QuickHitRecord
-
Posts
1,118 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Everything posted by QuickHitRecord
-
I've used them with the doublet, no problem.
-
Can you share a link to where this was posted? EDIT: Nevermind, it's in a1ex's signature!
-
Looks nice. Some of the better looking footage from this lens I have seen.
-
Canon 7D raw video with the Mosaic Engineering anti-aliasing filter
QuickHitRecord replied to Andrew Reid's topic in Cameras
The "rant" in this article has been some of my favorite EOSHD material yet. -
No one has mentioned Nikkor AI and AI-S primes yet. I have a set of five, cine-modded by Duclos, and I have been pleased with them; first on my GH2, then on my FS100, and finally on my 5D3. I've also had them on a RED Scarlet, and they looked great at 4K. They are compact but well-built, and the lens characteristics match closely across the set. The only downside that I can think of is that the focus ring goes the other way, making a reversible follow focus a necessity. Here's a nice rundown on them by Caleb Pike of DSLRVideoShooter:
-
Some of the converters have "vertical stripe correction" built in and it seems to solve this issue. The one that I am using right now is this one (definitely works on MLVs, not certain if it works on .raw files): http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=9731.0 It's not the latest one, but it seems to work well.
-
I used one of these for my old Baby Hypergonar. I do not think that it will be able to grip the Iscomorphot 8/1.5 properly (as I recall you have to secure this lens by the silver portion at the rear of the lens; the black part rotates when focusing). There is not much surface area to work with.
-
Here's another way to mount it, if you have parts like these lying around:
-
NAB is only a month out. I'd wait.
-
I think that you have to use conversion software with "vertical stripe correction". Not all of them have it.
-
Wow. A simple search in this very forum will give you all of the information that you need.
-
Pretty neat. Reading the thread, it looks like there is a new version right around the corner. I've been using an older converter (with the recursive0.4.command file) to convert to DNGs. It applies "vertical stripe correction", which I assume removes some of the fixed noise pattern that can appear at higher ISOs. Do you know if this one does anything like that?
-
Most forum users have probably already read Andrew's article on the effects of scaling 8-bit 4:2:0 4K footage down to 10-bit 4444 1080P footage: '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>> We in the anamorphic world are constantly rescaling our footage, though only on one axis. What I am curious to know is whether this can affect (positively or negatively) the color space and bit depth of the resulting footage. Also, can we better preserve footage by using wider pixels (as opposed to using square pixels + resizing)? This is new territory for me, and probably for a lot of others as well. Note: I posed the question in the thread above, but I think that this deserves its own thread.
-
A great film. Agreed. The technology is there, and it's accessible. We have already have a slew of affordable ninety-percent imaging solutions out there but so many of us are focusing all of our attention on each new 0.25% improvement rather than putting in the time and effort to master the craft, assemble the crew, recruit the talent, and bridge the gap that imaging technology never will.
-
I can see how that would be the case for a de-squeeze, but how about stretching the image (i.e. enlarging it horizontally)? In the past, anamorphic shooters have surmised that image quality doesn't really take a hit when doing this, but we weren't really looking at it through the lens of this new theory.
-
Would the opposite be true (i.e. deterioration of bit depth and color space) when stretching anamorphic footage horizontally?
-
That was really funny.
-
ML gives you several aspect ratio options, and then resolution options therein. To use as much of the sensor as possible (at least vertically), you can choose up to 1600x1200 (though I have found that continuous recording is iffy at this resolution). The smaller the resolution, the greater the crop factor. Hope this helps.
-
No one can say for sure yet. Downscaling to 1080P from 4K will definitely give you a sharper image, but not everyone wants a sharper image. Aesthetics are purely subjective. As always, it will all come down to personal preference. ML raw caused a flurry of excitement last year. Everyone HAD to have it. But the thing about shooting in raw is that it's not for everyone. It's not for casual shooters. The ML frenzy died down when most of those people realized that the workflow takes more time, and the novelty and excitement tapered off quickly. For those of us that stuck with it, the workflow has only gotten more stable and easier with new developments and conversion apps. You say that you have yet to "dive in" with ML raw on your 5D3. Why don't you go ahead try it out on a project? You'll answer a lot of your own questions. The GH4 isn't available for purchase yet anyway.
-
What do you hope to accomplish by posting something like this? What is the best possible outcome for you?
-
For documentaries, I'd probably go with the GH4: longer recording times, flip out LCD screen, easier to nail focus, better stability overall, and the GH cameras are just quicker to whip out at a moment's notice -- maybe something to do with the camera's size and weight.
-
I'm talking about raw. Maybe I can't call it a codec. It's more like a lack of a codec. But you know what I mean.
-
I haven't tried it, but probably not. But if your main use of 4K is to slightly re-frame your shot and deliver in 1080P, I think that it's fine for that. Also, using the 5D with anamorphic lenses can offer pretty high resolutions. Using the 1600x1200 crop mode with a 2x lens can give you a 3200x1200 image, in raw. I'm not saying that the 5Diii is going to be better for everyone. I think that the GH4 will probably be a really nice camera. But even before production models start rolling out, we already know that it can't match the 5D's 1080P codec. So, if you're mostly interested in really good-looking 1080P, I think that the 5D with Magic Lantern remains a strong contender.
-
I also have a 5Diii running ML. I'm not going to buy the GH4 because I don't need 4K, and with my 5D I'm getting a full-frame sensor and a better codec without the added bulk and cost of an external recorder. Plus, I get NIGHTLY firmware updates from Magic Lantern. I just downloaded last night's and it's hard to believe all the bells and whistles that have been added in just the past week. In terms of shooting with raw, I use it for the option of matching white balance between shots and tweaking exposure. Then I export them out to 12-bit ProRes 4444 files, and edit and grade as usual. I don't bother with the KomputerBay cards. To me, the piece of mind that I get from the Lexar 1000x cards is worth the extra cost. If you are really keen on 4K, then maybe the GH4 is the camera for you. But otherwise, the 5Diii delivers some of the best 1080P I've seen, and you already own one!
-
That XLR base looks super bulky. Stacked on top of rods or even a quick release plate, this thing is going to be pretty tall. Not sure that I'm a fan. I would have loved to have seen something that was flush with the camera body (even if it meant only one XLR input), or a detachable top handle like the C100's.
