Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by tupp

  1. I forgot where I got my dummy battery that works on both my E-M10 III and my E-PL6.  However, here is one listing on the USA Amazon.


    You can also get the dummy battery with power adapters for USB batteries or you can attached the linked dummy battery to an AC power adapter that outputs 7v-8V.  Of course, you could just use inexpensive Sony NP-F batteries (nominal voltage 7.4V), and choose one with a large capacity.


    The nominal voltage of most consumer/pro-sumer cameras is 7.4V, but many such cameras have a built-in voltage regulator that accepts a range higher and lower than the nominal voltage.  However, I always try to supply the nominal 7.4 volts into the camera, so that the camera's internal voltage regulator doesn't have to do a lot of work, possibly heating up and causing sensor noise.

  2. 2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:
    3 hours ago, sanveer said:

    what profile did you shoot it in? The lens has an interesting character. I am guess, all this was internal?

    An odd mix of F-LOG, Eterna, HLG and Film Simulations (Chrome). If you're wondering why grade is all over the place that's why


    If you have a Ninja V, you could try the new 12-bit raw (and the new 10-bit 422 profiles) on your GFX100.

  3. 13 hours ago, IronFilm said:

    Are we sure this was a ransom attack, and not just simply Canon's servers overheating and shutting down?

    Or, Canon just used a "ransomware attack" as an excuse to intentionally cripple their servers.



    6 hours ago, kye said:

    I have my own domain name and so anything-whatsoever-I-can-think-of@mydomain all goes into my inbox.

    I do the same thing!

  4. 4 hours ago, leslie said:

    i'm almost sold on one of these, however i cant seem to find a remote cable release for it.  [snip]  I need the remote release to allow an Arduino to control the shutter.

    There is no cable release of which I am aware, but one can release the shutter through the wifi app.  Not sure how one can control the wifi app with an Arduino.


    4 hours ago, leslie said:

    From what i have been able to google the older models have provision for it but the e m10 iii doesn't. Am i going to lose much if i go to the older m10 ii or E-M1 II ?

    The E-M10 II can use a cable release, but it's max video resolution is Full HD.  The video is nice quality.


    Most of the advantages of the E-M10 III involve the uncropped 4.6K and IBIS 4K video, as mentioned in the EOSHD article.


    I don't know anything about the E-M1 II.


    You could also get of the less expensive, used/refurb Olympus E-PL models (no built-in EVF) and just use it for your unattended, Arduino stills.


  5. More info would help, and it is not clear whether or not you are seeing additional vignetting on the Sony lens with the step-up/down ring and the filter.



    15 hours ago, Dustin said:

    I quickly realized that while the Sony 35mm vignettes on it’s own, this combined with the 72mm filter provided for uneven polarization of the sky and vignetting

    If you are seeing more vignetting than before, do you have any other filters mounted to the Sony lens?



    15 hours ago, Dustin said:

    Recently upon browsing YouTube I came across a video where a fellow “filmmaker” was saying he uses an 82mm filter to help with the vignetting.

    Does your Sony lens have a 55mm filter size?  If so, an 82mm step-up/down ring would probably not reduce vignetting compared to a 72mm ring.



    15 hours ago, Dustin said:

    perhaps a better Nd might help with even polarization of bright skies?

    A regular ND just reduces overall intensity of light -- it doesn't have any special interaction with polarized light.


    The unevenness in the sky could be a product of the cross polarization of your variable ND, or the sky could just be uneven.  By the way, polarizing filters only affect a portion of the sky.


    You're not using a separate polarizing filter with your variable ND, are you?

  6. 9 minutes ago, hmcindie said:

    People composite cgi into all kinds of curvatures and aberrations all the time, matching the look of the shot plate. It's not magic.

    Please try to use "CGI" to simultaneously duplicate the field curvature, DOF and DOF roll-off of a vintage lens in a skateboarding video, in which the camera and subject are constantly changing their distance from each other with the camera panning back and forth 360-degrees and with multiple subjects constantly moving all over the frame.


    Please let me know how well that goes.

  7. 4 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

    So what makes an image “organic”

    In regards to optics, its the depth of field roll-off, the field curvature and aberrations.


    4 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

    and what can you do in the pre-work that you can’t achieve in the post-work?

    Many optical qualities cannot be duplicated in post, such as depth of field roll-off, field curvature, aberration.

  8. 1 hour ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

    Very true but most aren't experienced colorists. Its why you see so much crappy colored footage out there.

    Well, it doesn't take much experience to simply bring the contrast into range and to adjust the saturation and color balance to one's liking.


    A lot of the "crappy" footage that I see is from inexperienced shooter exceeding the limits of the camera profile/LUT.


    1 hour ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

    People think its best to shoot in LOG or RAW when they'd be better off just using a straight out of camera profile. 

    It usually is best to shoot with the method that will provide the lowest contrast and the most color depth in post, regardless of whether the shooter is experienced or inexperienced (but especially with inexperienced shooters).


    Also, it doesn't take much to develop a fundamental photographic literacy, and such a basic skill will help one prevail through many varied shooting challenges, more so than just relying on all-in-one profiles/LUTs.



    1 hour ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

    The other plus to shooting in a baked in profile is simply speed.

    With flat or raw files, it takes a negligible amount of time for an inexperienced shooter to simply apply a LUT in post that matches a given camera profile -- we are talking one or two clicks of a mouse.  The shooter will still get the baked-in look with all of the arbitrary side-effects.


    Furthermore, if the inexperienced shooter was off on exposure or color balance, he/she can recover more information from a flat or raw camera file.



    1 hour ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

    If you choose your exposure and look while shooting you don't have to make those decisions in post which quickens the workflow.

    While shooting, one can likewise just choose the LUT to be used in post -- no post decisions.


    In addition, the possibility of recovery remains if a flat/raw camera file has exposure/color problems.  The options for recovery are fewer with "baked-in" camera files.



    1 hour ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

    Of course if you aren't experienced or quick enough you could end up with a lot of bad shots that aren't really fixable. 


  9. 2 hours ago, josdr said:

    If you had an understanding of the actual camera in question and Fuji's Acros profile along with actual use of the said profile compared to Lut's etc I think you would reconsider.

    Probably not.  As I said, I don't use LUTs, and the Acros profiles are actually types of LUTs.


    Nothing beats the eye of a versatile, experienced color grader.  A LUT is limited in regards to what shots it can make look good.  A LUT designed for high key won't work with a low key shot, and vice versa.


    Also, a single LUT is limited to a single look -- not so with a good color grader.  However, the main advantage that I argue is having all three color channels available when finishing in black & white.



    2 hours ago, josdr said:

    You can dismiss it as a "baked look" but I have not seen anything better in B&W .

    I am not particularly dismissing Acros as a baked-in look.  I am saying that, in general, it severely limits one's options to commit to recording black & white camera files from a color camera.  It doesn't matter if one records with the Acros profile, with some other internal black & white LUT or with an "inside straight. "



    2 hours ago, josdr said:

    Your advice is sound in a general  manner but it is not applicable in this case.

    I strongly disagree.


    Again, by having control of all three color channels in post, one has many more options.  With the Acros profile (or with any other in-camera black & white profile), one is largely stuck with the way it looks.



    2 hours ago, josdr said:

    Acros (with its four variations) is that good. You can dismiss it as a "baked look" but I have not seen anything better in B&W .

    It might look good in many cases, but so do the results of a good color grader.  A black & white LUT such as Acros can't handle all capture contrast ranges and exposure problems the way a good color grader can with all three color channels available.



    2 hours ago, josdr said:

    There is a tonality and coherence of the image with Acros that cannot be possibly reproduced with an external LUT. Fujifilm is the undisputed leader in this.

    I dispute that.


    Again, I am not talking about a LUT.


    I just looked at some Acros footage, and I have no doubt that a good color grader with access to all three color channels can make the images look just as good (and mostly better) than Acros.


    Below is a quick and dirty examples of the dramatically different looks possible by having control of all three color channels:


    Both images are from the same color photo.  All I did was change the relative intensity of the three color channels (and then adjust the overall contrast accordingly).


    One sacrifices such control of the look when one records black and  white camera files with a color camera.


    By the way, here is what the black & white image looks like with a decently even balance between the three color channels:


  10. 11 minutes ago, josdr said:

    Acros will be great if exposed decently. You are not going to get the same result with a lut. Fuji's secret sauce is especially strong with Acros.

    I don't know what Acros is, but what I suggested has nothing to do with LUTs.  I never use LUTs unless an untrained client is on set.  I like to have maximum control of the grade (or see to it that the hired color grader has maximum control).



    13 minutes ago, josdr said:

    Fuji has 4 Acros modes that will satisfy all your requirements although human conceit may make us think that we can do better adjusting sliders  .

    It's not conceit, but experience that tells me it is generally better to leave one's options open.  Acros sounds like it bakes-in a look and one would be mostly stuck with that look as the result would be black & white.


    Having all three color channels to work with and to adjust separately gives a lot of versatility in the grade to black & white.  After having done it several times, I would never commit to an in-camera conversion to black & white.

  11. I don't know anything about those Fuji cameras nor about how they render in their "black & white mode," but it generally gives more control and versatility to shoot color images and then "grade" them into black & white.


    Merely adjusting the relative brightness of the three color channels can yield a variety of skin tone looks.


    If you know that you will be finishing in black & white, you don't have to white balance when shooting.  However, if your camera records compressed files, the closer the color balance is to neutral, the more data one has to work with when grading the color images to black & white, and the less likely that one will encounter noise (with proper exposure).

  12. Or, instead of a cage with a locking pin, just go with a less expensive, delicate HDMI gimbal cable with a right-angle micro-HDMI connector:



    You could can strain-relieve such flimsy, flat cables with gaffers tape or paper tape.

  13. 12 minutes ago, Alt Shoo said:

    Y’all should read johnbrawley.wordpress.com  it answers a lot of the assumptions in this thread. 

    Thanks for the link!



    From the John Brawley blog post:

    Instead of the typical 2×2 grid size that you have on a Bayer sensor of GRBG we now have in the same space a 6×6 grid that has 6G, 6R and 6B as well as 18W pixels.

    Okay.  So, this is an interesting approach!


    RGBW sensors have appeared before, but not in this arrangement.  A 6x6 cell seems a little unwieldy and complex -- there was nothing wrong with the simple 3x1 RGB sensor on the Sony F35.  However, if Blackmagic made the filter work and if the results are good, I would like to try it.


    I just wish that they would offer this type of sensor in a lower resolution, on a less expensive and more versatile camera body.

  14. 1 minute ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

    I mean I would have preferred to see something else too.

    Me, too... like perhaps a shallow lens mount -- is that too much to ask?


    Some try to stand out from the rest of the pack with unique images.  Such individuals value the versatility to be able to use a variety of shallow-mount lenses and shallow-mount creative adapters.


    Built-in NDs that prevent shallow mounts are not useful when one needs such versatility.  Besides, there are plenty of adapters with built-in NDs that can be used on shallow-mount cameras.

  15. 22 hours ago, rawshooter said:

    Its real point is that it doesn't have a 2x2 Bayer matrix (as in my avatar on the left), but a 3x3 RGB matrix where all three colors are equally present.

    Does Blackmagic actually claim that the sensor uses an RGB filter?


    Also, if it is an RGB filter, wouldn't the matrix be 3x1 (but staggered?) -- similar to a striped RGB filters that we've seen on CCD sensors?


    If Blackmagic doesn't state that they are actually using an RGB filter, I suspect that they are doing a low level "twist" on a Bayer filter and using creative marketing.

  • Create New...