July 31, 2014, 12:23:32 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 - unkbob

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8
16

Just the kind of update we were waiting for.


"5. Fixes the time zone for the Samoa Islands. "

FINALLY!!!

Out of curiosity i was browsing online pictures of Somoa Islands - A beautiful place though :)

Yeah and that one dude who lives there and owns a 5D3 is happy as a pig in s**t right now :)

17
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 and Canon's Comeuppance
« on: April 24, 2012, 12:37:59 AM »
Was saving up for the 5DIII, then something happened. A little something called the Blackmagic Cinema Camera.

Guess who'll get my money now.

Canon really bogged up the much touted video / cine on the 5DIII to the rage of cinephiles everywhere,

Doesn't the Blackmagic have a much smaller sensor than the 5D3?

Yes...much smaller, and a different form factor to boot. The BlackMagic is not a replacement for the 5D III. Its an alternative with some very different characteristics.

From what I have actually seen, the 5D III video is a definite improvement over the 5D II, and its a hell of a lot better than what you get from the D800. I don't think the 5D III's video is "botched"...its definitely an improvement, I think its just not as much of an improvement as people wanted, and since the C-series HDSLR's are more expensive, what people want is also not within the price range they want it at. Same deal as always, same reason people want more from the 5D III at a better price point than they already DID get.

I'm disappointed that they have barely (if at all) improved the video resolution of the 5D3, which is still a long way from actual 1080P. Full res 1080p was not an unrealistic expectation, was it? It's still the best camera for me, but that's my biggest gripe.

I think you mean 4:2:2 encoding, which is simply a variant of quality for 1080p. It is still a "full res" 1080p camera, since 1080p simply means the number of lines of resolution. The 5D III may not be 4:2:2, but its still a hell of a lot better with full 3x3 binning. You would need a 7680x5120 sensor, or 39.3mp, for full 4x4 luminance binning and 2x2 chrominance binning for 4:2:2 encoding. Not even the SoNikon alliance was able to create a 40mp sensor yet, and 3x3 binning was the next best option. So technically speaking, the 5D III video is the best it could be for its price point and release date, and 4:2:2 WAS an unrealistic expectation. At least the 5D III doesn't use skip-line encoding like the D800, which may be razor sharp for what it does encode, but it has a ton of rather severe problems as a consequence.

I must admit I understand only a fraction of what you've just said. I thought 4:2:2 was about colour depth, but I'm not a video tech guy, I just know there are not 1080 lines of actual resolution in 5d3 video files. There are 1080 lines of something, sure, but those are not individually resolved lines of information - ie it is not sharp at the pixel level.

18
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 and Canon's Comeuppance
« on: April 23, 2012, 10:54:09 PM »
Was saving up for the 5DIII, then something happened. A little something called the Blackmagic Cinema Camera.

Guess who'll get my money now.

Canon really bogged up the much touted video / cine on the 5DIII to the rage of cinephiles everywhere,

Doesn't the Blackmagic have a much smaller sensor than the 5D3?

Yes...much smaller, and a different form factor to boot. The BlackMagic is not a replacement for the 5D III. Its an alternative with some very different characteristics.

From what I have actually seen, the 5D III video is a definite improvement over the 5D II, and its a hell of a lot better than what you get from the D800. I don't think the 5D III's video is "botched"...its definitely an improvement, I think its just not as much of an improvement as people wanted, and since the C-series HDSLR's are more expensive, what people want is also not within the price range they want it at. Same deal as always, same reason people want more from the 5D III at a better price point than they already DID get.

I'm disappointed that they have barely (if at all) improved the video resolution of the 5D3, which is still a long way from actual 1080P. Full res 1080p was not an unrealistic expectation, was it? It's still the best camera for me, but that's my biggest gripe.

19
"5. Fixes the time zone for the Samoa Islands. "

FINALLY!!!

20
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 and Canon's Comeuppance
« on: April 22, 2012, 12:25:35 AM »
Wow, was a sarcastic response really appropriate?

Yes.

21
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 and Canon's Comeuppance
« on: April 21, 2012, 11:52:46 PM »
A still photo, shot correctly with a good camera, can have so much more impact than shaky, hand-held video anyday. I know ya'll gotta agree with me on that.

You're saying a good photo is better than a bad video? That is earth-shattering news. Equally, a well-shot video can have so much more impact than a poorly exposed blurry still photo. It's easy to create something horrible either way.


22
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 and Canon's Comeuppance
« on: April 21, 2012, 10:55:42 PM »
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 - a $500 lens at a fraction of the cost of what Canon wants to sell you - is a STRONGER and has an overall better IQ lens than Canon 28 f1.8, Canon 35 f1.4

I take it you've used all three of these lenses? I have. The Canon 28 1.8 is crap, indeed, but it's also cheaper than the Sigma. The Sigma 30mm is inferior to the Canon 35 1.4 L and is crop-only which is a significant disadvantage and why it's cheaper.

The Sigma 50 1.4 is better than the Canon 50 1.4, but it's also more expensive.

Sigma make some great lenses. 30, 50, 85, 70-200 OS for example. Tamron's lenses are mostly cheap and plasticy, don't like them at all.

23
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 and Canon's Comeuppance
« on: April 21, 2012, 10:48:33 PM »
the bitrate of the video, the frame count is nowhere close to that of dedicated camcorders - you can get the Canon HF10 and add the same lens used in the video for much higher video quality

You're wrong about the bitrate. The 5d2 bitrate is much higher than most camcorders, and the GH1 / GH2 can be hacked to achieve even higher bitrates.

And no, you clearly don't understand DOF either. The aperture on a camcorder can go plenty wide, but the sensor is too small for shallow DOF. You could stick an L lens on a camcorder but you'd have to shoot at such a wide angle that everything would be in focus. The prime lenses used in that video would be far too long for a camcorder - it would be like shooting with a super telephoto.

24
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 and Canon's Comeuppance
« on: April 21, 2012, 09:09:32 PM »
If I want super video quality beyond MKII or MKIII I'll get a dedicated 1080p 60fps camcorder for $800 like the TM900.  The video on this thing is beyond anything the $3500 is capable of!


Oh really. I guess that's why they used 5D2s in House and 7Ds in Black Swan, because they couldn't get their hands on a Panasonic camcorder?

The TM900 is great for the money, no doubt, and yes in terms of resolution, autofocus and lack of jello effects, any 1080p consumer camcorder beats an HDSLR. But there are things like low light performance, DOF and access to pro / cinema lenses which are far more important for independent films, weddings and commercials.

Try to shoot something like this on a TM900:
Artem & Katie NYC Small | Large

25
Software & Accessories / Re: Where to position a watermark
« on: April 19, 2012, 01:28:44 PM »
DEAD CENTER

Umm...how about a location which won't totally obscure the majority of the actual photo?

There's two main purposes of a wm, a signature and protection against theft.

If you want to protect your photo because your work is being stolen on a regular basis or it's "high value" (perhaps for a commercial purpose and you need to ensure you retain control), have a faint watermark right across the image. If you want to add a signature, and to protect your credit if someone merely links to your work (as opposed to maliciously stealing it), put it in the corner.

There's no right answer. You can also put it in negative space and get an elegant, modern look - like a film title or ad. I tend to go for bottom right, as it's the last place the eye looks (we read top to bottom and left to right) so it seems like a logical piece of final punctuation.

26
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5DIII same ISO performance as 5DII
« on: April 19, 2012, 02:58:20 AM »
Haha, the quote format is bonkers at this point, I was quite confused by who was quoting who :)

Yes, I can see that as one advantage, having the flash fixed. I use a bracket and it's cumbersome.

27
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5DIII same ISO performance as 5DII
« on: April 19, 2012, 02:38:49 AM »
Not that sure what the advantages of a square sensor are. You don't have to turn your camera 90 degrees, but you then have to choose orientation in post? Sounds like a PITA to me. I like the fact that the camera knows which way it's tilted, so when I shoot portrait, I get portrait. One less step to deal with, it's a supremely intuitive system already.

Am I missing something?

One less opportunity to get it wrong when shooting in the heat of the action, one less image missed

I'm not convinced. If I screw up in the heat of the moment, it's not going to be because I chose the wrong aspect ratio. I know what I'm trying to shoot before I lift my camera. I might have the wrong lens, might have camera shake, might screw up the ISO or exposure, might forget to put the flash on HSS, I can screw up magnificently in any number of ways, but not knowing if a shot should be wide or tall just isn't in my list of worries. Maybe that's just me. If this was really a concern I would just shoot wider all the time and crop into every frame, but it's not so I don't.

28
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5DIII same ISO performance as 5DII
« on: April 19, 2012, 01:43:31 AM »
Not that sure what the advantages of a square sensor are. You don't have to turn your camera 90 degrees, but you then have to choose orientation in post? Sounds like a PITA to me. I like the fact that the camera knows which way it's tilted, so when I shoot portrait, I get portrait. One less step to deal with, it's a supremely intuitive system already.

Am I missing something?

29
EOS Bodies / Re: any screen protectors for MarkIII?
« on: April 17, 2012, 11:36:10 AM »
i've been searching but havn't found one yet, you guys find any?

BestSkinsEver.com

They have the same product as Zagg, but at a much cheaper price.  Buy a large piece - i.e. something large enough to cover a MacBook.  Obviously you don’t need that much of the membrane, but you’ll definitely need to replace this stuff with time, depending on how much you use your camera.  Carefully measure the dimensions of the two screens on your 5D3 and use a paper cutter to cut the protector to the right dimensions.  Accuracy here is very important.  You don’t want the membrane to go beyond the edges of the screens you’re trying to protect - not even by a millimeter.  Be sure to round the edges of the membrane, i.e. don’t leave sharp corners as these will protrude beyond the screens and serve as a place for the membrane to start coming off over time.  When you go to install it, you’re going to need to put several drops of water on the screens so that the membrane doesn’t stick instantly.  Otherwise, you’ll have a hell of a time positioning them correctly.

Thanks. Just ordered a 17" macbook skin. BTW if you cut to exact dimensions, does the plastic expand a bit as you squeegee out any bubbles etc?

30
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mk III vs D800/E, is the 5D3 better at anything?
« on: April 16, 2012, 01:44:16 PM »
If it's going to be for web only, most photos are scaled down to 1/4 size roughly to fit internet screens (ecommerce) and such, screw it, jpeg...  shooting kids running around the yard, jpegs... shooting for my personal enjoyment, jpeg, unless that is I see the possibility of it being portfolio quality, then raw + jpeg...  Lets not fear the power of the jpeg.

If I am going to shoot jpeg I will get out the 7D or G12 :D and shoot on the green square mode  :o :o

Coming from you, that's about the response i would expect... But in the end time is money and I do run a business so on smaller files, i do what I need to do to shave time and frankly, files for the web,  when scaled down, are nearly identical either way if shoot and exposed perfectly, that it doesn't do anything but lengthen my workflow, lose money unless I charge higher which makes it even tougher in an already tight market and economy, and in times like these, isn't worth it unless you really need it...  Since your a professional i'm sure you can understand that.

The JPEG/RAW argument is a little daft. It's like saying oil paint is better or worse than pastels (yet you don't see courtroom artists using oil paint). Whether JPEG / RAW / both are the best option are dependent on what the image is for, how much time is available and how it will be reproduced. If time is a factor (because of urgency or low payment per image) then of course jpeg has its uses. But for many of us, processing is part of our style / brand and the type of work I do (mostly weddings) allows me to put more emphasis on an individual image. My work is not time sensitive and just about pays well enough per image for me to treat a photograph more like a piece of art than a commodity.

Plenty of fine art, fashion and advertising photography makes my wedding work look like a snapshot with a disposable camera - but for that kind of polished imagery where post production is so important, jpeg is obviously not an option. On the other end of the scale is a picture of a drunk celebrity falling out of a nightclub with a hooker on each arm - an editor could care less about framing, colour, white balance etc - they just want a clean, clearly identifiable shot which tells a story, and they want it now. That's the epitome of photography as a commodity. It takes skill, but not refinement. Nothing wrong with a commodity at all - money is money and we all have to pay the rent. But the less control you have over the final product, because you're letting the camera or an editor do the processing, the more your work becomes a commodity.

>>Plus many Roes based photo labs prefer to accept files in jpeg rather than tiffs or psd... kinda says something.

Yes it kinda says that jpeg files are small. It has zero relevance to the value of jpeg as a starting point for post processing.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8