Subforums
-
-
- 28
- posts
17,114 topics in this forum
-
- 527 replies
- 176.2k views
-
- 5.8k replies
- 1.4m views
-
- 21 replies
- 5.9k views
-
- 1 reply
- 10.8k views
-
- 12 replies
- 358 views
-
- 13 replies
- 502 views
-
- 1 reply
- 44 views
-
- 619 replies
- 72.3k views
-
- 81 replies
- 13.7k views
-
- 42 replies
- 2.4k views
-
- 73 replies
- 15.8k views
-
- 511 replies
- 76k views
-
- 12 replies
- 717 views
-
Anyone with a Panasonic S5 II or S9 interested in testing my in-cam ARRI compatible LOG C3 profile? 1 2
- 35 replies
- 8.5k views
-
- 9 replies
- 403 views
-
- 70 replies
- 10.6k views
-
- 42 replies
- 6k views
-
- 29 replies
- 1.7k views
-
- 83 replies
- 8.8k views
-
- 22 replies
- 4.6k views
-
- 1 reply
- 345 views
-
- 234 replies
- 86.8k views
-
- 8 replies
- 3.9k views
-
- 8 replies
- 977 views
-
- 429 replies
- 125.2k views
-
- 88 replies
- 9.4k views
-
- 723 replies
- 224.5k views
-
- 4 replies
- 514 views
-
- 23 replies
- 2k views
-
- 1 reply
- 465 views
-
- 12 replies
- 1.7k views
-
- 11 replies
- 799 views
-
- 22 replies
- 1.3k views
-
- 61 replies
- 5.5k views
-
- 18 replies
- 962 views
-
- 12 replies
- 9.2k views
-
- 33 replies
- 4.9k views
-
- 11 replies
- 1.9k views
-
- 11 replies
- 3k views
-
- 28 replies
- 2.2k views
-
Popular Contributors
-
Forum Statistics
-
Total Topics17.1k
-
Total Posts348.4k
-
-
Member Statistics
-
Posts
-
It is since many years that I take stills out of the video instead of taking pictures, this is why I’m shooting mostly in 8k RAW. I use Resolve, remapped the F4 key to export still, I first grade for the video, copy the timeline so I can do some tweaking to the grade still by still, if I like the result, I hit F4 and export the jpg, if I want to do a complete different edit I export as a tiff and edit in camera RAW. I normally do a quick pass in camera RAW to do the cropping as in Resolve is a pita as you would need to change the timeline resolution. It would be cool to have an AI tool that finds the good ones especially when I use the 180 rules that finds the one with the no motion blur on the face. Right now, is a bit of a tedious move forward/backward. -
Pardon my ignorance, cant you use adobes dng converter to change raw file to dng's ? you can then do anything you want. Well thats how i get my raw files into photoshop cs3 and that has to be older than 2017 lol. I guess there's probably some sort of image loss going on in any conversion however my 58 year old eyes don't notice it. -
By eatstoomuchjam · Posted
Well, that's just great in concept! I'd actually prefer smaller with a smaller screen and a c mount, but if the whole thing is open, I'm sure that mods will come fairly quickly. Looking forward to seeing more from the project! -
By eatstoomuchjam · Posted
Is the last sentence intended a a joke? Lightroom-only subscriptions are $12/month. That's $144/year. In 2017, Lightroom cost $150 and you could use that copy of Lightroom for as long as you wanted. If Adobe released a new version with features that you didn't want or need, you didn't need to buy it. And this might blow your mind, but... about 95% of the "features" that Adobe have added since going to the subscription model are things I don't need, want or use. https://fstoppers.com/apps/creative-cloud-it-time-ditch-adobe-200441 Unfortunately, the version from 2017 has no chance of opening any files that I take with my modern cameras. Previously, I would have probably bought a new version of Lightroom every 2-3 years, as needed, to support my new camera. Now I have to spend 3 times as much to continue using my photo editing software. And again, many of the features that Adobe add are completely disjointed from what I would want. Making me pay 3x as much to keep using the software to support the development of features that I don't want is not a consumer-friendly practice. I'm not sure what malfunction you're having that makes you think that Adobe wouldn't have developed things like better denoising and debayering algorithms if they released new versions of the software that people had to pay for. In fact, they might have spent more time on those things. And if they released a new version that didn't improve that and only added, for example, AI object insertion, I could punish them by not buying it and continuing to use the software I already had. Now, punishing them is also punishing myself because I have to learn to use entirely new software, transfer 20+ years of images in a catalog, and find new plugins (which sometimes don't even exist, such as SRDx which I use to clean up dust from film scans and only works with Photoshop). Do you work for Adobe? You seem really motivated to say how paying more for their software so that they can develop features that many users don't want is somehow good for the users. -
By Clark Nikolai · Posted
I stumbled on this GitHub project. Not sure what to think about it (and suspect it might not be real). They're using the same sensor as the Digital Bolex and 3D printing a similar shaped body. No mention of an A to D board, just the chip going in to a Raspberry Pi. I remember the original Digital Bolex team took a few years to get the sensor's quadrants aligned and to get the colour science sorted out and these guys' sample images look great after only a short time. Maybe all this stuff is just faster to figure out nowadays. https://github.com/lafauxbolex What do others think? If real this would be great! They're changing some things from the original: A M4/3 mount, a big monitor and compressed DNG files.
-
