Jump to content

cantsin

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    948

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by cantsin

  1. cantsin
    Sorry, but your posting is completely confused. You're mixing up crop factors and sensor resolution - the two things are completely unrelated!
  2. cantsin
    Please read this whole thread and the original EOSHD article. You'll find all the information there.
  3. cantsin
    We had covered this earlier in this thread. Yes, full manual shutter, aperture and ISO control with the V2 in burst mode, both with system lenses and with adapted lenses.
  4. cantsin
    Tried it now. It is more compatible to c-mount-to-M43rds adapters than the original Zeiss Jena c-mount, but only works with very thin c-mount adapters. It's really a question of a few millimeters (or even micrometers) whether or not you will get infinity focus. Most of my adapters failed except this one (which fortunately is very cheap): http://cgi.ebay.nl/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230832760732#ht_3712wt_1165
  5. cantsin
    Test with a just-bought Canon TV16 13mm/1.5: A good lens, but very blurry left and right sides at f1.5 to f2.8, usable at f4 and clean at f5.6-f16 (at f22, diffraction makes the lens blurry as a whole). Unfortunately, I can't show the test images here because my upload quota is exhausted.
  6. cantsin
    I ordered it last week for my 10mm Tevidon and will post an update here as soon as it has arrived.
  7. cantsin
    Tevidons don't fully screw into Micro Four Thirds Adapters unless modified, and thus don't reach infinite focus. That's the case with a lot of c-mount lenses (for example, most unmodified Fujinons). General advice for people reading this thread: Don't buy a c-mount lens unless you are 100% sure that it [a] fits the adapter and covers 1". Odds that you will be lucky are very, very low.
  8. cantsin
    Silver one. The Century 9mm is very unsharp/foggy unless stepped down.
  9. cantsin
    Ernitec 6.5mm/1.8 (specified for 1") works great - but as a fisheye lens: Century 9mm/1.8 (probably a 1" lens) works but is not a good lens: Schneider 10mm/1.8 vignettes: Switar 10mm/1.6 with slight vignette & blurry corners: Fujinon 12.5mm/1.4 works, with blurry corners: Schneider Xenon 16mm/2.0 works, with blurry corners unless stopped down: Schneider Xenoplan 17mm/1.7 works but is very blurry in the corners: Navitar/Ernitec 17mm+25mm/0.95 works, but with very blurry corners and strong barrel distortion: Bottom line: c-mount lenses <25mm that aren't explicitly specified for 1" might somehow cover the 1"/s16 sensor, but typically with strong blurs at the left and right corners of the image. In that light, the information in this thread has to be taken with a grain of salt.
  10. cantsin
      The Digital Bolex project should be a warning example. (I personally doubt that its Kickstarter backers will ever get what they expected.) And Digital Bolex even had/has some corporate backing, too. Hardware is a completely different beast than software, and orders of magnitude more complex to get right (and shipped in numbers). Besides, it is very hard if not impossible to build a camera as an Open Source community project and not run into serious patent/IP trouble.   But these projects do exist. Just have a look at the Apertus camera project.
  11. cantsin
      10 seconds burst at 24fps, with 5 MB/frame, would be 1.2 GB data. The camera's buffer holds about 16-17 raw full resolution pictures, each weighing about 32 MB; that amounts to a likely 512 MB SDRAM buffer memory. And the question still is whether the live view signal can be written, purely via a software hack, into that buffer at all. So I wouldn't hold my breath.
  12. cantsin
      Yes, and in the discussion thread on their Facebook page, they unmistakably say: "This is not RAW video. It is RAW silent-pics."
  13. cantsin
      While the excitement is understandable, people need to put this into perspective. This "raw video" feature is the same as on the Nikon V1/V2 - high speed burst mode stills with no audio, and limited by the camera's buffer size and bus speeds. Take this as an experimental feature, not as something stable and reliable for a production camera.
  14. cantsin
      In theory, if you dump raw bits onto the unformatted card. In practice, you have to calculate in file system overhead. In order to reliably write real 120MB/s onto a card (and that would exclude audio!), you would need a card specified for 180MB/s or more.
  15. cantsin
      How? RAW isn't debayered so it can't be sent to HDMI.
  16. cantsin
    Andrew, what is your source for the following statement: "At the moment it doesn’t record video but it is expected to be capable of 24fps"? I don't think that the 5DMkII, with its ancient processor, can write 24*5 MB=120 MB/s to a CF card.
  17. cantsin
    Here's a little one by me:
  18. cantsin
    To quote the site that you linked to: "raw burst slows from 4.2fps at 17 shots". That should answer your question.
  19. cantsin
    Based on the these two clips, I would say yes, depending on your individual goals and ambitions of course. Even in 720p, the first one looks like digital cinema (probably identical to the quality you get out of a Blackmagic Cinema Camera or A-cam dll), the second like amateur video. Thanks for this!
  20. cantsin
    No - because you get an in-camera-debayered/color-rendered, in-camera-noise filtered 8bit signal with this mode as well. Compared to shooting raw with the Nikon 1, you don't get the quality gains from oversampling in post.
  21. cantsin
    Yes, it is. It makes absolutely no sense if you are a mainstream (or even a professional) videomaker. It's similar to cooking some esoteric high end food whose preparation takes 10 hours instead of fixing a normal meal in half an hour. It's practically unusable for documentary or narrative filmmaking. But if you are an experimental filmmaker, an animator, or someone who makes very short but strongly visual films (which could also be an advertising clip or a music video), or maybe even someone who still dabbles with analog 16mm filmmaking, hand-developing and esoteric lab processes, then this can be more satisfying than dealing with the limitations of standard video. As regards to oversampling, the downscaling algorithms in cameras are a big problem. They actually decrease image quality because they need to work in real time on the relatively slow camera hardware. It's not just the in-camera downscaling that is inferior btw., but also the in-camera debayering of the raw sensor data into an RGB signal, and of course the in-camera encoding into 8bit MPEG-4 video (all of which a GH1 needs to do within 1/30 of a second). Think of the camera chip as the worst quality, quickest-and-dirtiest raw converter that exists, particularly in video mode. Conversely, you pay with a lot of processing time on your computer that will be spent when you shoot raw and develop each frame with some raw converter software.
  22. cantsin
    That depends on the frame rate of your project, and whether you want (a brief moment of) slow motion, normal speed or accelerated speed. (But, without wanting to be impolite to you, if you are new to these things, then you really shouldn't make movies with the Nikon 1 raw "hack", but use the standard video recording function of your camera. What we're discussing here is borderline esoteric geek stuff for quality freaks and experimentalists.)
  23. cantsin
    Don't use iMovie. It uses a very weak, old, 8bit/4:2:0 codec for all its projects, Apple Intermediate Codec (AIC). You'll throw away most - most likely: all - of the advantages you get from the Nikon 1/raw workflow if you edit in iMovie (or a similar entry level video editing programs).
  24. cantsin
    It totally depends on your workflow. If you transform your images to ProRes HQ videos and edit in that, there will be no problem at all. I do that with a slower computer than your's.
  25. cantsin
    There are at least four advantages to shooting this way, even if your rendered film will be 1080p: 12 Bits color depth (as opposed to 8bit color of standard DSLR video codecs) are a quantum leap in image quality, giving you 48 times more color information per pixel. This results in a much improved dynamic range, radically improved possibilities for grading, changing white balance in post and, if necessary, fixing exposure. In 8bit codecs, on the other hand, dynamic range is limited to 8 f-stops or, when a greater dynamic range gets squeezed into 8bits, color banding. zero compression artefacts/codec degrading in the footage. using the extra resolution to crop/zoom into the image in post. This also drastically improves the results of software stabilization. oversampling and scaling to 1080p gives an ultra-detailed image where every single pixel is sharp. (Sometimes even too sharp...)
×
×
  • Create New...