Jump to content

Amro Othman

Members
  • Posts

    167
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Amro Othman

  1. On 6/5/2020 at 6:00 PM, heart0less said:

    Dear lens enthusiasts,

    I plan on doing a showoff of my adapted projection lenses with a little comparison to 'normal' consumer glass.
    Initial plan was to put the camera on a tripod, put a tiny something around 70 cm in front of it, then have a human subject (most likely me) sit around ~ 2m in front of the camera and, finally, some deep background with just a bit bokeh in it.
    Rack focus between those three.

    Time and place of shoot: golden hour, somewhere outside, non-controlled environment.

    No color charts (I don't have any), no corner-to-corner sharpness tests.

    Maybe I'll manage to put an anamorphic adapter in there, too.


    A visualization of what I have in mind (apart from the color chart):
    Examples taken from this test.

    image.png.0f3f17b206d967f701ac96096004e6de.png

    image.png.5b11f4cf9fa783b8aa65bf134559eef3.png

    image.png.1bc07a866e6dc1d48f3153202b144aac.png

    Thoughts?

     

    Wow! So much depth. I can feel the spaces in between the objects :)

     

  2. 19 hours ago, Matthew Capowski said:

    I would be curious to see the difference if you already have screen captures handy, thanks!

    X-T3, I wouldn't have guessed.  It looked really good.

    We live in an age where a little Fuji gives cinematic results when you pair with the right lens :)

    Anyway I am uploading both images. The warmer and brighter one is the Sigma. Same WB. I THOUGHT I had the same F-stop on both lenses but they look so different that I probably had the Sigma at least a stop higher and didn't realise. I will have to do a test carefully to be sure!

    Selections Pt 1.00_03_37_20.Still002.jpg

    Selections Pt 1.00_03_39_09.Still003.jpg

  3. On 5/27/2020 at 11:08 AM, Matthew Capowski said:

    I was curious about the lens.  This lens has a reputation as being high contrast. Any filters on it in this shot?  What camera was this lens paired with? It looks good.

    Yes it is contrasty. It also rendered the colours very differently from the Sigma ART 18-35... so much so that I was shocked. I can post the images if you're interested. I don't think I had a filter on the lens for the interior shots-b ut if I did it would just be a Hoya CPL.

    As for the camera, it's the trusty Fuji X-T3 on a Ronin S :)

  4. On 5/27/2020 at 3:02 AM, kye said:

    Not a d*ck, but it's a tough ask doing a blind test online because:

    • people getting things wrong is embarrassing and this wasn't anonymous and the internet never forgets
    • lenses are a lot more similar to each other than any of us would like to admit so its actually a ridiculously difficult thing to do (don't tell anyone.....shhhhh)

    Yeah, totally agreed! But there is something about this lens, it renders so nicely. It really looks 3D in certain shots (I know that the lens is only part of the equation, but it's still a big part!)

     

  5. On 5/14/2020 at 3:09 AM, Amro Othman said:

     

     

    I've found my favourite lens ever guys. Totally has surpassed the PEN-F 38mm f1.8. 

    Can anybody guess which one it is? Hint: it's a Carl Zeiss made in Japan :)

     

    Ok nobody guessed and maybe I was being a d*ck by playing a guessing game- so the lens is a Zeiss Distagon ZE 35mm F2.0 ❤️

  6. On 8/13/2017 at 7:58 PM, Mark Romero said:

    Because I don't always trust my eyes, I hope you can all help me out here confirming either way:

    - The a6500 looks to be the softest (unsurprisingly), right???

    - The RX10 III looks to have the most noise, right????

    -The GH5 and the Leica seem to be the sharpest???

    - the a7S II colors are very... ummm... "Sony Green"???

    Is this what other people are seeing too???

     

    I think the first shot with the A6500 was a bit out of focus- because the second shot at higher ISO seemed much sharper to me.

  7. 39 minutes ago, maxotics said:

    As much as I want to divert the thread in a discussion of annoying my family with FX ;) .... I recorded another podcast last night on the Tascam 70D.  No matter how many times I told them to regulate their voices, by how they sounded in their headphones, they still often talked too loud, or too softly.  A technically proficient friend of mine who was there then became annoyed with me that I didn't keep changing the levels.  My response was it was hopeless and the podcast is just a family thing anyway (doubt anyone would find it very entertaining).   As I mentioned above, my response to JCS's recommendation of the Sound Devices is to taser people, but that's clearly not possible.  So if I was going to do a professional podcast I can't see how I wouldn't want the analogue limiters of the Sound Devices, or other professional gear.  

    So I'd like to hear from @jcs, or others, just how valuable, or not, those analogue limiters are in their work.

     

    You don't need to change the levels manually while recording. If you are recording in 24bit then you have a lot of headroom. Just make sure the loudest level that you are recording isn't clipping the converters. Clipping can be heard as harsh digital distortion and seen as the red light on an audio meter.  

    What you need is compression during or after recording. I'm not sure but I would guess your Tascam would have a built-in compressor, but you can probably get better results by using software compression in post.  What a compressor does is takes the quiet sections and raises them up, and the loud sections and squashes them down. However this can sound bad if the quiet parts are so low that the compressor drives up the noisefloor to distracting levels, so you need to make sure the voices are all recorded at a moderate distance from the mic.

    If you want I can edit your podcast for free, send it to amroth@gmail.com. Tell me what software you use to edit your podcast and I can advise on a free/ cheap solution for compression in post.

  8. I hate apple keyboards, even the older one is a POS. I use a 2015 iMac at work and have to suffer every day because I use Pro Tools and the function keys are very important. With a regular keyboard the function keys are nice and big and are separated in groups of 4. So tired of hitting the wrong key over and over again. I will probably have to buy a keyboard just to restore my sanity while working on intense sessions. 

    You'd think that they only make their MBP keyboard shit because they are chasing thinner and thinner bodies. So now they decided to cheap out even more and make the desktop users suffer too! Haha, [deleted]

  9. Oh indeed, I should mention that when I got mine it was $650 and my ex-fiancee got it as a birthday present (since then I was married for 4 days before divorce, and had to pay her over $20k BUT I DIGRESS).

    I don't know why they put the price up but I definitely wouldn't recommend getting it now at $850. The MixPre3 is indeed cheaper, much newer etc. Also I record music and the output latency on the USBPre2 does leave a little to be desired... 

    By the way, if you want cheap but great quality, then check out the Audient iD14. I have that and it punches waaay above its weight in terms of pre-amps and conversion!

  10. Music (and poor vocals) will certainly not be to everybody's taste. And to be honest I did rush the mix and edit to make the deadline for a youtube competition...

    But other than that I hope you guys find it amusing nevertheless!

     

×
×
  • Create New...