Subforums
-
The EOSHD YouTube Channel (22,897 visits to this link)
17,240 topics in this forum
-
- 1.2k replies
- 439k views
-
- 9.1k replies
- 2.5m views
-
- 0 replies
- 1.1k views
-
- 700 replies
- 291.9k views
-
- 5.8k replies
- 1.8m views
-
- 1.8k replies
- 724.2k views
-
- 0 replies
- 8 views
-
- 120 replies
- 21.4k views
-
- 21 replies
- 1.1k views
-
- 16 replies
- 226 views
-
- 7 replies
- 195 views
-
- 6 replies
- 209 views
-
- 2 replies
- 132 views
-
- 4 replies
- 377 views
-
- 68 replies
- 35.8k views
-
- 1 reply
- 271 views
-
- 3 replies
- 274 views
-
- 554 replies
- 250.7k views
-
- 10 replies
- 580 views
-
- 0 replies
- 273 views
-
- 1 reply
- 328 views
-
- 1 reply
- 319 views
-
- 2 replies
- 456 views
-
- 16 replies
- 1.3k views
-
- 1 reply
- 996 views
-
- 5 replies
- 1.1k views
-
- 0 replies
- 191 views
-
- 20 replies
- 30.4k views
-
- 141 replies
- 44k views
-
- 31 replies
- 4k views
-
- 47 replies
- 16.4k views
-
- 0 replies
- 381 views
-
- 21 replies
- 2.6k views
-
- 95 replies
- 38k views
-
- 12 replies
- 10.3k views
-
- 8 replies
- 944 views
-
- 6 replies
- 2.3k views
-
- 36 replies
- 3.5k views
-
- 64 replies
- 35.6k views
-
- 468 replies
- 128.8k views
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
-
Forum Statistics
-
Total Topics17.2k
-
Total Posts351.1k
-
-
Member Statistics
-
Posts
-
I'm idly contemplating buying a Metabones Ultra 0.64x speed booster for my GH7. This would take me into the world of EF for the first time. I'm completely familiar with speed boosting and crop factors and all that jazz, with years of experience from my 0.71x M42 to MFT speed booster and (many) M42 lenses. What's the deal with speed boosting to EF? Is the Ultra 0.64x worth it over the normal 0.71x adapter? (they seem to be similarly priced used). Is there a different one I should consider (other than Metabones)? Essentially I'd be getting it to shoot shallow DOF (like I do with my M42 Takumar 50mm F1.4, etc) but with more modern / cleaner results as M42 lenses are quite vintage and far dirtier than fast EF glass, especially when shooting wide open. AF is of little importance to me, so I'd be expecting manual focus. -
Like almost everything of value! Seriously though, one of the best reality checks you can do is to find the all-time best examples of whatever you're doing and study them. When I did this it basically took almost every one of my previous references and relegated them to below 5/10, and made the 'most recent' on YT and streaming platforms look like toddlers playing with crayons.
-
100% - I'd assume that this was the best image that an expert with all the other associated equipment was able to get with a decent travel budget and after a decent period of having it. I've always maintained that there are three useful references for a piece of equipment: The best images that anyone is able to create This shows the upper limit of its potential The images that competent reviewers get This shows the type of images that people of moderate skill are able to get in non-ideal conditions The worst images You never get to see these until you get one yourself, but in theory this would show how fragile/flexible the camera is (for example you can expose an Alexa pretty horribly wrong and still get a half-decent image from it, but try that with a camcorder and it's a complete disaster) The promo is only the first category, and the fact there are only a few shots in there is a statement in itself. I think the 15mm is a lot better than people make out, but of course most discourse online is from people who think that a Zeiss Otus is the ideal lens and that Michael Bay doesn't use large enough apertures. To be honest, when reading / listening to most opinions now I am just hearing that the person hasn't been to the cinema for years, hasn't watched any/much classic cinema, and isn't even familiar with the saying "F8 and be there" let alone thinks that it is the cornerstone of almost all the important photography in the history of the field. I was always interested in the 9mm but as I bought the SLR Magic 8mm F4 as one of the first lenses I bought, then upgraded to the Laowa 7.5mm F2 lens later on, the selection of slow wider pancake lenses was never really justified for me. Right, I guess that makes the moon shot even easier then. If you have enough light then almost any camera will look pretty good. Looking at the mount again, there doesn't appear to be any visible mechanism to attach the lens.. I'm wondering if this might be a magnetic mount of some kind, like MagSafe perhaps. If that's true then it might just be a matter of pulling the lens off and snapping another one on. That would certainly fit with the GoPro ethos of it being a fast no-nonsense experience.
-
By Clark Nikolai · Posted
I agree. I've been around computers since the '80s and Resolve just has too much clutter as well as non-intuitive locations for features. If it wasn't free for the non-pro version and wasn't multi-platform it wouldn't be as popular as it is. So many people I know use it only because it's free or they have a PC and can't run Final Cut. They waste so much time trying to do things though. I found it interesting teaching FCPX to people who have edited before compared to those who have never. The ones who knew other NLEs found it spooky. Things seemed to be moving on their own and they didn't understand why. For those with other NLE experience it does take training. But for someone who has never used an NLE they get it very quickly. I've seen people up and editing away after only a half hour of instruction. It's had a renaissance since the initial freak-out when it was first launched. Lots of pros use it now. I've used it on TV series and on feature films. As an assistant editor it's a dream to work on. But the thing is, unlike that past, it's now pretty easy to move a sequence from one NLE to another so it kind of doesn't matter anymore what someone is using, you can manage to hand it off to someone else. You no longer have to use the same stuff as the others on the team. Sounds exciting. I guess that's my main suggestion; being able to appear simple when all you're doing is cutting and only show the detailed options when you need them. -
By fuzzynormal · Posted
Honestly, if you just re-made a version of FCP circa 1999, but it had good color control, I think that sort of NLE would have a chance at success. For me, and the way I work, I've found that all editing should be holistic and contextual to have a project emerge in a satisfying way. For instance, new-finagled tools like text-based editing with transcribed audio ends up being more of a time-suck than an effective technique. That might seem counter-intuitive, but for me the quick decisions that tool allows often leads to narrative dead-ends; I get cuts that "read well," but don't feel elegant -- so I ultimately end up not using those sorts of choices and going back to re-do stuff. I guess I'm saying there doesn't seem to be short cuts, pardon the pun, to a quality edit, so maybe just keep the NLE tool as elegant and simple as can be?
-
