Leaderboard

Quick update. Looks like we have found a member of the Magic Lantern team to oversee the donations. Big thanks to Malcolm for that. Once that is set up at PayPal, I'll put a donate button on the forums and once the funds reach the required amount our hacker will be getting his test bodies to sacrifice on the alter of NEX hacking :)

red stan's sage wisdom and advice on good and shit anamorphics. 1.small optics give you an easier life and nice close focus. 2.focus test your anamorphic as soon as you get it if you cannot get a sharp picture get a refund or a discount. 3.do not take any crap bull from a seller especially if he has sold you junk costing over 250 dollars. 4.if your lens has major damage it may be beyond economic repair meaning it could cost 2-5 times it's value for the repair. 5.with repairs expect a wait from 6 weeks to 3 months any good repair guy is always busy. i had a nikon lens take 6 months for a complicated repair once. 6.explain to repair guy clearly what you think is wrong it saves time and money. 7.except the fact that some anamorphics are just not worth saving or repairing 8.many ebay anamorphic optics are the same optics being purchased fiddled with then sold on. if in doubt walk away. 9.if your seller can take a foto of the lens and put a lengthy cut and past bull shit discription with a price tag of a 1000 dollars plus. ask him why he has not bothered to shoot through the anamorphic is it because it is soft : ) 10.at least 35% of anamorphics need servicing why do you think rental companies and studios had camera lens service depts. 11.main problems optic to optic alignment issue giving soft picture. dried out focus helicoid grease. dirty internal optics, fungus and external coating problems. lens separation. a lens clean and service should optimize the system allowing use of faster taking lens. why get stuck in the 1950s hollywood rut of f8-16 12.remember repairing a car after a major crash is gonna cost a lot more time and money than a simple service. 13.quality shipping box within a box method is a must. bad shipping with several impact drops along the journey will give you a bad lens. 14.i did not like ending on 13.

[quote name='amband' timestamp='1344771945' post='15386'] the price is good, however, how many owners would graduate to cinema. 99% of owners will have their vid compressed on TV or youtube, defeating the purpose of uncompressed vid, although I've been told result isn't bad. Getting Da Vinci Licence is the deal maker for some [/quote] The purpose of the uncompressed vid is for the sake of editing, post, and the best aquisition possible. Once all that is done, a compressed interframe codec is always the way to go for output. Most Blu-Ray uses AVCHD and a bit rate that's significantly lower then what you get out of the 5D3, but there is a reason "No Country for Old Men" on blu-ray looks 100 times better than anything you'd ever see off a 5D using intra-frame compression. In other words, a better acquisition format will still look better once it's compressed intelligently.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1344776311' post='15393']By the way it isn't so much 24p at 24Mbit which is the problem on the FS100 but 60p at 28Mbit, because bitrate is allocated variably per frame. The more frames the more the available data is thinly spread across them. [/quote] That's not correct. With Mpeg4, practically all redundant data over time are reduced. The lower the frame rates, the more radically the content alters from frame to frame, so you'd have less redundant information and need higher bit rates. For 120 fps, you'd need about 30 mbps. Ever did stop motion animation? You only draw the changes, and what changes between two frames of 48 fps is a fraction of what changes between two frames in 24 fps in the first place. In hand-drawn animation, you'd simply draw a few motion blurred objects connecting the key frames, no matter how many phases the frame rate actually demanded. What about camera movement, when [i]every[/i] pixel has changed position in the next frame? That used to be my argument, but the engineers' answer is: If the position changing is predictable, it is a classic motion path, which doesn't even need particularly high bit rates. If it is chaotic ("stressing the codec"), the encoder tends to simplify the details, which by their nature then cannot be recognized as details by the human eyes. Noise, though not detail, is not only redundant. We perceive noise subconsciously as a natural phenomenon. Watch the shadows below your desk in the evening. Are they dead? That's why too low bit rates are a problem - at any frame rate: They iron out the random noise. With 60p you [i]always[/i] see this effect, with or without interframe. That's because you have more than twice the temporal resolution. 24p is a very effective way of temporal compression. As little as possible, as much as needed.

The FS100 has an implementation of AVCHD that is as good as it gets, for better you definitely need to double the bitrate no question. By the way it isn't so much 24p at 24Mbit which is the problem on the FS100 but 60p at 28Mbit, because bitrate is allocated variably per frame. The more frames the more the available data is thinly spread across them.