January 28, 2015, 11:47:22 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 - Jay Khaos

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 14
Technical Support / Re: 5DIII Magic Lantern help?
« on: August 05, 2013, 09:24:18 AM »
first, 1920x1080 needs 82mb/s according to the ML, it says at the bottom of mine the general mb/s and it changes depending on the resolution. I just tried and the mb/s creeped up to about 91/s when I stopped it after 30seconds or so.
You may want to try the memory hack, and change the preview to hacked, as well as turning off global draw to squeeze out a bit more performance, but it may not do all that much. one of those settings may disable the liveview when you record, cant remember which(or maybe it was another).

try recording to a lower res and make sure you can do it, i think that cards speed should handle 1280x720, just to see if raw video gets recorded at all.

also theres a benchmark in the debug. theres a bunch of posts over at the ML forums on memory card speeds and the results, you will have to search for it. I can personally vouch for the toshiba exceria 1066 32gb card, does 1920x1080 easily.

I'll try those things when I get home.  Thanks for the suggestions!

Are you running ML and recording on same card?
Try to run ML from SD card.

Nope, ML is running from an SD already.

Technical Support / Re: 5DIII Magic Lantern help?
« on: August 04, 2013, 11:49:31 PM »
I'd do a search for experiences with  komputerbay on some of the photography websites.  Saying they are poorly thought of is a understatement.

The card I'm currently using is a Lexar 1000x.  I did read reviews, sifted through 99% speculation... and took the risk anyway—I won't hesitate to return it if I have issues though.

Good Luck.  They used to sell the cards labeled as Sandisk, but got well known for counterfeiting.  Now they label those cards from China with their own name.  Obviously, they work, but many do not meet spec.
Good luck, check it out well.

I have actually seen this as well.  If you have seen any reviews specifically about the 64gb CF card not working, I'd be interested (I HAVE heard that the 128GB cards' speed isnt reliable).   They seem to be getting good feedback for working with ML raw recording.

Technical Support / Re: 5DIII Magic Lantern help?
« on: August 04, 2013, 11:24:37 PM »
I'd do a search for experiences with  komputerbay on some of the photography websites.  Saying they are poorly thought of is a understatement.

The card I'm currently using is a Lexar 1000x.  I did read reviews, sifted through 99% speculation... and took the risk anyway—I won't hesitate to return it if I have issues though.

Technical Support / 5DIII Magic Lantern help?
« on: August 04, 2013, 10:28:34 PM »
Hey guys,

I installed a more recent version of ML (folder titled "Magic Lantern August 2nd (707c75f)").  Once installed, I went to the "M" tab and loaded modules which brings up the raw shooting item in the video tab.  I enabled it and left resolution at 1920x1080.  I also tried it both with FPS override off, and with FPS override set to 24fps.

Anyway, when I press record it beeps and seems to lag a second before the recording info comes up, then abruptly beeps/stops again and nothing gets saved to the CF card.  Anyone have any idea what I've doing wrong.  I can't find much help for this—only tutorials on installing the ML software, and then workflow for after raw files are recorded.

I have a Lexar 1000x 16GB card.  Could that be the issue?  I ordered a Komputer Bay 150mb/s 1000x 64gb CF but don't have it yet.

Video of interrupted recording:
ML video interrupt

Software & Accessories / Re: What size RAW should I shoot at?
« on: August 02, 2013, 05:48:04 PM »
If you have the storage space and a computer that can handle the file size shoot full sized RAW. If you are never going to print out large-ish pictures or crop your pictures, then I suppose S or M-RAW is fine, but for me I don't see why you wouldn't shoot full sized RAW to start with. Hard drives and memory cards are getting cheaper and cheaper these days.

+1 about storage

I recently got a 3.5 inch (plug in) external 3TB for $160 or so from a local store.  Online I'm sure you could get something even better for less.  In comparison to the amount you invested in full frame sensor and L glass, its nothing really.

If storage is an issue with no way chance to expand, I would personally opt to resize in post and trash all but the most important RAW files before I'd shoot at a half sized raw file (especially if you're shooting anything you might want to crop)..

Software & Accessories / Re: Macro gear suggestions for 5DIII?
« on: August 02, 2013, 01:15:21 PM »
That setup is a beast... Would be hilarious to carry that around at the botanical gardens here.. I bet people move out of hte way when you come strolling through

Canon General / Re: People that don't shoot in manual...
« on: August 01, 2013, 12:02:50 PM »
The argument that controlling everything in manual is more artistic is weak in my opinion.  A more appropriate analogy to painting is that shooting in manual versus Av is like using more brushes versus less brushes to marginally improve the look of your scene... possibly... but potentially ends up worse too.  In the time you spend switching brushes and cleaning and whatnot... the scene is changing.

Personally, I'd rather weight the tradeoff in favor of capturing the moment over having slightly different DOF or shutter speed.  But I can see how someone could easily prefer the opposite... especially in a gear forum

Canon General / Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« on: August 01, 2013, 09:20:45 AM »
Natural looking HDR is just like dodging and burning a B&W print.  You over expose the shadows and under expose the highlights.  It's been done in the wet darkroom for decades.

I beg to differ. Don't you think dodging and burning is much more analogous to tweaking a RAW file? Without doing anything too crazy technique-wise, there wasn't really any equivalent to HDR in the film days.

True... HDR should be used to fix over/under exposure, not exaggerate it like dodging and burning

Canon General / Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« on: July 31, 2013, 05:56:36 PM »
Here is an example of the latter:

I like this.. its obvious it's HDR but not overdone—in fact, I'd argue its probably MORE realistic (in terms of what your eye sees) than a photo with a blown out sky.  But again... depends on what you're going for.  I'd rather judge the execution of what someone is intending to do, rather than blindly judging the use of a technique.


Well I assume this thread won't reach enough comments to get 1001 votes on a contradicting opinion.... so I guess this means...



Lighting / Re: 3rd Party Flashes vs. Canon's...
« on: July 31, 2013, 12:09:56 PM »
Ive had 2 yongnuo speedlights and a bunch of their triggers.... never had a problem with any of them.  Work perfectly and the speedlights were like $60 each (comparable to the 580 II)

Canon General / Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« on: July 31, 2013, 10:24:26 AM »
I think there is a general misunderstanding regarding the term HDR. Most of the "HDR" images we see on the internet these days are not an example of basic HDR - they are an excellent example of tonemapping. Basically, simple HDR is just adding dynamic range to the image by merging several exposures. The "HDR" look that many complain about is not caused by extending the dynamic range but by the optional and additional tonemapping process which actually takes the extended range created by the HDR, and then compresses the number of tones and colours. This results in the image looking very overdone at times and to many - garish. I use HDR to overcome impossible exposure situations (much like dodging and burning) however, I am definitely not a fan of the overdone tonemapping that people have incorrectly assigned the general HDR term to. The unfortunate thing is that many of the HDR tools that are available, automatically add the tonemapping process as part of the default HDR process. This has added to the confusion between the two terms.

This is basically the explanation I was assuming without having read anything else explaining it like this until now...  But I was starting to second guess my interpretation after hearing so many generally negative comments regarding HDR. 

I don't have a copy of this image on my ipad but this is a link to one I did in Yogyakarta while staying at a hotel. I bracketed a few very dark exposures to get the reflection and lights the right color.


Love that photo..

Canon General / Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« on: July 31, 2013, 09:37:16 AM »
As promised... here's an hdr image I took while in Colonial Williamsburg... it isn't anything special, but the clouds maintained their detail as well as the subject.

Yeah this one is cool.  Makes me think the application would work well for B&W for a photo like this too...

My grandfather is selling his RV and needed some pictures taken, so I did a three shot bracket for each of the interior shots.  Looks natural to me.  Surely much more natural than you could ever light that space to be.

I like this one.  I plan on messing around with shots like this indoors....

Thanks for the input everyone.  I'm in agreement with most all of the comments except Cannon MAn lol (no offense).  But really, that just proves everything is subjective...

Canon General / Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« on: July 30, 2013, 10:56:44 PM »
PSS - Does anyone have examples of photos using HDR that break the lisa frank HDR stereotype?

Canon General / What's so bad about HDR?
« on: July 30, 2013, 10:29:27 PM »
I don't get why HDR is laughed at like it's an Instagram filter... I mean, I guess a "purist" would say its like driving automatic in a sports car—or at least that's the same vibe I pick up when I see photographers discuss it—though it really doesn't seem like there is any good reason to scoff at it.  Personally, I'm not a fan of the photos that are blown out or as I like to call it, "Lisa Frankensteined," where it looks like the photographer went full retard with the effect sliders... but I think in general, and when used tastefully (like anything really), it's pretty useful.

Anyone who thinks HDR is ridiculous, I'd like to hear why..

PS - Or is it like I'm suspecting: The people complaining are the same people who bitch about less experienced photographers using expensive pro gear, manual-only snobs, and "its not the gear, its the photographer" preachers.

Technical Support / Re: Not Windows
« on: July 30, 2013, 12:25:09 PM »
On paper, mac specs aren't as attractive as a custom built PC tower—but at the end of the day, its not all about technical specs or we'd all be trading in our 5DIIIs and 1Dx's for that 43 megapixel nokia smart phone.  Especially in the photography world where prices go up exponentially with marginal weight-saving/build quality enhancements...

That being said, the mac pro is not a smart budget purchase (even used/refurb), in my opinion.  I'd go for a newish imac and put in 16 gb of the fastest ran it can take and an SSD (aftermarket, smaller one jsut for running the apps and store files on an external).  And I'm talking about getting as new of one that would meet your budget (2 years old maybe?). 

I have an iMac that has lasted for 4 years now (first 27" model that was released with upgraded quadcore processor, 16 gb 1066mhz ram, 1 TB hdd (SDD would have been even better), and it still runs everything just as well as it did when it was new.  I have the entire Adobe CS6 master collection installed (CS 4 and 5 before that) with lots of AE plugins, 3D modeling software, games, etc...  I plan on upgrading to the new macbook pros coming out with Haswell processors, or maybe sell my kidneys for the new black mac pro if I'm feeling crazy (it can edit 4K video footage in real time and renders it faster than the actual video time... totally necessary for photoshopping 5DIII photos).

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 14