Leaderboard

I am now doing groundwork for mods that will be a lot more advanced. This is why you are likely to not see any visible progress for a while. In essence I am trying to zombify the di-camera-app to enable bi-directional communications between it and my mod infrastructure, and to introduce the possibility to "drive" it from the mod runtime.. If successful this should allow many things, potentially including native UI integration, true BBAF, native integration of focus stack & focus pull, etc. etc. My plan is to make it an extensible and open framework upon which others might build on (e.g. Otto) to deliver things that work in coordinated manner with the native app, and that are aware of what the native app does. This will allow, for example, to have the UI permanently up to date regardless of what the mod does (as opposed to today where mods do not update the UI because they are independent of di-camera-app). NB. Nothing above is a promise or commitment and you do not see any timeline, do you? PS. I still covet that lens ;-)

Samsung NX1 16-50S Hack: Vasile 5.01 150mps Normal Gamma, Costum profil, Premiere CC with R709 LUT, Filmconvert Grain 50%

I think the issue is not seeing a dynamic highlight for reference. This shot would be a perfectly acceptable exposure for a David Fincher film if a practical was in the shot.

The AF100 with an external recorder was the a-camera on The Raid: Redemption, an absolutely kick ass movie I don't recall a single person critiquing for its visuals. Learn your way around it and you'll be fine.

Will do a comparison this weekend and show you the results. Those shots are not OOC; i applied filmconvert and then adjusted the lows and highs as well as correcting for skin tones, although i am not 100% satisfied with the first shot of my brother... it was just a quick grade which still needs a bit of tweaking. awesome you joined the voigtländer club

Medium format cameras are neat-o.

Natural Color Profile: 0,-5,-5,-2. Indoor shots with a 55mm FD lens, Chinese Speedbooster, no filters. Stabilizer set to 40mm Highlights set to -2 White Balance Adjust A:3 G:3 https://www.dropbox.com/sh/sqfycip8z52s3z9/AADEWeIG1R1i1hUObtrLGlrea?dl=0

check your operating system for any ICC/ICM profiles and completely remove them all, reexport and reupload.

Hey, Bought my AF100 a few mounts ago. Just finished rigging it. And just got a used Atomos Samurai (not the blade version). The AF100 is a tricky camera. It is easy to use, but you have to master the settings to get the best image out of it. I cannon recommend enough the AF100 book. The package I got was AF100 + Panasonic 7-14/4 + Panasonic 14-140/4-5.6 + 2 batteries and a dead cheap SD Card (which is now stuck in the SD slot) for 1300€ The best thing about this camera is that it is ready to shoot run & gun. No need for external power, recorders or rig for handheld stuff.

A massive part of the internet has gone mobile, which means people's usage and interaction with the medium has changed. I used to really look forward to spending hours researching a camera, reading an enormous Philip Bloom review with a coffee handy, or watching a nice long informative Camera Store TV review, truth is... how many people are now doing this on a phone, in the 30 or so seconds it takes to distract themselves on a commute to work? We glance and shim and swipe like hell through Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. It's really sad and pathetic actually. The internet should be much more than that. I want to find my passion again for the gear, but that too is a little dimmed right now. i enjoy reading a review from someone who's pumped up about a camera or lens, like Steve Huff always is, but more often than not I'm feeling increasingly cynical about this, that somehow it's futile because no matter what is around today, there's always something better right around the corner, eventually it becomes exhausting and really dulls your excitement for new releases. Plus all this gear is costing me an arm and a leg!

I noticed in the "champagne" celebration room folks with c100's. Then I noticed out on the court the same thing...Makes you think about how important pros value reliability over high Sony specs...:) Keep in mind I am biased as I have a c100 mk2 due here today and have been burned twice in the last 3 months with 2 Sony a7r2 failures that required the same camera to be sent in for repair.

This is a funny post because I noticed the same tthing last night lol.... I even said "holy C100!" lol

"DOF falloff" seems like a really poor term. How about simply "defocus", or perhaps "MTF as a function of defocus" - which I think is what people actually mean. In optics this is referred to as "through-focus MTF", and its a standard and useful way to characterize a design. It will vary from design to design because it is strongly aberration dependent, but it has nothing to do with sensor size. One advantage that larger formats have is that you can use a smaller relative aperture to achieve a given DOF. Since aberration correction tends to be very non-linear with respect to f/# you often wind up with better correction on a larger format. For instance, I used to shoot 11x14" film a fair amount, and aside from an advantage in film grain it allowed me to shoot at f/16 instead of the ~f/1.4 I would have had to use on 24x36 format to achieve an equivalent picture. Focal lengths scaled accordingly, naturally. At f/16 the ultra large format lens was nearly diffraction-limited, whereas a small format lens at f/1.4 is nowhere near that limit. Of course, as you depart from such extremes in aperture any potential optical differences between large and small formats begin to disappear, and these differences are further minimized by improved sensor quality. So that ridiculously huge view camera stays on the shelf these days! Regarding the argument about whether a long lens on a large format has less perspective distortion than a proportionally scaled lens on a smaller format, the answer is "no". In terms of perspective and geometry, all lenses mimic the behavior of simple pinhole cameras - with the possible exception of rectilinear distortion which is generally a non-issue. One other thing to be aware of is that larger formats require a larger magnification, which essentially means you are using a longer lens than you may think you are for close-ups. For example, when shooting close portraits on 11x14" I was typically shooting at around -1x magnification, which effectively doubles the length of the lens. However, when you take this effect into account any potential discrepancies go away, and you are left with the stark reality that larger formats really don't offer any special "magic".

I still like standard -5/-5/-5/-5, but might give you guys suggestions a try.

I recommend trying this option out first... Using a (decent) tripod head as a handle, It feels nicely balanced and it's easy to pull focus with your other hand... I use it like this all the time

Ok. I get it. Just to give some of my experience with it... I've noticed that the blue channel seems rather noisy in the shadows (nothing like my old RX100 though). Red channel seems to evoke a sort of blurring/glowing effect. Green, as always, is a champion. If someone could tell me how to get the best results from these channels, it'd be very helpful. I was planning on doing some tests myself this week. I think one of the most difficult things to do with 8-bit signals is to get accurate memory colors (like skin) in shadowy areas. So far, I've been using the standard profile with reasonable results.

I just rolled off those shots with that Inazuma setting-suggestion. FWIW, I didn't set the white balance. It was on auto white balance. I'll experiment more manual Kelvin as well as presets.

Perhaps I could call such a product "The Naked Emperor Focal Reducer"? At least then I could sleep at night. I thought Kipon announced one of these, but it still seems to be vaporware. To be clear, adding a focal reducer to a medium format lens to convert it to a 24x36 format lens will only result in a slowish FF lens. That's because medium format lenses tend to have very conservative designs and are very slow to begin with. I can't think of a single MF lens + focal reducer combination that would be a compelling new addition to the FF optical repertoire. As you have correctly implied, there is no magic to be found here.

Very nice. You're nailing it with this set up From my testing, I was surprised that: The Panasonic colours are actually accurate once that red channel is tamed. White balance is very accurate when you do a manual WB using a grey card. I'm intrigued that you use a WB adjust. Is that a permanent setting or did you use those values just for that shoot? I think people who complain about Panny colours are probably not using WB properly or haven't spent time learning the nuances of their camera.

Nice. Beautiful shadows on her face. Better than some of the "references" I've seen - modern art deco. Would love to see some motion footage.. which always looked good to me from ML raw!

I own a C100 MK I. It just works. No frills. Pro XLR connections and audio controls at your finger-tips. Just simple reliability in an easy-to-throw-around form factor. Perfect for roving around an arena and getting up close and personal with the players.

I know this quote from Inazuma was a few weeks ago, but it is very good advice. I have been extensively testing various profile settings for my GX8 using an x-rite passport and resolve. In short I have made these findings : 1) Natural profile gives the best skin tones and overall accuracy of colours, but with too much saturation, particularly in the red channel 2) Standard just seems to add saturation to the base level natural profile -> Not so good 3) There is no point in Cinelike D as natural profile has more accurate colours and I could not detect any significantly increased DR 4) There is no need to de-saturate to -5 unless you want that for artistic reasons. -2 for saturation is optimal to reduce the Panny over saturated reds and give more accurate overall colour rendition. 5) I agree with Inazuma that Natural 0, -5, -5, -2 gives the best results so far, and that is what I will be using from now on, but testing will continue.....

Thanks for the thrilling discussion. The camera is a 5D MKII with ML RAW and the lens a Zeiss ZF 35mm. @Zach Goodwin you got it right immediately!

They got back in the game with the GH series. But that is at a different level

If I was to hazard a guess, I'd think you've got a colour space conflict. Youtube might be expecting that 4K uploads are in Rec.2020, but I don't know. I couldn't find any recommendations about that.

There's a difference between creative under-exposure, or balancing levels of exposure relative to the chosen aperture, and general under-exposure. Take this example frame from Miller's Crossing. It's not underexposed, everything is designed in such a way that it feels like night-time. The important thing is ensuring your bright spots are sitting right - in the OP shots, the bright spots are underexposed, and so the exposure should be bumped. Alternately, it may be a log gamma shot, or not have had it's exposure corrected properly from a log shot.

You can see some clips I shot with a "no brand" chinese adapter in the download and share thread.

All handheld of course. Shot with way too much caffeine in my system, had the shakes a bit. Also, trying to manually focus using the LCD in bright daylight. Pretty challenging, but really just trying to shoot at an extreme to see what would or would not happen or what I could or could not handle.

Experimenting with the GX85. Shooting under sub-optimal conditions. Bright mid-day light, hard shadows, etc. Cheap Chinese speedbooster with a 55mm f1.2 FD lens, B&W 64x ND, and a Tiffen circular polarizer. Neutral color profile -5 -5 -5 -5. Most shots @f2. Here's source footage straight from the cam: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/694tsb6iwy5y6um/AABOcE_3WUiCMY18xyOuTLEaa/GX85?dl=0

I've been shooting "generic" and "dumb" Chinese focal reducers for awhile. EOS & FD mounts. As mentioned before they're not perfect and might not give you infinity focus on shorter lenses, but I tend to shoot standard lens focal lengths for 90% of my stuff where the infinity focus isn't a problem, so they've been a bargain and, thus, pragmatic for me. For short lens shots I just switch to my native m43 12mm prime. It really depends on what you're trying to accomplish. Based on how I shoot, I just figured it didn't make much sense to overspend on Metabones. Besides, a few years ago I was burned on a shoot with a Metabones adapter that failed (the electronics more or less hijacked the controls of the Sony FS-700 I was using) so I was unwilling to chance re-visiting that experience.

This sounds like a good option to me....I can live with the audio quality of zoom preamps (especially the later recorders).....

I said it in the last thread, and I'll say it again. The 'right camera for the job' depends on so many more things than just the type of job. There is a right camera for you, and there is a right camera for your project, that's for sure. But there's no definitive 'right' camera for a particular job. Again, it depends, and the more we suggest that it's cut and dry, the more people get disappointed because this camera doesn't do this or that, or doesn't work the way they like. In the end, they blame the camera system, when it's not really the camera system's fault. To your point, an Alexa Studio can certainly be used for making a documentary or a wedding video. Is it the best choice? Well, that depends on you. Do you own an Alexa Studio? Do you have clients willing to pay to be able to access that quality of footage? If so, then maybe it is the best choice for you. If not, and you're looking for a camera for weddings, then it's going to depend on a number of different factors. I know wedding shooters who still shoot on prosumer 1/3" sensor cameras like the Z1, NX5 etc. I also know wedding shooters who shoot on A7s'. I know wedding shooters who shoot on F5s and REDs. I know BTS shooters who shoot GH4, and I know BTS shooters who shoot Alexa. It depends. The 'what camera should I get' question may be annoying, but the reality is that people asking that question are better served once you know what their needs are, rather than selecting it from a chart. Big DPs when deciding what to lens a movie with, they don't just go to a chart that says 'Feature - Alexa Studio' and choose that way. If you really want to serve these people, you'd be better off having a thread that outlines the pros and cons of each camera system, and has a preamble about how to ascertain what you need in a camera system.

I really like the look of this - exposure and all! Is it an Olympus cam? No one seems to want to guess - put us out of our misery please.. what is it!?

You got double the sensor real estate to cover compared to full frame. It's got to be an incredibly fast readout, or the image is gonna be mush. Especially with the shallow depth-of-field. Until recently, medium format cameras used CCDs. CMOS sensors are actually a recent development in this arena. Maybe going back to those would be a smart idea. Imagine the motion cadence! My dream would be a 645 sensor purpose-built for video with a lower pixel count. Maybe 6K or 8K spread out over a 60mm-wide sensor area. Bigger pixels = low-light monster. And then use the space between the pixels for the circuitry required for a global shutter.

I took the Full Frame Look (vs. S35) challenge and created images that were equivalent: http://brightland.com/w/the-full-frame-look-is-a-myth-heres-how-to-prove-it-for-yourself/ . Some folks posted 'debunking' shots with MF vs. FF but didn't use equivalent camera settings per the math (and not even the same framing). The math and physics also apply to MF vs FF. If it's possible to match via the equivalence equations an MF camera + lens to a FF camera + lens, the images will be identical. However, part of the difference is the sensor technology and software processing, where Phase One appears to really shine. Thus comparing a Canon 1DX II or Nikon D5 to a Phase One (any recent) may still show the Phase One providing a better image. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be a market for these very expensive MF cameras.

To be honest even with 10bit YUV I can't tell much difference in the grade to 8bit. RAW or RGB is where it's at

Right, I didn't think about other cameras outputing 8bit. (Only using Blackmagic Pocket and GH4R myself.)

This assumes the NX1 and all other mirrorless cameras apart from the GH4 output 10bit, they don't. It's still 8bit to the View Assist. Storing 8bit as 10bit doesn't give you the extra luminance information to work with. The difference is quite small. We're not talking raw-style noise grain. It's still a blockier chroma-noise style noise, not like film-grain. True. Only in true 10bit or RAW is this the case.

10 bit -> 4x as many color shades to work with no MPEG macro blocks -> fine noise to leave as film grain or to easily remove without visible artifacts no GOP -> playing backwards and fast forwarding don't require more then a single frame to be rendered, also much faster rendering times for any kind of image modification (color correction, effects, compositing, ...) ->smooth highlight rolloffs/skies/fog

Ford makes a Ferrari, the new $400,000 GT, and its absolutely amazing. Almost 7,000 have applied to buy one of the 500 being produced. https://www.ford.com/performance/gt/ Panny's pricing is going to bite them in the rear. This looks like a fantastic lens, but they aren't going to sell many, especially when the 12/2 is half the cost.

Viewfinder is helpful outside in bright light, handheld shots are more stable (3 point contact when using viewfinder + handle + mass), Canon Log 2 highlight roll off (much better than even CLog on the 1DC), and most importantly, when using the 'ARRI' config, post grading is super fast and skintones look great with little effort. While this episode was shot in 4K, when 1080p is desired (for faster edits and smaller files), the C300 II's 1080p is much better than the 1DX II's (soft, aliased). For stills, stealth video, and 4K60, the 1DX II is superior.

Modify again by adding a negative diopter in side, better accurate focus at infinity, not so wide, measured view angle equals to about 24mm, but distortion improved. Edge IQ might be not so good. But still much better than 1.33x lens I used before. Flares are funny.

Andrew, sorry to hear you´re having a hard time inspiration-wise. But man, you built something worthy here. There is tremendous value in the site as it as, and in the community that surrounds it through the forums. I share your contempt of the amounts of crap that flood the net, but I am puzzled why it so demotivates you, seeing the activity in this forum and in this very thread. Now I don't know (the change in) your traffic numbers, or what you want them to be. But the people that come here, seem to do so for quality and most contributors are sincere and mean well. Actually I think that sites/communities as this prove there ís a market for good content, in spite of the flooding shite elsewhere. Other places I like to visit for good content and atmosphere is Tony Northrups channel and (on another topic) the former Gametrailers guys, now working under the Easy Allies moniker. Checking EosHD and the forum has become part of my daily routine. I enjoy coming here and feel inspired; getting into anamorphics as a hobby is this site's fault entirely ;-) So yeah, this place means something to people, sure does to me, so thanks for that. I hope that helps a little to keep your fire burning :-)

Hey Andrew! I sent you a pm. Don´t wanna brag about it, but there is a place in Berlin where people do just that, using all their time the dayjob leaves them and do films and more. What can I say, it´s a pretty nifty (did i get that word right, lemme check on dict.cc:) place. Think I got the word right:) You and some awesome people here inspired me to apply for that school and it´s been as nice as it can be, besides the burden of a non filmic day job. Here is a screenshot from a 24h hour film challenge me and a collegue student did on the semilegendary G6, no filmschooltech allowed, just practicals, a photolamp bounced, boosted 28mm FD and way too high iso 1600:) Shoot, now I spoiled the camera for my planned guess the camera challenge:) cheers Andrew and friends of this awesome place EOSHD! Marty

The crux of it is this - We are a community, a part of the larger photography city, inspired by cinema and hollywood. The DSLR revolution was truly a moment of magic, unleashing all kinds of passion. Passion is a motivation, it gets things done. What has happened to this community is that Corporate America and Corporate Japan have segmented it in half, like slicing a neighbourhood in half with a wall. We have the NewsShooter and Cinema5D managed communities on one side with their C300 Mark IIs and paid work, NoFilmSchool with their venture capitalist funding and team of staffers. On the other side we have the artists. Yes, artists sometimes make bank commercials!!! (Disclaimer) Anyway the point is, that EOSHD and the forum is a great community but it's really up against it now. The premise that anyone can publish gear-orientated opinion pieces has lead to an over-supply of content, much of it rushed, in order to make it timely, because on the internet and Facebook timeliness is everything and a 2 day old post is trash. The internet started as a resource base, a researcher's tool which acts like a big encyclopaedia. For better or worse, since it became mass market, the internet changed and evolved into an entertainment platform and a social network "CelebrityNet" In order to combine the two - entertainment and information, you need to present the information in an entertaining way, no shit huh!? But you also need passion to drive it. I'd like to think that in the DSLR video world myself and Philip Bloom have succeeded in doing this. But eventually I lose my passion and Philip dedicates himself to work. It's a shame, but it's on that path. What needs to happen is that EOSHD becomes a team of people rather than just me, and that it puts on a good show for YouTube, in the mould of Top Gear or The Grand Tour where presenters travel the world and shoot really beautifully entertaining short films, with the latest camera kit. It's exactly like driving a car through spectacular scenery and presenting the information with wit. I'm amazed nobody has done this yet, however when you consider this... This is one of the most expensive and time consuming form of content there is. I'm up for doing it. It's very difficult though and I don't yet have a team, I don't have the enormous amount of money and I don't have the platform behind me (like Amazon). Yet! Until then there's Lok at Digital Rev. I agree with you completely. Actually when EOSHD began, it was more of a 7 posts a week site and a few rumours too, sometimes from good sources, and it grabbed attention and inspired me to build the community and put interesting stuff out there, like a band of GH2 pirates fighting the Canon flagship. When you want to increase the quality of the content by yourself you have to spend weeks or months on it and then your 1 article per month gets buried under a ton of shit. The internet is just like that. You may have noticed some of my recent articles have also been shit, or lacking in inspiration. That's what happens when you try to compete with the internet.

Yo Andrew. Don't be put off by the huge influx of unemployed people who've recently gone into blogging/vlogging in an attempt to make a commercial name for themselves. The days of celebrities like Philip Bloom are gone - gear nerds literally looked upon him as a god 3 years ago. Personally I'd like to see you in a permanent product development position at Sony, while still keeping this blog running with details like your beautifully carefully written and informative articles. I've been hoping to see your response to the Leica SL - I'm amazed you weren;t sent one before the rest of the hopeless 'brand ambassadors' who would sell their mother if it gave them a little more online respect from gear heads. Lots and lots of readers here can focus on things for longer than 5 seconds. Even a few millenials might be able to keep reading to the end of the article. Your depth is why eoshd is the best of the lot. One problem is that since the A7S arriaved, we literally got everything we always wanted. most of those who are willing to learn how to use a tool are no longer looking for anything else. I think the acquisition of a a7s and a 1dc makes one less interested in looking for and reporting on better gear - the improvements are so small the other bloggers need to resort to click bait titles. finally, I think a few adverts wouldn;t do much hard to the site. rather than brands, maybe partner with a retailer?

Yes the bargain super specced equipment can be a motivation, but without anything decent to film, that soon fades. Like I say, I need to get out of Berlin and start a new chapter... try to capture some magic somehow. Until then, I'll continue to update the blog, there's no chance of me stopping because this stuff is my life-long passion. I can't tell you how much I appreciate those who appreciate the blog and forum. Let's hope that the ugly competition to EOSHD and boring corporate mentality of other blogs and 'managed communities', as well as the sheer lack of good content out there doesn't bury the whole endeavour along with my motivation with it. Not a single day doesn't go by without emails in my inbox offering sponsored content and gear for review... it's soul destroying and debases the entire internet.

I can imagine how you feel. A big reason I dont put the same effort into review videos these days is also the toxic atmosphere that now have reached the video gear sites. It used to be a thing among smartphone and computer geeks. I remember Griffin on Indy Mogul saying "a great thing about filmmakers is that they don't bash each others camera choices, like other tech crowds". Well, that time has certainly passed. If a reviewer critique or praise a camera there are 500 people there calling him/her an asshole (speaking of Huffs SL review). There is not one single filmmaker commenting on NFS. There are just trolls. My little theory based on prior experiences with smartphone forums and computer forums is this, The DSLR boom created a fad. All of a sudden every man and woman was a still or video shooter. The industry exploded and so did the community. Like all fads it ended. Most people went on to the next like cooking, cross fit, micro brewery or what ever. The true talent are out there shooting and couldn't give to shits and a popsicle about minor updates in cameras. Left in the community are mostly the assburgers. You know, the peepers who only really cared about having "the best" camera so they could roam the internet and go on about it. You all know the kind. For me EOSHD was a sanctuary where those types often got their ass handed to them. Here most users are hybrids. We enjoy shooting, creating, art but also gear without being blinded by numbers. They also kept away because Andrew is a gear junky like most of us but also an artist who understand that higher number on a spec doesn't mean "better". He is one of only a handfull reviewers I know that don't get side tracked by the specs. The unfortunate part is that I've always been aware that when eoshd grows, the assburgers come lurking. So I've always known its a story with an end. I just hope it doesn't happen to soon. (BTW I'm in a bit of a creative hole when it comes to video. I'm just not feeling it right now. My tip to still keeping the creative flow is stills. Shooting stills is pretty much the same thing but with less stress IMO.)

Buy my books if you'd like to help Money isn't the problem though. As Eric said above, this isn't the internet any more. It's celebritynet. You just watch from now, things are going to go dark. Meaningful and independent long-form content is going to be an endangered species. If you want proof, then see what happened to DigitalRev TV's audience when they put the camera guy with no presenting talent (or even English talent) in front of the camera on their YouTube channel, with Kai seemingly moving to the UK and not appearing as much. Lok's a nice guy but sorry, this video was pure dogshit. So what happened to the audience? They stayed. Didn't go anywhere. Millions of views continue to roll in. The quality of online content is truly a race to the bottom in 2016... zero benefit from quality. It's celebritynet now. I don't think ads are the answer to helping my motivation to write more blog posts either... if anything that is a full time job in itself, I am sure Tony Northup has employees working behind the scenes on that kind of thing. As soon as EOSHD becomes "work" I am stopping it.

Hey Michal. I am glad someone has noticed this. I have all the rumors sites in my news feed and I visit some of the other blogs, the truth is these are majorly demotivating for me. It seems the general direction of the internet is going away from long form reviews and articles, into quickly thrown up deals and clickbate, along 2-3 minute quickly knocked up youtube video which are nice to have on in the background as you have a cup of tea in the morning, but contain very little actual useful information. If all the attention is going into the wrong content, so what motivation do I have to carry on with EOSHD? There's still some great stuff out there but it's few and far between, and getting worse. So I actually share your depression with the state of affairs. EOSHD articles I used to do are almost unviable today... the formula is broken... the amount of effort required versus the lack of reward in putting so much information out there for free. Geez. Thanks for the support... not. Facebook and Instagram content is where it's at, sadly. A finger swipe, 2 seconds, next. In the end the audience will regret allowing the internet to dissolve into a trivial social network where appearances are valued above substance.