webrunner5 Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 On 2/5/2018 at 2:53 AM, jonpais said: Why is his lens so noisy? Why is he recording the sound of the lens? Do all lenses sound like machine guns with that adapter? All the older Canon lenses sounds like that. Silent they weren't. Recorded it so it would be louder so old turds can hear it. I guess you are REALLY young. He recorded it so you can hear the different pitch when it was in focus and not. The Machine gun sound was mostly when it worked like it was suppose to. No hunting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emanuel Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpais Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 Who here has tried this AF fix? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TARS Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 Sucks that he had to add a request in all caps not to plagiarize his work in both the title and the description. I'm looking at you, Peter Gregg. EDIT - What's worse about Peter Gregg's plagiarized video is that he has gone through and deleted every comment from anybody pointing out the fact that he's presenting someone else's work as his own. What a prick. jonpais 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpais Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 omg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinegain Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 I mean, he said that he had taken notice of 'a certain hack circulating the interw3bs' sorta say. He just replicated said circulating hack to check its validity and shared his results with his audience. I certainly didn't get the impression he came up with the hack and proofing methods himself. Surely you can blame him for not properly giving credit or naming sources in particular, then again, with hacks like these, it's not too easy to point out the originating source for the hack, that usually requires some digging through numerous videos and posts... so instead you just say that the info was 'out there' and that you heard about it, rather than pointing to a specific source. Although, the thing with the lav mic is pretty much 1:1. Anyways, more YouTube drama over... what exactly? Surely we've got better stuff to do... Orangenz 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TARS Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 If you watch it past the 2 minute mark, he's explicitly explaining what "he" did as if this was an unsubstantiated rumour that he had then figured out. What actually happened was two comprehensive videos were made, one doing exactly what he has copied, and another explaining the math. These were done by one guy and found nowhere else on the internet. He's seen the video and he copied it essentially verbatim. There would be no problem if he had at least credited YodaYeo for the discovery. But instead, he used the phrase "what I did" about a hundred times. If there was nothing wrong with what he did, why would he be deleting comments from anyone that references YodaYeo in the comments? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpais Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 Peter Gregg also messes up by trying to explain shutter angle and introduces shutter speeds. Big mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emanuel Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 1 hour ago, jonpais said: Peter Gregg also messes up by trying to explain shutter angle and introduces shutter speeds. Big mess. No one can practice medicine becoming retired of any field else, correct? ; ) Worse, to be entitled as an authority, lecturer, whoever at a certain level and degree. Why should the things be different with cameras from one day to another? ;-) No Christmas fantasy can save random internet when shit happens... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orangenz Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 12 hours ago, Cinegain said: Anyways, more YouTube drama over... what exactly? Surely we've got better stuff to do... Quoted for truth. The whole topic is a profound waste of time. Even more so is the name calling as if one youtuber and his CAPITALS owns an idea. Ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emanuel Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 Hacking is a road for international fame in these YT days... from behind the camera... and desk ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgreszcz Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 Does anyone know what VFR (if any) that the C-AF will work in? I'm hoping to capture some accelerating athletes, so would like to get AF working in this case... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpais Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgreszcz Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 OK, I RTFM and it looks like C-AF doesn't work with VFR, so I guess the best I can do is 60fps and bringing down to 25p in post. Looks like the 179 angle trick works to "fix" 24/25/30fps autofocus. I'll give it a shot tomorrow and see what happens, but if anyone with experience with fast objects moving towards the camera could share their settings, I'd appreciate it! Cheers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpais Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 @sgreszcz No, it doesn’t work at 24p. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asmundma Posted February 14, 2018 Author Share Posted February 14, 2018 Time for me to come back here - still excellent seems like - .......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpais Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 Everyone says 179 is the magic number, not 120, so invalid test. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members BTM_Pix Posted February 14, 2018 Super Members Share Posted February 14, 2018 I had to stop watching as I was getting too distracted by his outfit. Found myself singing "Tell me more, tell me more, does it work on Sigmas" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpais Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 I shot a test myself this morning with the Sigma 16mm f/1.4 at f/2.2, custom AF settings at +1, +3, 29.97p, 179 degree shutter angle and face detect AF. It’s pretty hit or miss. I wouldn’t rely on it for critical work. Maybe works better with Panny lenses. Or shoot several takes and pray. Certainly you’d want to double check focus with an external monitor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emanuel Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 19 minutes ago, jonpais said: I shot a test myself this morning with the Sigma 16mm f/1.4 at f/2.2, custom AF settings at +1, +3, 29.97p, 179 degree shutter angle and face detect AF. It’s pretty hit or miss. I wouldn’t rely on it for critical work. Maybe works better with Panny lenses. Or shoot several takes and pray. Certainly you’d want to double check focus with an external monitor. Metabones, I suppose? What about native lenses? Or then the Viltrox adapter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.