Leaderboard

Heres my settings for the camera on these shots : Saturation -2 // Sharpness - 10 // Contrast - 3 // Master black level 8 // 16-235 // For these frames I used the Canon 50mm f1.8 and Samyang 24mm f1.4. As for the grading, I used no input lut, just the Sunderland (deluts) Lut at 100% // Fade 44 and Sharpen at 18,5 (though I will decrease this) ! As for the curves go, heres an image of how it looks, notice I also lowered a bit of saturation on the yellows and reds : Heres a few more shots with this grading : Some of these will require noise reduction, some are shot at 1080p others at 4k, and I will probably tweak further. I find this grading very versatile, it fits mosty of my shots with little to no tweaking, outside, inside, church with those terrible lights and all that. Hope you guys like it

I got my son on of those "fancier" tripods from Amazon when he started UT film school. Then I got one for myself after playing with it. 75mm bowl, decent head. I use it when I have to manage multi camera shoots, or for making oddball rigs, and I often stick the head at the end of my crane. Really phenomenal for the $$. They start at $99. http://www.amazon.com/Fancierstudio-Professional-Heavy-Camcorder-Tripod/dp/B013HBO39C/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1450288375&sr=8-2&keywords=fancier+video+tripod

If your Cullman is decent enough (stable, accepts head), then you just need to get a tripod head for video. And for that money you can find pretty decent video heads. As Hans said, I would not buy a video tripod+head for that kind of money.

Heres some new ones of a wedding im editting right now, theres still some stuff to fix on the curve, reduce the sharpness and will probably add some grain, but here it is : Let me know what you guys think !

Why do you always post random things non-related to lenses in the lenses topic? Really, I think we said that before, you should have one thread just for ZachGoodwin brainfarts where you can actually just add anything that pops to mind to. Maybe call the topic 'ZachGoodwin presents the 'Dear Diary'-series'. I'd follow that thread. Just try to keep it about lenses here in this one, I'd say...

Musings on the future : The idea of grabbing stills from a video stream occurred to me back in 2005 when I was shooting with my Nikon D70 and my Sony HrV1U HD camcorder.. process I would the 1920 X1080 in after effects and loving what I got despite interlace. I could grab that instant in time @ 30fps. Then I knew it was a matter of time. And I still believe that. Any one that does not has not seen 70 MM positives from the great movies knows that they are perfect moving images . But then again I remember recording movies onto VHS tape in the early 80's because I knew that one day frame grabs would be possible. I also at that time only licensed my video for "helically scanned magnetic media" back in 1987, knowing that there was something else coming down the pike in 10 years. I moved to Betacam SP asap and I am glad I did because using decent cameras and Beta Sp recording meant that with the terrenex processor from BM, I could scale up and reformat the aspect ratio ( yes with a little distortion) of those videos and people today assume they were shot in HD when viewed on the web and computers. They look GREAT! Actually, 4k does make 1080P look better. I can see that by looking at 4K video on youtube on 1080 P tv's . So I for one, cheerfully await the coming of our 8K overlords . Interestingly, MY Vizio 43 inch "UHD" TV can display a resolution of 7680 when pushed by my mid 2014 Macbook pro and using SwitchResX , the resolution shows up in the options ( the native display on the MBPro can be pushed to 3840 x 2400). tThe curser almost vanishes to a pinhead, but El Capitan's desktop takes on an almost 3D quality so much so that I had to touch the screen to see if the apparent texture of the cliff face was really there. And this is not official 8K. Noticing commercial cinema lately, it is usually beautifully sharp and colourful, with exquisite detail , ie Tarantino's 70 mm release and every other commercial theatre release today and for the past 20 years. The only place that I see faded and "film like" is the efforts of those using DSLR's , who marveling at a "look" that, whilst nice.. is not necessarily "cinematic" ( whatever that is supposed to be ) seem to ignore that fact of what is actually playing in the cinemas" I love those rich images and wish that I can portray that dynamic range, detail and colour. The A7sII is not bad in that respect. The low light flexibility is amazing , and I am shooting 4K with it ( and grabbing promotional stills) for the same reason why I spent 14k on a BVW50 in 1987... the future...

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Camlink-TPVIDEO1-Pro-Video-Tripod-Double-Pan-and-Tilt-Fluid-Head-Carry-Bag-/400867049618?hash=item5d5589c092:g:xlYAAOSwEeFU5ctf superb, heavy tripod. avail for less than $150 on ebay US I imagine. Just search 'Fluid head tripod' on ebay and you'll see them pop up. I've had one for around 6 years. i had it around 5 months and the rivets died on the spreader. these were easy to drill out with a 4mm drill bit. I then replaced the rivets with some m3 bolts and some locking nuts. if you grab one of these then replace the rivets before they break you'll never look back. - 30mins work to swap the rivets for some stainless m3 bolts. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/M3-M4-M5mm-A2-Stainless-Steel-Machine-Screws-Slotted-Pan-Head-Bolts-/150863410183?var=&hash=item232028f407:m:mgDxTbKl1z2ODx5iv040BHA some m3, 30mm bolts will do it. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/A4-Marine-Grade-Stainless-Steel-Nyloc-Nylon-Insert-Locking-Nuts-M3-4-5-6-8-10-12-/360650014234?var=&hash=item53f86a7e1a:m:mO7ApJ-con6PbvWHpFurl-g m3 nylock nuts. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/A2-STAINLESS-STEEL-FORM-A-FLAT-WASHERS-TO-FIT-METRIC-BOLTS-SCREWS-M1-6-TO-M30-/150802639052?var=&hash=item231c89a8cc:m:mAdvuPIIKGFCGZAWUgnX8gQ washers. quick release plates are around $10usd. it's got a mini bowl for quick levelling. ps. it takes around 2 months for the head to become truly fluid. at first it might be a bit graggy, but once it's been used a bit it smooths out lovely. so apart from the rivets on the spreader this tripod has nothing to go wrong and is lovely and heavy - perfect for dslr's pps. I forgot to mention, I replaced the rubber feet on mine for some softer rubber feet (i used the type for walking sticks) since the ones on there from the factory were a bit hard and could slide on hard flooring. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Walking-Stick-Rubber-Ferrules-Tips-Feet-Stoppers-Black-Choice-of-5-Sizes-/400887863108?var=&hash=item5d56c75744:m:m86f6CfsJQHFUwHkLERgBkQ 13mm should do it. or bigger ones will go over the existing feet.

For £150 on a new tripod for regular video use, people would more likely swear at it - rather than swear by it. I'd personally search for used ebay tripod listings for that budget. Broadcast houses often turf out gear that is not needed any more - and it's possible to grab a bargain sometimes on some decent quality Manfrotto or Vinten model from the HDV days. I'd recommend going with a known name rather than the thousands of tempting cheap Chinese no-brand models, as it's always a lucky dip as to what the quality of some of the components are like....and they are often not as lightweight as they appear in pictures (if you are after a lightweight model). Going with a known brand also increases the likelihood of finding spare parts or online help if something ever fails. Saying that, I'm sure people will chime in with good experiences with cheaper Chinese models they have had (E-Image brand for example) - but everyone's needs for durability and payload are different. But there is a reason that camera hire facilities do not rent out these models....they simply ain't built to last, unless you are handy with modifying/ upgrading failed components as they occur.

This sums up my opinion on JW quite well...

Use a longer taking lens & a +1 or +2 diopter or both!

I just bought a Sony PXW-X70 as my main video camera. DSLRs become too bulky and unwieldy for flexible video work. I've tried for a long time to make them work, can't do it. Without moving my hands I now have instance access to record, focus peaking, iris, shutter, gain (ISO), AF/MF, zoom. Better audio controls. Aggressive image stabilization if I need it. 10-bit CODEC. So whatever you get for a main cam, I recommend a C100 or something like it. You can use your other cameras on tripods for long-shots, or other POVs. I too, love a great image (especially RAW-based video), but any image out of focus, with shakes, or at a bad angle, or with bad audio is unusable. In short, what worked for me having fun, standing around, with my DSLR or mirror-less, didn't work when I needed move around.

hey, glad everyone liked it Ill share my camera settings as well as grading settings and Lut when I get home from work =)

Yes, normal: the noise reduction takes more CPU/battery.

As a general rule, the bigger the rear element of a WA adaptor, the poorer the IQ will be on bigger sensors. A WA adaptor will be typically designed for a specific fov and a specific light transmission requirement. If it does well on wide lenses it normally wont do well on tele. a smaller rear element on the WA attachment wont always result in hard vignette, It'll simply reduce the light transmission. hard vignette is almost never associated with the diameter of the rear element but more the field of view the attachment is designed to cover. the best comparison is the Isco 30, Isco 36 and Isco 54. the 30(pre 36) and 36 have no difference in fov capability. but on Full frame the 36 will transmit 50/f1.4 and the 30 will only go to 50/f2. the pre36 is moderately better IQ than the 36. 54 doesn't provide much of a increase in field of view either, despite being way larger. However a 54mm rear permits transmission of a lot more light - at the expense of even worse IQ. - the 54 has worse resolution and colour correction than the pre36 and 36 so fringes more, but in non contrasty environments the advantage of being able to transmit over twice the light that the 36 can, it has it's purposes. Zoom through adaptors are Afocal meaning when attached to a lens set to infinity the focus remains at infinity. Non zoom through usually have an effect on the focus distance meaning you can only use for closer shots. This makes sense since typically a WA adaptor would be used in confined spaces. IQ is also usually worse.

You may get vignetting when using 82mm Achromatic Diopters due to the edge thickness. For regular 82mm filters you need to trial and error. What you may do is set the Rangefinder to a closer focusing distance then find the sweet spot of your dual focus setup. It helps to bring down the MDF below the rated 3'6 at the expense of dual focusing again but at least you get your eye shot!

I've lost count at how many family/friends TV sets I've "fixed". Quite recently I walked into a friends house and they were watching the Walking Dead. My first reaction was "why does it look so cheap"? and within 5 seconds I picked up the remote and turned off that awful "Tru Motion" thing. As if by magic, The Walking Dead didn't look cheap anymore - it was looking great. Nobody in the room noticed the difference untilI I switched it to compare. "You are a genius!" they said. Erm... To be honest, it absolutely bamboozles me why the TV manufacturers have this hideous setting on as default. It's as if they are trying to programme our minds to watch things differently. But it's just not right. Like the Hobbit in 48fps... it's horrible. The magic is gone. The magic of natural, seamless 24fps is timeless. It works. It doesn't need altering. The TV manufacturers need to stop.

As per a recent job listing, they're looking experience with: Adobe PremierAvid Media ComposerAdobe After EffectsAdobe PhotoshopAdobe IllustratorDavinci ResolveAdobe AuditionAdobe Pro ToolsNo mention of FCP X or even FCP.

Samsung nx500, in its beta iteration, used to support 2.5k (with supposedly full sensor readout). That'd have been much better, imo, then the cropped 4K they implemented in the final version. Unfortunately all the NX hackers have been MIA lately, otherwise they could have easily been able to turn that setting on again.

Hi all, Inspired by Tito and Bold and their anamorphic Lens-cyclopedia, I decided to try and make a list of low power diopters useful for anamorphic video. Using the info in this thread and searching on the web, I compiled a list which may be useful for anyone looking for suitable diopters. I've attached the list as PDF. Feel free to comment and/or correct. The list may (hopefully) end up as an add-on to the online Lens-cyclopedia. Diopters.pdf

Thank you for continuing to post tests, Procter. Seems to be it's not THAT easy to get in focus, but when it does, it's nice? Quite a bit of this footage has that slightly out of phase look of a focused taking lenses and slightly out adapter, to me. I liked this moment, a lot. Still on the fence, but getting closer.