Axel
-
Posts
1,900 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Everything posted by Axel
-
You have to decide everything in post - whether it should look colorful or not, contrast, dynamic range, 'exposure' (=the gamma curve=gradation=basic grading), sharpening, everything ... Nice dog.
-
Nothing's wrong with your BMPCC, judging from the DNGs you linked to. 1. The noise: On the "left side" of the dynamic range (if you take a histogram) is black, and then more or less one "stop" of barely visible light, where the so-called 'signal-to-noise-ratio' is very unfavorable. The RAW community (I believe) coined the term 'noise floor'. It's got to be avoided. The way to avoid it is to 'ETTR' (ExposeToTheRight - meaning the right side of a histogram). For RAW, you set the zebra to 100%, and you close the aperture just so that zebra only shows in areas you allow to clip (the sun, a light bulb). At daytime and outside this will result in a perfect white display, so that you can't see anything, let alone focus. The trick then is, to dial down ISO to 400 or 200, which will make the image visible. Changing ISO has no effect on RAW images. BUT: Your images look like low light, and then you can't avoid the noise floor. I don't know lightroom, but in ACR you could denoise. You can also denoise in Resolve full version or with Neat. BUT: As you may have noticed, there is less noise in ProRes, and therefore ProRes is more appropriate for low light. How do you expose ProRes? You should also kind of ETTR, but use 95% zebra then. It is very important never to use the VIDEO recording mode for ProRes. 2. Too dark: There may simply be not enough light, plus you probably didn't ETTR. 3. Overly saturated: This is relative and can be easily changed. One could as well describe a ProRes image (in FILM log) as seriously undersaturated. My solution in FCP X is to draw an adjustment layer over my whole timeline and view my clips with a LUT applied to it. First I used the BlackMagic_film_to_rec709 LUT and graded underneath (gave me the possibility to recover highlights etc., which you can't if you had recorded in 709). Right now I find the Alexa_LogC-to_rec709 LUT more pleasing. More often than not I find myself increasing saturation even further. What you didn't report: Moire. This is something that's worse in RAW, and unless my desperately awaited diffusion filter (see thread) helps, I'm not gonna shoot anything in RAW anymore.
-
Thank you. I am about to buy a diffusion filter for the Sigma, because it is too sharp. Moire means lower resolution. Resolution and sharpness are related, but you can have an overly sharp image with low resolution. Like in this case.
-
And the Austrians also have no venetian blinds, colanders or patterned clothes? DSLR-heaven! Just tell me in general if you noticed more or less moire than with the Sigma, I am watching an ebay-auction ending this afternoon ...
-
Lilliput has an own page for the BM-cameras, here. There is also a link on the frame rate compatibility on this page for different monitors. I can't tell you about your monitor specifically, but I read reports of others who stated that their monitors didn't accept all frame rates or finally showed an image after switching off the OSD of the Pocket. This isn't true for Lilliput alone, EVFs (the chinese Zacuto clone - different names - for example) or more expensive monitors also can't make the HDMI-protocol 'handshake' in some cases. What I am interested in: Can you tune a specific profile to show more contrast and saturation?
-
Somewhat academic distinction, but of course you are right. You could do a test for me. Shoot brick walls asf. @ f3.5 - 5.6 with this lens in RAW, and tell me if you encounter moire (what I've found is that it need to be high contrast patterns, the old red bricks in my neighborhood won't show it. In my last images the balcony on the right edge shows vivid colors, but only with Sigma&SB so far, and only if I close the aperture). No need to publish the images. And while you're at it, if there is moire in raw, also shoot in ProRes. Thanks in advance.
-
So what you suspect is that your Pocket's sensor is misaligned, don't you? Do you have another lens to compare? I had the Oly 12mm and the Nokton 25mm (sold them, which I rue now), and now I have the cheap 14-42mm kit lens. I know it's "through a glass darkly" compared to Sigma&SB, you can't focus comfortably (but you have a big DoF anyway). I recommend you borrow or buy such a cheap lens, before you actually change the Pocket. If the problem persists you need to send the camera to BM.
-
Do this: Mount the camera on a heavy tripod. Tighten all screws. Focus a brick wall or st. like that on infinity. Hit record. Press gently but firmly against the Sigma, in different directions. Then watch the clip on the monitor. I bet the oof-areas will move around the frame. There are two bayonet connectors in this construction, and they don't make a solid unit, tolerances add. Ever owned a Letus 35mm adapter? Same song. Finding backfocus was crucial. The thing was 'milled from one massive aluminum block', and they always had to be supported with rails. BTW: Where do you mount your tripod? It must be the Metabones' connector. And handheld: You have to carry the weight mainly by holding the Sigma, not the Pocket. It's not so much because the mount might break, but the heavier part will bow. EDIT: An elegant way to stabilize the structure, instead of rails, could be by using a tripod plate. This was my first makeshift 'grip' for the Pocket: You could press a piece of rubber or so between the ground plate and the non-moving ring (where I have my thumb in the picture). One can at the same time 'fix' the position and hold the camera on the lens with both hands:
- 31 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- metabones
- pocket cinema camera
- (and 4 more)
-
Must be a backfocus issue, but not one related to the z-axis alone. Fractions of milimeters make a big difference. The projection-lenses in a cinema, for example, enlarge an image the size of a stamp to a 50 feet wide screen. Easy to imagine, if there is only a slight shift in the structure that holds the lens, a very similar effect as the one you describe results. What is easier in a projector: You have big screws you can turn with your fingers, you have a test chart projected whilst performing the calibration, and still it needs patience, experience and fine motor skills .... You've seen this from the Tokina thread? I believe that you actually need a rail support that very subtly allows to adjust the micro-position of the whole structure (applying a little pressure) and fixes it once and for all. Sounds cumbersome, is cumbersome. Or: You just never use Sigma + SB for panorama shots. These niceties are completely lost in a shallow-DoF shot.
-
Some thoughts on the Sigma/Speedbooster evaluation: I am performing test shots with the Pocket since almost 5 months now. Many say the Pocket was good at low light. The cameras I worked with over the decades were: Bolex H16 Reflex (owned), Sony VX 1000 (owned), Sony VX 2000 (owned, first shots lit by candlelight), Panasonic DVX 100 (borrowed often), Sony FX-1 (borrowed occasionally), Canon XH-A1 (owned), Sony EX-3 (borrowed occasionally), Canon 7D (owned, among others adapted Nikon glasses: 35mm f1.4 and 50mm f1.4), Canon 5D MII (borrowed often, fastest lens Canon 50mm f1.8), Panasonic GH2 (owned, fastest lens Nokton 25mm f0.95), Canon 5D MIII (played with for an afternoon), Panasonic G6 (owned). Now in theory the Pocket with Speedbooster and Sigma should equal - at least - the Lumix with Nokton f0.95, and more or less, it does. Nevertheless, one doesn't shoot with a 'cinema camera' to live with noisy footage that actually reminds me of high speed 16mm stock from the last century. You'd de-noise anyway, wouldn't you? Take this night clip, shot with Olympus 12mm f2.0 (more than 2 stops slower than f1.8 speedboosted): No plastic feeling, well done. Two other things strike me: There are a lot of moire-traps in this clip, but it doesn't show. Would I have tried this with Sigma/SB in raw, I guess I would have had to throw away two of three shots. The other point is the absolute depth of field, something I consider desirable for Pocket shots. I have not yet figured out how to get there with our fat and heavy monster. Or this clip, starting with f2.5, almost three stops behind our combo: (later on a good comparison with contemporary EVIL-cams on higher ISOs) I conclude that Sigma & SB are suitable for filming in confined spaces where you can't control the light properly. They saved me when I ventured to shoot a portrait of a local hospice with really terrible light conditions. But can this be a task for the Pocket? Surely not. Otherwise, I feel the size and weight of the glasses - let alone the price - don't fit. Bought new, the price equals that of two more appropriate lenses (if you manage to find used ones on ebay): SLR magic 12mm f1.6 and Nokton 25mm f0.95. I think I abandon the plan to put another glass (with Tiffen IR-cut and Tiffen vari-ND, the latter should obviously be substituted by a set of fixed NDs) like a diffusor in front of the Sigma. This will only degrade the quality further. Now my question is if I should keep them or sell them. Comment.
-
I tried a more sigificant test, on a tripod, with moderate light conditions. You can download the three DNGs here. First is the Metabones with the aperture wide open, exposure controlled with zebra and ETTR: The three points of interest enlarged: Hard to tell, if indeed the left edge is subtly out of focus, one needed a giant test chart ;-) But according to the mark on the Sigma, it was indeed infinity: In comparison roughly the same framing (by zooming out) with the Novoflex, first wide open: ... and stopped down about one-third (meaning approx. 2-3 stops?): All these images may not look pleasing, the monitor isn't properly calibrated. Also, from the low resolution (I mean the 1920 sized DNGs) it's hard to nail down if there are any differences in detail, but spontaneously the Novoflex looks clearer, perhaps less color fringing. It's no fun to watch a panorama on the muddy, peaking-contaminated display of the Pocket. Sigh, this is all such a hassle ...
- 31 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- metabones
- pocket cinema camera
- (and 4 more)
-
Well, yes, this was to be expected, wasn't it? I have been dealing with focus compromises most of my professional life. Unless you pay thousands of dollars, you have to live with visible tolerances, but tolerances (which in a perfect world would get infinitely close to zero) are everywhere. First, when I saw your images, I thought, fock, I didn't see this yet, if it's there with my Sigma & SB too, this may be the last straw. Of course I made the test. It wasn't easy, because it's a sunny day, and not many things in the city are far enough away as to be focussed on with ∞. And also, the sky was so bright, I had to darken the (Tiffen) ND-fader so much that I got a vignette at open aperture. I show you not the worst frame, but the best under the circumstances: Vignetting, washed-out colors, and the power pole as well as the gas plant in the background look out of focus, whereas the trees on the left appear to be relatively sharp. Maybe my "tolerance" is positioned on the right side :wacko: Of course it is not wise to shoot this wide shot that way. Most lenses have their best performance round about f4 - f5.6. If the goal was to capture a lot of fine detail - motif detail, not texture detail ! - I better close the aperture at least two stops. Done: There is an improvement, but what you could see if the image moved a little was another nail in the coffin: *Moiré* The white clinker brick wall on the left - see my corresponding thread, a no-go for me. As I wrote there, I considered the Metabones plus Sigma the ultimate Pocket lens set up, allured by Andrews >article. What it turned out to be good for: Low light shots of interiors. Full stop. It isn't an allrounder set-up, as our experiences show. > It's not good for panorama shots, and particularly not for low light or high key panorama shots! > It's not good for any long shots, because it obviously has a serious backfocus-problem. > It's not at all good for detail (though the Sigma is sharp), rather for playing with sDoF. What part is to blame? Additionally to the Speedbooster, I have a Novoflex-adapter for Nikon. I put this on with the Sigma. First thing I noticed: Whole thing suddenly seems to have more (as they say in STNG) "structural integrity". I shot stopped down about one-third (the Novoflex has no markers): What happens? I don't see moire (BTW: Don't compare the colors, that was hastily done in ACR. Speedbooster was close to sunset though, Novoflex 'blue hour'). Next: Novoflex wide open, zoomed in. Note, how there actually is a horizon, not just a watercolored background ...
- 31 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- metabones
- pocket cinema camera
- (and 4 more)
-
I give it a try. Ordered a Tiffen Pro Mist 1/4 (obviously from a discontinued series), very cheap. If it stops moire, I'll buy a more expensive Digital Diffusion and keep the Pro Mist as a glow effect filter. Thanks for help.
-
I see. Do you know how I can guess the strength of the filter needed? My Black Pro Mist then was a "1", but it seemed to soften only highlights to get those kitschy shots: ... similar to the blooming-effect the Pocket was just cured from. Dead men don't wear plaid? I'm not sure if it was that kind of diffusor. What about the Digital Diffusion in this Hurlbut-test?
-
As many of you will have noticed, our little precious is prone to moire, not only in raw. I have gone a long way to overcome all problems with this beast, but moire makes me sick to a point where I just want to sell the whole bundle and just stick to my G6. However, the more I compare my most felicitous test shots to what I knew before, I know I would regret it forever. It's time to address the issue. When I bought the Pocket, I reckoned the Sigma 18-35 with the Metabones BMPCC Speedbooster could substitute all my MFT lenses, and I sold them all (now only own the 14-42mm G6 kit lens). So there is little to compare with, mainly apertures. At open aperture, moire becomes so rare, it ceases to be an issue for me. But: As was proven to me >here, the Speedbooster in this combination results in a DoF of an f1.8 in APS-C. As soon as I want a deeper field by closing the aperture two stops, the image obviously gets too sharp for the sensor, thereby introducing moire. The concept of an OLPF (used i.e. with Canons 5D) seemed like a possible solution. But how? Apparently Mosaic Engineering is developing a special filter for the BMCC. Has anyone heard about efforts to create one for the Pocket? The theory behind this says that moire is a sign for reduced resolution and that if you cut off high frequencies at the right values, you optimize the resolution, even though the image looks a little softer. Some say the native resolution of the Pocket is near 1920 minus 15% (for bayerfiltering or sth.l.t.). With the right lenses (not too sharp ones) or with, well, actually a moderate soft-focus-filter (?) it should be possible to get rid of the annoyance once and for all. Is this correct? The very same topic in BlackMagicForum resulted in recommendations for ProMist filters, here. I used to own one myself, for weddings, but since I never actually bothered to use it, I sold it. Has anyone tried to use such a filter against moire?
-
@dishe, Orangenz, araucaria, Inazuma: Maybe you're right. I just always felt that nothing could reach the sDoF (and quality of bokeh) of a fast lens on a 5D, for instance. I have the M-SB too.
-
Looks good.
-
On the term "full frame look". Note, that with any focal reducer the angle of view widens, but the depth of field *doesn't change* at all. A 2.8 looks different in Super 16, MFT, APS-C and Full Frame. That's why the biggest problem with GH4 is it's relatively big DoF - relative to the resolution. The only way to overcome this problem are very fast lenses, not Speedboosters. Let me explain further: It's true, high resolution will add shallowDoF to some extent, because the >circles of confusion are smaller (are they though? Are the pixel dimensions different from, say, those of the GH3?), but generellay, if there was an aesthetic benefit of 4k over HD in the first place, it had to do with selective sharpness, not with infinite detail. The existing UHD camcorders with small sensors prove that, the images look terrible.
-
Thank you. Than this be it. I saw this but thought, why isn't this smaller? But anyway, I think it will suffice.
-
Sorry if I missed this elsewhere, I googled and couldn't find anything (one entry on personal view, but not highlighted, and I'd have to read 50 pages !). I'd need a cage urgently, for a wedding in three weeks. Please confirm if another cage fits this camera in your experiences. Not interested in a scorpion-shaped handle, just need more 1/4 inch mounts. Thanks in advance ...
-
Just saw a demo for the Arri Amira, called 'City Of God'.
-
Maybe this lens is not good for the SB-Pocket-combo. Perhaps you should sell it and buy something like that for wide angle (there is a 6mm too, giving you the same parameters as your current setup). I didn't realize the lens you used in Brazil, but if that's your 'allrounder', you could then sell the Speedbooster too. I sold all my MFT lenses, because I use the Sigma 18-35 with SB and Novoflex adapter, which gives me a range of 61° - 19° angle of view (or, for anyone not used to this terminology, 30-105 mm full frame equivalent) at f1.0 (or, with Novoflex, f1.8, which is still insanely fast). Now I know the SB-Tokina gives you an extreme angle of ~ 97° AOV, but the downside is a too heavily curved focal pane (or rather focal curve). That's why there are only few fast extreme wide angle lenses. And they are usually very expensive. My favourite country for vacation is also Brazil. That the color washes off the buttons is really tough. There are so many different climate zones in Brazil, you didn't say where you stayed. 30°C in Manaus will mean 99% humidity, 30°C in Bahia salt in the wind ...
-
Here is a remote that is reported to work for START/STOP with the Pocket. Comment:
-
Here is the instruction. However, now that I saw your clip on the big monitor, I'm not sure about the nature of the problem. Please don't be angry, if I do you wrong. How did you focus? The sharpness improved when you stopped down on the TV set (as it would even if not focussed correctly), but the other shots just look out of focus. Again, no offense intended, but did you try to shoot from a tripod, focus with peaking and magnification? Focussing is the toughest job with the BMPCC. You do know that the FOCUS button doesn't work with the Speedbooster (sorry if that sounds like check the plug)? Also, as Andrew Reid reported here, your Tokina has a focus problem in the corners: You can have either the center sharp, but the corners not - or the other way around. Or nothing.
-
On the phone here, I don't have my bookmarks. What you probably need to do is calibrate the Metabones' backfocus. This is delicate (you need to fix a screw or so to "infinity". If it is sharp at infinity, it wasn't the backfocus) but technically not too complicated. I think there was an official Metabones instruction on the net > Google.