Jump to content

richg101

Members
  • Content Count

    1,828
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by richg101

  1. 7 hours ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

    Damn, didn't really think about Exacta lenses for a long while & now they make adaptors to M4/3 - they're not fast, but there's some interesting lenses out there.

    Off to ebay I go!

    exakta is the mount where you'll find all of the interesting lenses.  igahee cameras from Germany had a very nice list of third party lens manufacturers.  all of the more exotic european lens makers seemed to be manufacturing in the exakta mount

  2. 1 hour ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

    No there's a challenge!

    What's the Exacta mount lens you are using & which adaptor, more importantly.

    Edit: Sorry, i'm a dumbass! Isco-Gottingen - but still, which mount adaptor?

    Also, did you think about the Schneider Light Meter Lens - not sure it would work, but if anyone could get it working, you could!

    Scroll down a little:

    http://captjack.exaktaphile.com/Schneider%20page.htm

    yep.  it's a 24mm/4 isco lens for exakta, with a exakta-ef adaptor.  Then the ef-bmmcc is handled by a modified bmcc to leica R speed booster 0.64x.  The reason was that since I never use electronic EF lenses I couldn;t justify investing in the proper ef unit - its almost £200 more for the ef version due to the electronics.  The dumb leica version has the same glass but was cheap on ebay so I grabbed it, stuck it on the lathe, taking the thickness to the correct length, and fitted an ef mount to the front.  - the result is a dumb ef adaptor with the 0.64x speed booster glass in there.  the 24mm lens is the first ever 80degree fov lens for slr cameras.  a dog really - terrible resolution, focus direction wrong, the auto aperture knob is not very suitable for video use since it easily gets knocked and you don;t realise!  However I bloody love the body design and way the lens interacts with light.  seems a better match for the smaller sensor too.  at around a 3.5m focus point I have hyperfocal meaning everything is adequately in focus from 2m to infinity.  close shots just need me to set focus using the scale.

    TBH I have never used one of those light meter lenses.  however i expect it has a little dial on the back, so wouldnt need integration to the camera itself.  great idea man!  I have to say though, that I like the idea of sticking the camera at 8ooiso, 180deg shutter, getting a light reading of the sky, and setting the exposure so at one stop closed aperture the sky peaks.  I then know I can be closed one stop to maintain highlights and open up when shots don't include the sky.  the latitude on this sensor is so good as long as it's showing peaking for the sky at 100% in the mid day sun I think the latitude allows for more than adequate exposure for at least a few hours before and after when the base exposure is set.   

     

     

      

  3. 51 minutes ago, DBounce said:

    They need to stop going after Red and Arri and focus on bringing out something affordable enough so that people will pick one up out of curiosity. That way they can build a reputation. Especially if the new cameras are bang for the buck stars.

    Look at the price of the kinemax.  it's pretty much as good, if not, better than the red weapon with dragon 6k sensor, and costs less than an FS7.  The capabilities practically blow everything black magic have to offer out of the water, for very similar prices.  It's not about price with these cameras, it's about the fact that their press releases are written in Chinese that very few people invest in the equipment.  

     

    IMO they'd make more of an impact if rather than developing new cameras they simply put the money into sending out complimentary kinemax's to shooters for review.  

     

    I've seen work from @Rob Bannister using his kine-mini 4k that leaves nothing to be desired - that camera is less costly than the fs5!  

  4. 8 hours ago, Zak Forsman said:

    Something I noticed, I have two bmpcc/ef speed boosters and one was soft in the corners while the other was barely so. Noticed this with my Sigma 18-35mm wide open. Have been using the sharper of the two on my Micro ever since noticing that. The soft-cornered one gets to chill with my Pocket.

    as superb as @Brian Caldwell 's glass is, I've found that on nearly every speed booster I've used or modified the optical cell is usually not perfectly concentrically aligned in the metalwork.  the small set screw that prevents the cell rotating pushes the optics off centre and also at an angle (skewed) meaning the projected image doesn't fall onto the sensor perfectly flat.  so centre will be sharp and corners will be out of focus.   - one side will be focused forward of the in focus middle and the other side will be focused behind the in focus middle area.

     

    my fix has been to remove the set screw all together, remove the lens cell, and then apply a heavier grease which fills the threads more effectively - this means the set screw is no longer needed since the cell wont rotate or move unless you physically adjust it by hand.  

     

    if you want to see what I mean, follow metabones's instructions on how to adjust the back focus of the speed booster: http://www.metabones.com/article/of/infinity-adjustment-speed-booster-only 

    you'll see that when you untighten/tighten the setting screw the cell will shift sideways as the screw makes contact with it.  i think it's because the thread between the optical cell and the metabones adaptor metal work is a bit too loose allowing wobble/skew of the optics.  The application of a heavy silicone based grease fills the thread up so the optic is perfectly centred.  Only then do you obtain the best from the glass in these great adaptors

     

    Obviously without a locking screw the cell is prone to adjust through hand contact if you regularly remove and fit the adaptor, but if it remains on the camera all the time the cell won;t ever change its optimal position. 

  5. 8 minutes ago, AaronChicago said:

    Folks who have the BMMCC. How bright is that red/blue light on the front? Does it seem like it would be annoying for shots where the subject is close to the camera?

    you can adjust brightness and also turn it off

  6. 2 hours ago, Zak Forsman said:

    Did a side by side with my Pocket & Micro. BMPCC Speed Booster + Sigma 18-35mm. Here's what I saw. No earth-shattering differences but differences nonetheless. My feeling is that you would *have* to view them side by side to know which was which.

    • Noise is mildly reduced on the Micro and a touch more monochromatic.
    • Moire is also slightly less aggressive on the Micro. Maybe 20% less?
    • Micro exposes a hair lower than the Pocket. An adjustment of -.15 on the exposure slider in DaVinci on the Pocket footage brought them in line. 
    • Slight color difference between the two. An adjustment on the tint slider of about 6 or 7 points evened them out.

    reduced moire, reduced colour noise, and 60p are all very much needed improvements.  

    do you know how many stops the -15 in resolve equates to?

     

     

  7. 7 hours ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

    Having played with the 4.6k Cdng files, I think RS vs GS is a moot point - boy can you push those files!

    I can totally understand why they decided to just release the Mini 4.6K without GS, as it will simply sell itself with that picture & the DR available.

    Would've taken the hit with the Micro, but if the picture quality/DR is anyways near the 4.6Ks - that'll be one powerful little camera for the money! The only thing is, is that Grant didn't really mention the Micro in his comments - anyone can confirm anything?

    From looking at the sensor manufacturers website they list the new version of the bmpcc sensor with switchable global shutter and capability to do 60p.  It would be my assumption that the sensor within the bmmcc is definitely this new unit - capable of doing 60p, so will likely also have the global shutter, but not enable-able.  I expect rather than a problem with physically implementing the global shutter to work, they're probably not happy with the hit it takes on low light and dynamic range when enabled and have been working on ways to process the readout.  I see no other existing camera that makes use of this sensor (in consumer or industrial camera applications) so I assume bm are the guinea pigs.  Lets hope they work it out and enable the gs function at a later date.  the moment it's confirmed for the future I'll be back on the potential customer list! 

  8. beautiful images there.  Love that little puppydog

    I can't help but wonder whether it might have been the variable ND throttle device that might have been causing some of the colour problems.  I highly doubt fotodiox are using top quality glass  - I've yet to find a flawless product of theirs where there hasn't been at least one major pitfall to the design - usually due to keeping costs down. 

    did you do any tests with the nd throttle not in the signal chain?  

     

  9. Will this update actually affect anyone drastically?  No.

    Have even one of the complainers even pre ordered an Ursa Mini 4.6k?  Probably not.  If I;d have pre ordered I'd either cancel my order or continue with it based on whether the new news affected me.   None of the resellers are taking full payment - most don;t even charge a card until they have stock.  We're lucky BM cameras even exist.  if you want similar images you need to invest in a RED Scarlet W, pay 3-4x as much, and no doubt have to wait for firmware fixes.  these are not consumer products.  They're professional ones with consumer pricetags.  That's the main flaw with BM - their pricing allows entry for consumers who have the time to make things into a soap opera rather than actually using the things they already have.

     

    I hope the bmmcc has the gs enabled either on shipping or later.  if it doesn't I'll not order one.  if it does, I'll wait for samples to be made available and decide from there.

  10. 15 hours ago, Xavier Plágaro Mussard said:

    The adapter is not cheap, but if it does what it says, it is a good investment. It avoids you to buy Sony lenses which are expensive and test pretty bad. 

    as far as I'm aware the sony 55/1.8 outdoes the sigma Art 50mm for out and out optical performance when paired with the 42mpx a7rii.  That said, the 35mm/1.4 with this adaptor..  the adaptor is worth the money to get that 35mm madman running effectively on e-mount if af is important to the shooter.

  11. Please ignore exposure - the shutter speed on the medium format is limited to no faster than 1/500th and it was very bright, but pay special attention to the transition between the hair and the background, the refinement of detail on the hair, the amount of defocus blur, and the detail on the hairs on the back of his ear.  aps-c vs full frame is close, but the difference is there.  stepping up to a bigger format shows clearly the difference despite being 'equivalents' on paper.  this was from around 1.5m away.  the further away the subject, the more pronounced the difference will become.

     

    25195879153_0c98bbb354_o.jpg

    25191995554_8662eca8d3_o.jpg

    25191983554_14c8f90cee_o.jpg

     

  12. 2 minutes ago, araucaria said:

    I find it amusing that label themselfs as professionals (I guess if you get paid you can call yourself pro) don't see the difference. If you read articles about 65mm film on ASC you will hear real professionals talking about the differences and qualities.

    Ever since I found the actual proof, I just lean back and laugh.

    exactly.  if you could get the same look with an aps-c sensor no one would be investing mortgage worthy sums of money on medium format digital backs.  the Alexa65 would not have been developed. etc.

    I've taken pictures with the aptus 10-ii (36mmx56mm sensor) and a 80mm/2.8 and I know the look would be impossible to replicate perfectly with smaller formats.  someone point me in the direction of a 35mm/1.4 for use on aps-c that will match the refinement of image that the 80mm/2.8 on medium format delivers and I'll give them a blowjob, AND SWALLOW!  

     

  13. 5 hours ago, jcs said:

    Folks argued endlessly that the full frame look was real. After I did the A/B tests with backing math folks stopped arguing.

     

    Your test was stacked in favour of the smaller sensor and disregarded how available lenses for each format limit the ability for a smaller format to truly replicate the dof rolloff and overall image quality of a larger format when dof and fov are of utmost importance to a photographer. If there were indeed 25mm f1.0 lenses for aps-c to replicate a 35mm/1.4 lens on full frame the argument would be viable.  but there is no such lens.   I'm coming from a photographic point of view, where 42mpx sensors are available.  No APS-C sensor and lens combination will go anywhere near what a full frame sensor and a 35mm/1.4 sigma will deliver (for refined in focus areas, separation of in focus from out of focus areas, and field of view).  

     

    I'm certain that the difference lies within what dictates hyperfocal distance of formats and focal lengths.  input 'equivalent' lenses into a hyperfocal distance calculator and the equivalent lenses have different hyperfocal distances.  This is directly responsible for the difference in dof rolloff between bigger and smaller sensors.   

  14. I have just read the article once again.  And only wish he'd written it a little more concisely.  We don't need mtf charts within a debate of this kind.  it's not about science.  It's about preference.  I prefer lenses designed and made before the digital era since they have been used to capture what I consider the best material.  i see most of what has been produced in the digital age to be far inferior to what was produced before.

    One thing i do know is that if you take a picture of someone with a helios 44 or any 6 element 50mm prime from before the 1990's, then the same picture with the sigma art 50/1.4, the person will prefer the image taken with the older lens.  A Sigma Art lens is like the hobbit being filmed/delivered in 48fps.  Both defy a convention that's been built over decades.  24fps look like cinema.  older lenses render an image closer to the look of the proper hollywood days.

     

              

     

  15.  

    14 minutes ago, richg101 said:

     

    on paper the f3 has less dr than the a7s and the a7rii, but imo I'm seeing more usable dr from the f3.  the roll off of blown highlights feels more gradual.  shadows also feel cleaner and more refined- even on the 35mbs internal - which I happen to think is more durable than the xavc-s 50mbs of the a7 range.

  16. 7 minutes ago, araucaria said:

    Yesterday I was browsing through your flickr and when I saw the latest images, I was all like -what kind of invention has that bastard come up with to make the helios look like medium format-, but then I saw it they were in fact medium format :glasses:24551461593_c84c555c0f_k.jpg

    Oval aperture on the 80mm xenotar...

  17. hahahaha.  I saw on the youtube title 'P+S' and assumed you;d used a P+S 35mm adaptor, and was amazed by the image quality - i've not seen much dof adaptor stuff that comes close to Forbes, but I was impressed and thought about looking for a cheap one to pull apart and see what they were doing with theirs, see if i could learn some tricks.  then I realised it was infact a 'point and shoot' rather than a P+S 35mm adaptor.  Regardless, each camera looked lovely.   

  18. Well, I couldn't find a reason not to take a punt on a f3 that was going too cheap.  ended up getting a fully unlocked, rgb/slog PMW-F3 for just under £1400 with a full rig/riser setup, and a few different mounts.  I have to say, I'm blown away by how this camera captures light.  gonna be taking a 3g sdi out into a pix240 for 444 uncompressed, or into a a newer recorder for prores 4444.  

  19. I'd be interested to know how you kept rolling shutter issues at bay during the car shots..  I know from experience any bumps in the road can really show the rs problems of the a7rii.  or is the hyperspeed doing well to mask any wobble?

  20. 6 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

    Insane run 'n gun?  I don't know about that.  Looks like it's less demanding than what most, documentary, news, corporate, and wedding shooters have been doing for decades.

    bit harsh don;t you think?

    I don't know.  From the looks of it, they spent quite a few hours driving around the streets taking an awful lot of effort at night risking arrest and personal injury, for an artistic/political cause.  I expect at the time the shooter was under a lot of pressure to get the shots while keeping a look out for authorities. At least he's made a finished piece!  

     

    I personally enjoyed the film.  looks nice.  well edited. serves the purpose.

  21. The article is written in a techincal fashion by someone with no technical knowledge.  But the points he's making I think on the whole are valid.

     

    Mathematics aside,  old lenses provide a 'look' that's more appealing.  not to tech heads or spec sheet readers, but to real people who actually take pictures and use their equipment.  A 24bit/96khz uncompressed audio file should sound better than a 12" vinyl single, but it doesn't to my ears.

     

    Transformers movies on paper are shot with cameras and lenses that far outdo those used for The Godfather, Apocalypse Now, etc.  Which look more appealing?  The older films.

  22. being able to step into a scene and measure the light levels on all of the surfaces in the scene and quickly increase or reduce certain lights to feed a given camera correctly will speed up your working and allow much more integrated working relationship with the gaffer.

  23. i'll wait for the dxo test of the G 24-70.  Sony won;t get away with selling a modern 24-70 that doesnt deliver on their flagship camera.  it'll have been optimised and since there is no mirror to hinder the design approach the sony g will certainly outdo the canon.  the above comparison shows that the aps-c lens has almost twice the chromatic aberration.  - double the CA equates to a lot more usable perceived resolution loss IMO

  24. Just now, BrorSvensson said:

    but the 24-70 2.8 is designed for a much bigger sensor than the a6300 (full frame) so you wont be taking advantage of the enitre lens and get all the sharpness while the 16-70mm is made for apsc.

    the 24-70/2.8 is designed with the a7rii in mind..  so even cropping into it, the lens will outdo most purpose built aps-c lenses.

×
×
  • Create New...