Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tupp

  1. I shot some EOSM 14-bit raw clips of a fitness instructor, and threw together this video: This is not a 8mm nor 16mm crop mode -- it's full APS-C, "1080" crop. However, it is the first time that I have seriously shot raw with the EOSM. Mostly I have used Tragic Lantern's all-I h264 mode with boosted bit rate.
  2. Here is a video with more details. They appear to be broadcast oriented, and Bosma seems to have some affiliation with Astrodesign.
  3. I think an earlier Bosma camera appeared at BIRTV in 2019, but here are the two more recent models shown at NAB 2022 (sorry for the subpar image quality): I think that the one with the AC-side LCD screen is brand new.
  4. GIMP is not only free -- it is also open source. Are you testing raw stills, jpeg stills or video frames?
  5. These projection fixtures might not be best for your application. Please post what you are trying to do and please post links to all the items you mention.
  6. As I recall, the noir SD piece was shot on a Panasonic DVX-100A, but this 240P trailer is all I ever saw of the footage. In regards to the clips from the short, a Panasonic AF-100 captured the interior sequences, and the exteriors of the woman on the street were shot with a Canon T3i and vintage Nikkor glass.
  7. @ZEEK has made another EOSM Super16 instructional video!:
  8. I found a couple of black & white projects that I shot awhile back. Here is a noir trailer that was made to raise funds for a feature (sorry it's tiny SD): Here are some random (and highly compressed) clips from a black and white short cut to music:
  9. It appears that Fuji is essentially using wavelet/frequency-separation in the chroma channels to isolate and blur certain areas. I tried that scenario on your "5D3 Raw" chroma channel image (captured from your Resolve viewer with MPV), using the Darktable Contrast Equalizer module: I didn't get it to look exactly the same as the X-T3 chroma channel image, but the "blotchiness" achieved is fairly similar. Here is the curve used in the Contrast Equalizer module: The scale from left to right delineates coarse patterns to fine patterns in the image. The mostly flat line going through the center is the sharpness curve, and the "S-shaped" line is the smoothing curve. Many use the Contrast Equalizer for denoising and sharpening, but in such applications, the smoothing curve always lies below the sharpening curve. Nobody ever inverts the two curves as shown on the right side of the graph. I also used the Soften module with a parametric mask to add extra blur to the brighter areas, because the Contrast Equalizer did not provide enough blur. The excessive chroma blurring from the X-T3 way too much for demosaicing, and it's extreme overkill for noise reduction. There also seems to a bit of coarse pixelation revealed when you zoom-in in your video, so perhaps Fuji is additionally doing a pseudo chroma subsampling. Whatever Fuji is doing (and for whatever reason), the process is effectively reducing the color resolution, which results in a perceptible loss of color depth. The X-T3 is excessively lowering the effective chroma resolution with blurring, which dramatically reduces the color depth. The raw files don't have that problem, because their resolution is not being reduced. The "processing" is likely something similar to what I have shown above, and it essentially is reducing the color resolution, hence the lower color depth. Remember, with digital imaging: COLOR DEPTH = RESOLUTION x BIT DEPTH By the way, when are you going to take back that lie you told about me?
  10. Very nice presentation! The "washed-out" colors from the Fuji files perfectly demonstrate a fundamental imaging principle: Color depth is a direct function of resolution and bit depth. Here is the color depth formula for RGB digital systems: COLOR DEPTH = (RESOLUTION x BIT DEPTH)³ The Fuji color smoothing (or any other chroma sub-sampling method) reduces the resolution of the chroma channels, and, thus, reduces the color depth -- even though the bit depth remains unchanged! The video mentions that Fuji files yield a UHD luma channel and HD chroma channels. However, it certainly appears that the Fuji chroma smoothing reduces the effective chroma resolution to significantly less than HD, which makes your comparisons a dramatic example of how resolution affects color depth. By the way, the reason that the Fuji jpeg stills have better color depth (even with the Fuji chroma smoothing) is likely due to the fact that they have a higher resolution. Thanks for these comparisons!
  11. Thank you for the clarification! I wonder if their licensing of the Olympus trademark requires ongoing payments, which JIP wants to cease.
  12. One could ask those same questions if the situation were merely that some marketing person with zero sense of history had a whim to do a "rebrand." By the way, the derivation of the new name is demonstrated by the video at the top of this web page. Never underestimate the incompetence of corporate executives and marketing people.
  13. It seems that one has to register to see the live camera announcement on Tuesday. Hooray for the social media event planners!
  14. Evidently, they will announce a new camera, according to the graphic at the end of this video. That would be my guess. Even the most vapid, short-sighted, self-absorbed marketing person couldn't be stupid enough to throw away a venerable brand name such as Olympus.
  15. @ZEEK just posted another EOSM, Magic Lantern, Super-16, instructional video, involving vintage glass. Magic Lantern offers square aspect ratios, but @ZEEK states that he prefers a wider frame.
  16. Tragic lantern and another special ML build will give you ALL-I H264, as well. You can get continuous, raw, ML video on the full sensor (1736x976), plus a bunch of crop modes with higher resolution.
  17. @ZEEK posted these figures a little over a year ago: Evidently, the 2.8K mode is closest to BMPCC, and it works with Super16 lenses. However, it would be wise to watch some of the EOSM settings videos from @ZEEK , to see how much the resolution must be reduced to get continuous recording. Also, I think that reducing the resolution creates a smaller image capturing area.
  18. The thing is, they don't looks the same. The testers even acknowledge that fact on the video (but they dismiss it). Furthermore, they didn't actually set the cameras to look the same -- they set the cameras mathematically, according to the DOF formula, but they disregarded any inaccuracies in the aperture markings, and they apparently didn't match the effective location of the apertures. Well, there actually seems to be general differences in the DOF from optics designed for different formats. The difference is not in the location of the front/back DOF -- the difference is in how the focus generally "falls off" within and without the DOF range. Unfortunately, like 99.99% of all such equivalency tests, we can't see how the focus falls off nor can we see the location of the front and back limits of the DOF range. Here is what we see in the videos main test : SOFT FG OBJECT >> AIR >> SHARP SUBJECT >> AIR >> SOFT INTERMEDIATE BG OBJECT >> AIR >> SOFT OPAQUE BG WALL Most such tests don't include the foreground object nor the intermediate background object, so I will give them credit for adding those items. However, to properly conduct any DOF or equivalency test there must be a continuous ruled surface (or continuous line of closely-spaced, uniform objects) that runs from the near foreground to the distant background. Such a proper set up will reveal the locations of the front/back DOF extremes and how the focus falls-off at those points and elsewhere.
  19. There are too many typical blunders and erroneous assumptions in this slipshod equivalency test to make it conclusive or worthwhile. Additionally, the testers are biased at the outset. Like almost all other such tests, the results suggest a difference between formats, which the testers acknowledge but dismiss.
  20. Looks like a great mic! Was Line Audio really forced to change the model name because of Olympus?
  21. Cinematographers have long been using vintage lenses with digital on Oscar-nominated films. Only relatively recently have shooters on smaller projects commenced utilizing the beautiful character of vintage glass. Certainly, a lot of beautiful and powerful cinematography has been created in the square format, but it is perplexing why anyone would shoot an entire project with anamorphic glass only to crop it square in post. To make such square imagery impactful, one usually must compose for that for that format while shooting. If they did so using framing guides, then one wonders how they could reconcile all that wasted image space (and wasted sensor resolution). Are linear flares and oval highlights worth the sacrifice? In regards to Oscar-nominated films only using Alexas and mostly vintage glass, here is an interview with the DP of "Ex Machina" (2014), in which he explains why he used the combination of old Xtal Express glass with a Sony F65.
  22. Let's hope that they put more effort and resources into developing, manufacturing and supporting future cameras.
  23. Ha, ha, ha! I think that you have "defied the moment!"
  24. Okay, but this vague, flimsy marketing announcement has all the hallmarks of "penny wisdom and pound foolishness" that is typical of venture capital brand acquisitions. No doubt, the Japanese V.C. firm didn't write those shallow, "archy" lines -- they probably hired an American PR firm. Hopefully, they will put a lot more resources into development. manufacturing and support than they put into their marketing.
  • Create New...