performs like a dream, I've never been disappointed by Zeiss glass.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 5d mark III external monitor, problems?
« on: October 01, 2013, 01:58:07 PM »
I know this is old, but to answer your question, no there is no delay, no flashing or anything like that, the monitor pretty much mirrors exactly what you would see on the liveview screen.

The Liliput has a great review so I'm sure that's probably one of the better options in that price range.  My monitors were $500 and $1000, so $200 seems like a great deal.

I wouldn't bother with ALL-I, there is no difference in image quality and the file sizes are ridiculously huge.  Yes they play back faster in an editor, but the H.264 IPB files play back just fine in FCPX or Premiere with no transcoding.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
« on: October 01, 2013, 01:51:22 PM »
5D3 all the way, the 7D is almost 4 years old.  5D3 has better codec, way better low light performance (ISO3200 is my limit for pro work on the 5D3, but for the 7D it was 800), and it's full frame of course.  The footage just looks much cleaner overall IMO.  It's a no brainer for me. =

Premiere has the keyboard shortcuts for FCP7, I've never used FCPX (I think for the reasons you are confirming) but they may be in there to assist the transition.

Good work on the video front.

CT and eradicating mixed lighting is often the bane of my life, and the curse is that when you spend HOURS doing it properly nobody even notices.

I found FCPX to be a great tool so far, but likely this was easy for me to pick up, since it was my first NLE I'd ever tried to work with and learn.

I can see with Premier, the older multiple tracks system is a bit different. I've been studying and watching some creativelive classes on Premier and After Effects, and I'm very impressed.

I think I'll pick Premier and AE up a bit quicker since I know FCPX and cut my teeth there on the concepts first...than I would have just trying to learn editing techniques and concepts starting off in Premier.

I'm gonna do my next episode as something simple and short that most of my efforts are channeled not into heavy editing, but into learning to use the tool.

I hope that Magic Lantern can get the RAW video working and ready for prime time (not alpha) for the 5D3..I'm dying to try my hand shooting and color grading true RAW so as to have tots of leeway for color grading....


Nice job Cayenne, it's always fun to see people's videos improve over time.  But I have to ask, why are you switching from FCPX?  Especially if that's what you're used to.  I can't think of much that Premiere can do that FCPX can't, I mean I edit some pretty damn complicated stuff in FCPX with no issues whatsoever.  I mean Premiere is great, and I always said that if I had something super complex that I'd use it over FCPX, but that has yet to happen. 

Also, After Effects is an amazing program and the sky is the limit with what you can do with it, but it has a hell of a learning curve. Don't feel bad if you can't figure it out, it took me a long time and a lot of tinkering to figure that one out.  But if you're set on learning it, I'd suggest, there are loads of great tutorials on there! Good luck with everything!

Very nice job!  But I think it's a bit long to be called a "trailer."  I mean if the trailer is 7:00 how long is the actual video going to be? 

What was your workflow with the RAW stuff?  Raw2DNG to Camera RAW to TIFF to QT7 to Prores?  That's usually what I do but I wasn't sure if there had been anymore advances in terms of workflow, haven't heard much about it recently.

You did a very nice job with the shots, but 720p does it no justice, you should reupload it in 1080p.  You're obviously thrilled with the footage, and that's great but the general consensus was that the 6D was kind of a step back for DSLR video.  Moire and artifacts became an issue again and the overall image quality isn't much better than a 5D2, T2i, or 7D.  One area the 6D shines in however is low light performance, it does extremely well at high ISO's. 

Don't get me wrong, you did a great job with the vid but I don't think the 6D is a good recommendation for video at all.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Magic Lantern insecurities...
« on: August 31, 2013, 01:04:10 PM »
No, it's easily reversible so I doubt it could do permanent damage.  The difference in IQ is pretty massive, really it's the level of editing you can do to the image, its' the difference between RAW and jpeg pretty much.  If the shot is really underexposed you can pull it back up with virtually no loss in image quality.

The only thing is, the workflow is extremely cumbersome and I would definitely not use it for a professional gig until you have a lot of experience with it.  I have a buddy that shot a whole music video using it and had no idea what he was in for in terms of post and it ended up being a nightmare.

I don't find it impressive at all. :-(

Perhaps if we can observer a RAW video from that camera it can be better. But with that compression - not a chance. :-(

The model is cute though ;-)

+1, the 6D was a terrible disappointment in terms of video, pretty much exact same as the 5D2.  But I am thoroughly impressed with the stills they churn out, especially at very high ISOs.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 5D Mark iii Clean HDMI Output Problem
« on: August 26, 2013, 07:45:32 PM »
Did you try hitting "INFO" to scroll through the different overlays?  One of them should be empty.

Lenses / Re: Best setup for falling stars
« on: August 26, 2013, 07:38:57 PM »
Dude you need to crank up the ISO on the 5D3, I shoot stars between 1600-6400, 400 is waaaayyy too low.  And 51 seconds is too long of an exposure for 24mm.  To find out the maximum exposure time you can use divide 600 by the focal length, so 600/24 = 25, so you can go 25 seconds at 24mm before the stars start to turn into pill shapes.  Use the 14mm on the 5D3, you can go for like 43 seconds with that.

Also do the following:
•Turn off all forms of noise reduction, do that in post
•Turn on mirror lockup and shoot in single silent mode
•Remove the strap, wind can blow on it and cause vibrations
•Cover the viewfinder with tape so no light leaks in
•Use a remote to trigger the camera, if you don't have one use the 2 second delay.

And the most important thing:
I'm guessing you took those pics not long before the night of the 25th, which was pretty close to a full moon.  Those same shots on the night of a new moon would look completely different.  ALWAYS try and shoot close to a new moon if possible, it makes absolutely all the difference in the world. 

Lenses / Re: Re-arranging L lens gear, need some suggestions
« on: August 26, 2013, 07:34:05 PM »
Not much room to play in the 800$ range though.

I've seen a few 5D2's for $1000 used, I know it's a bit more than $800 but I think it would be worth it to have a solid backup body.  But if $800 is your absolute limit you could most likely find an original 5D for less than that.

Lenses / Re: Which L Lens to start with?
« on: August 26, 2013, 07:31:09 PM »
What focal length do you shoot at most often?  I'd seriously consider the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, I was absolutely floored when I used in on an FS700 and I've owned pretty much every L lens under 200mm.  It's the fastest zoom you can buy, reasonably priced, well-built, and sharp as a tack, plus it's made to be used with APS-C sensors.  If you want something with a bit more range I'd go with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. 

The F-stop is 1.8, the T-stop will probably be in the 2-2.1 neighborhood, possibly 2.2 with that many elements.

DXOMark said it's 1.8, although that is pretty unusual

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 92