Jump to content

tupp

Members
  • Posts

    1,135
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by tupp

  1. 2 hours ago, hyalinejim said:

    I'm a sucker for cheap wide angle and have found a nice contender for APSC and speedboosted M43

    It looks good!  Thanks for the test!

    I bought the Canon 10mm-18mm EF-S lens on the strength of this video by @ZEEK:

     

     

    @ZEEK says that the lens works on full frame down to about 14mm, but he mainly uses it with a speedbooster on the EOSM.

  2. 6 hours ago, androidlad said:

    the "Smooth Skin Effect" is a blur effect only, it was added to GFX cameras a long time ago, it does not affect colour.

    Blurring definitely affects color:

    blurred_color_wheel.jpg.6a904998cd536d37b39fdda5d2dd177a.jpg

    Note that there are none of the more saturated tones in the blurred version.

    Likewise, lowering resolution (within the same bit depth) reduces color depth.

     

  3. Sounds like small camcorder with a decent rocker zoom and manual capability would be ideal.

    Markus Pix recently touted the Sony CX405, but it would be smart to look at offerings from other brands:

     

    Tell your friend to put all the cameras side-by-side before shooting, and then to white balance them simultaneously off of the same white/gray card.  Additionally, your friend should shoot a short clip of the white/gray card with each camera -- just in case!

     

  4. 44 minutes ago, FHDcrew said:

    My concern however is privacy. The successor to this project, Robust Video Matting, has the following on its GitHub page: that it was developed at ByteDance Inc. I know this company owns TikTok and are known for storing user data on Chinese servers. My question is, is background matting v2 safe to use? I mean the developers seem like fine people, but the lead developer worked at ByteDance for a while, and just seeing that text I’m the GitHub description I guess got me a little worried. Should I be concerned?

    Robust Video Matting appears to be open source, licensed under the GPL-3.0.

    If that is so, there isn't too much to worry about -- the source code is open for all to scrutinize.

     

  5. 1 hour ago, Attila Bakos said:

    Okay, for those who find this kind of stuff interesting, here is a comparison of Cr channels (with added contrast for easy visualisation) from the C70, X-T3, and X-H2s

    Thanks for comparison!

    The Fuji cameras definitely introduce a significant blotchiness that is not inherent in the Canon footage.

    It would be interesting to see unaltered footage without the added contrast.  I wish that the Canon position/framing was aligned more closely with the Fujis.

  6. 7 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

    Ok, guys. How do I set this thing up? I download two files: crop_rec_4k_mlv_snd_raw_only_2022May30.EOSM202 and Dannephoto-magic-lantern_jip_hop_git-fd976067652d. Ones is 1.7 and the other 67 MB.

    Compiled ML builds are only around 2MB-3 MB.  It appears that one of those files is the git repository (possibly many MB).

    To install ML on your EOSM, follow the instructions at 03:14 in this video by @ZEEK:

     

      

     

    8 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

    I read the FAQ but still confused. Should I just read it again or is there another instruction manual, outside the depths of the ML forum?

    A lot of the ML documentation is way out of date.  It's best to find recent online tutorials and/or post questions at the ML forums.

     

    8 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

    Also, the files are date to the 30th of May. Where do I find older builds, esp the one from 22nd of April which zeek was recommending for 2.5, 2.8K recording, which @webrunner5 posted above?

    I don't know where one can find the older builds.  Perhaps post the question on the ML forums?

  7. 10 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

    ... now that I got a lens adapter and played around a little bit. Liveview in photo mode is completely off on my camera. In video mode it shows right exposure on the monitor. In photo mode it was way too dark. How do I change that?

    [snip]

    I would like to give it a try without ML first. Liveview in video mode is correct in photomode it is way too dark.

    It sounds like you are experiencing a known issue inherent in the first few models of the EOSM (and in some other Canon models) in which the exposure simulation feature is disabled in still photo mode, when manual lenses are mounted.

    Without using Magic Lantern, there are two hardware hacks that will allow the LCD screen show a usable image (but that might not be accurate in regards to exposure):

    1. Mount a smart lens (Canon or other brand) and open the aperture as wide/bright as it will go.  Then, swap out the smart lens with your manual lens.
    2. Get a "preset aperture," lens chip (as shown in the below video) and touch it to the lens mount contacts of your EOSM (or to the contacts on your smart adapter), then mount the manual lens: 

     

    It appears that the Magic Lantern "stable" build has an exposure simulation setting within the "Exposure" tab under the "LV Display" title.

    I'm using a nightly build, and the exposure simulation setting is in a different place within the "Exposure" tab.  I can't get the exposure simulation setting to change from "Movie" mode.  Also, I can't get the ML menu to appear when the top dial on the EOSM is set to manual photo mode.

    The ML menu does appear does appear when that dial is set to the green full-auto mode, and I see the Canon "Exp. Sim." symbol appear on the screen.  However, even in that mode, I still cannot change the exposure simulation setting in the ML menu.

    Magic Lantern "stable" build also offers an "LV Display Gain" setting under the "Display" tab, that evidently  only appears or works in photo mode.  It's may not provide an accurate representation of exposure on the LCD screen, but it should allow framing and focusing.  One can then check the histogram on the recorded images to progressively dial-in the exposure.

    Of course, one could use a light meter to more quickly arrive at the proper exposure.

     

    By the way, a few days ago, @ZEEK released another super16-oriented video on using Soviet/Russian lenses on the EOSM:

     

     

  8. 1 hour ago, MrSMW said:

    Bridge was the answer!

    Renaming the files was the solution (regardless of whether one uses Bridge or one of the other suggested methods).

  9. You can use a simple command or script in the Windows command line ("Power Shell?").  There are several different commands/scripts that will instantaneously rename a batch of your files according to their timestamps.  Once you use a shell command/script two or three times, the command line gets fairly easy (although timestamps can require a lot of variables).

     

    Of course, there are GUI apps that can mostly accomplish the same thing.  I don't use your OS, but a quick web search of Windows renamers that can work with timesta revealed Ant Renamer, which is open source.  Bulk Rename Utility also came up in the search.  There were other apps in the search results, as well.  I can't recommend either as I have never tried them, but I tout open source software for security and for cutting edge features.  There were other apps in the search results, as well.

     

    Of course, for proper chronological sorting, the date and time should precede the shot number in the new file name.  It's probably a good idea to retain the original shot number in the name, just in case you need to reference it in the future.

     

    It might also be wise to include the camera "letter" in the name, directly after the date.  So, you would start with with the Camera A files in one directory/folder and Camera B files, in another directory/folder, and then just batch rename the two directories separately, with their corresponding camera letter in the new names.

     

     

  10. You could do a batch rename of your files according to their time/date stamp, so that the time/date is part of the file name.

    Once you have the right script, it only takes a second to run.

  11. On 6/7/2022 at 4:44 AM, Andrew Reid said:

    So?

    So that was the post to which I was responding.

     

     

    On 6/7/2022 at 4:44 AM, Andrew Reid said:

    It isn't relevant to the patent though.

    I wasn't referring to the patent.

     

     

    On 6/7/2022 at 4:44 AM, Andrew Reid said:

    Have you even noticed that external recorders are allowed to do compressed RAW without violating the RED patent?

    The patent only covers internal compressed RAW recording where the hardware is all integrated in-camera.

    Having an off-board recorder makes the system outside the scope of the RED patent.

    As someone who's name is on one or two patents, I would suggest that such arbitrary claims indicate that a clueless patent examiner possibly rejected/challenged some of the claims.

     

    At the date the RED patent application was filed, there was absolutely no novelty nor innovation in specifying internal or external recording, so it was meaningless to do so (and even detrimental to RED), unless they were trying to appease an examiner who had no clue.

     

    There is another reason that specific, arbitrary claims sometime appear in patents, but I don't think that is the case here.

     

    I sense that the patent is weak, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it can't be successfully defended.

     

     

    On 6/7/2022 at 4:44 AM, Andrew Reid said:

    Have you actually RED the RED patent?

    I suggest you give it a RED!

    Ha, ha!

     

    I briefly scanned the claims of the patent that you linked earlier in the thread.  I might have to take another look at it.

     

  12. 5 hours ago, A_Urquhart said:

    It's a Fly by wire lens isn't it?  If so, then no matter if it's in AF or MF motors 'could' make the adjustment even if it's in MF.

    Saw the lens today at CineGear:

    x-h1s-w-18-120l.jpg.1450e7cc011527f0321e17db797c5951.jpgx-h1s-w-18-120r.jpg.4f9e9eea5e23191b34ba8f1ba16952bf.jpg

    Didn't ask if it's parfocal or completely focus-by-wire, but the rocker-controlled motorized zoom and focus is cool.

    On the other hand, It's doubtful that anyone will be hitting focus marks with the focus rocker switch.

     

     

  13. 3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

    Yes and it's 100% not relevant to the RED Patent on compressed RAW.

    Well, it is 100% relevant to the post in this thread to which is was directed:

    7 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

    I see arguments that the patent is valid because Red were the first to do 4k raw

     

     

    3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

    The Dalsa used an off board recorder for RAW. Equivalent to using an external HDMI recorder today.

    Not sure how that is relevant to my post nor to any patents in question here -- there is nothing novel nor innovative about incorporating a recorder into a camera.  Camcorders had existed for year prior to the release of the Dalsa camera.

     

     

    3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

    The RAW was also completely uncompressed.

    Says right there on your Wiki link:

    "The camera outputs raw data to an off board storage unit at a rate of approximately 400 megabytes per second"

    Nevertheless, RED was not the first "to do 4K raw" -- that honor goes to Dalsa.

  14. 15 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

    I've actually won something from him, so I don't think they are fake. That is though why I was really bummed out when I found out about the other stuff. I've seen first hand the damage people selling fake cures can cause, and when I saw that and the lengths he went to create a fake image of himself it soured me.

    Well, it's reassuring that you actually received a prize.  Was it a camera?

  15. 2 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

    Like I said, I appreciate his camera channel, but he's deep into the pseudo nutrition/health grift. He has no medical background at all and thus shouldn't be giving out medical advice, like how to cure diseases ranging from Erectile dysfunction to brain cancer. If you want to encourage a healthier lifestyle or diet, fine, but his stuff goes well beyond that. 

    It's very hard to find much background information on the guy, as he has invested a lot of money into SEO by having seemingly endless websites for himself. Anything critical of him is buried deep in search results. In addition to articles that criticize his stuff, there are also accounts of him hiring stand-ins to appear while he films material for his promotional videos. It's a bit disingenuous to be promoting yourself as this healer and motivational speaker while using staged footage of you giving speeches to paid stand-ins.

    A lot of the more ridiculous stuff that used to get made fun of on Reddit, or were completely obliterated by science blogs, have been deleted. Example: https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/05/21/i-thought-id-seen-it-all-epigenetic-birth-control

     

    I like most of his camera reviews.

     

    On the other hand, he certainly knows how to fake things.  Makes one wonder if all of his photo gear give-away contests are legit.

     

  16. 7 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

    It did however make me wonder if I should've rigged out the camera more, if for no other reason than to make it look more "professional" and to make the client feel as though she was getting her monies worth.

    How do others handle this, and is it a consideration at all?

    When starting with a new client, I sometimes just build my EOSM with cheap matte box and a top handle, and then put it in a bag.  When they see me pull that rig out of the bag, they think they think I am a total pro!

×
×
  • Create New...