tupp

​I haven't had any trouble with TL. I think the last build that I loaded on the EOSM was from February, 2015. However, it is easy to hit the bit rate limit when shooting all-I frames -- which means that the GOP ("group-of-pictures") is set to "1". I usually don't set the bit rate higher than "2X" with all-I. A few folks have reported nice results when shooting with a GOP of "3," which should allow higher bit rates. By the way, it is recommended to disable the camera audio when setting low GOPs. In regards to the focal reducer for the EOSM it is made by RJ and, as you mentioned, it accepts Nikon F lenses. I had a brief interaction with RJ ( because the focal reducer was wobbly due to screws which were too long), and it didn't sound like they were inclined to make an EOSM focal reducer with other lens mounts. However, I have a bunch of Nikkor lenses, and it is great to be shooting "full frame" on the EOSM. Thank you for the kind word, but the beautiful, fearless subject has a lot to do with the appeal of the look. Of course, it is also amazing that one can shoot full HD without H264 interframe artifacts on that little, inexpensive and exceptionally versatile APS-C camera. ​I have never tried the focus peaking, but I'll search for it in the TL menu on my next shoot.

Thank you for the kind word. ​FYI, there are other C-mount lenses with image circles that encompass an APS-C sensor. Here's a review of a 25mm, f1.4, APS-C, CCTV C-mount lens of apparently decent quality. Furthermore, the EOSM can shoot in "crop" mode, so some of the C-mount lenses with smaller image circles might work with the EOSM. I think that both Magic Lantern and Tragic Lantern offer special cropping in raw mode. ​That's a good point. Another great thing about the EOSM is that it is (was) cheap -- for over a one-year period, EOSMs were selling for USD$200-$250!

@Jonstaf Your EOSM is a great camera, and you can significantly extend its capabilities by loading Tragic Lantern onto it. I use TL on my EOSM to boost the bit rate and to shoot all "I" frames with H264. Here is an extreme test I did with the EOSM, TL and, mostly, the quirky Fujian 35mm f1.7 CCTV lens. Although I pushed the EOSM past it's DR limits (obvious FPN and just plain old noise), note that there is significantly reduced compression artifacting. Also, the strange focal plane of that c-mount Fujian 35mm really "pops" with an APS-C camera, such as the EOSM. Here is a better example of the Fujian's wonkiness on an EOSM (shot by maxotics). Other great things about the EOSM line, is that there is a focal reducer for it that gives almost a 1:1 crop factor (in addition to extra brightness) and that there are tilt and tilt-shift adapters for it, if one desires interesting focus effects or if one merely wants to Scheimpflug. Of course, with the shallow flange-focal distance of the EF-M mount, there are zillions of lenses that can be adapted to the EOSM. To me, it is sometimes more valuable than 4K and high dynamic range to have the TL build combined with the ability to use these special attachments and a huge variety of lenses.

Not sure which lights your are asking about. What do you want the lights to do?

Please call me when RED offers an 18K camera.

I hope that the prices on these cameras are good and that they use inexpensive media -- not Cfast.

Between shoots, it might be wise to air-out all of your camera gear in a room with low humidity. Lens fungus is no fun! Lacking an area with low humidity, you could keep your gear in a dry container/case along with plenty of new desiccant packets (or some other form of desiccant/dehumidifier). Avoid leather cases, as leather tends to harbor fungus more than most synthetic materials.

You would probably be better off going with a typical tungsten kit, unless there is a special reason that you want to use batteries. Tungsten fixtures are not as efficient as LEDs nor ballasted sources, but tungsten has a much lower "piastre-to-footcandle" ratio, and the color spectrum of tungsten is as pure as you will ever need. In addition, tungsten lights are generally easier to control (focusing, dimming, cutting, etc.) than LEDs and Fluorescents. On the whole, tungstens have more "punch" than LEDs. Just look at the photometric data charts of some of the LEDs and compare them to those of the tungsten fixtures. Be mindful to compare the readings from same distance and with the same beam angle. By the way, some manufacturers mislead regarding their beam angles. The standard way to get a beam angle is to delineate it at the point at which the brightness drops one stop (50%) from the maximum level (usually at the center of the beam). If the manufacturer doesn't specify how the beam is delineated, there's no telling what the "actual" beam angle is, unless you can test the unit yourself. If you aren't too particular about the double shadow from cuts into the side of the beam, you will probably be happier with open-faced focusing lights, instead of Fresnels/refractive-focus units. Open-faced fixtures are usually lighter, more compact, more rugged and less expensive than their lensed counterparts. Open faced sources usually have more output, as well.

There might be a way to correct the footage that you have already shot. You could make a reverse matte shooting a piece of black velvet/groovytene under the same/similar conditions.

Your two cameras -- the EOSM and T3i -- are somewhat unique in that they both have Tragic Lantern builds and they both have a native crop mode. Ain't nothing wrong with either of them. The Tragic Lantern capability is a significant advantage, primarily because it allows you to shoot h264 with all I-frames (and with boosted bit rates, just like Magic Lantern). Here is an early example of such footage (the video's notes are informative). Here is more info on TL. The native crop capability is important, because it means that you can eliminate moire/aliasing that results from sensor line-skipping, even when using the built-in video function. The EOSM is particularly special, in that you can shoot raw in crop mode (just like the T3i), but, due to its short flange-focal distance, you can also use 16mm lenses in crop mode. By the way, I that there are a few examples of 720P raw on the EOSM.

Looks like ambient edge flare. If so, you might be able to reduce it when shooting by using an aggressive lens hood/matte box. On the other hand, if you are using a medium format lens on a GH4 with a plain adapter, you might have all kinds of light bouncing around inside the GH4/adapter (especially with such a high-key image). Is the adapter matte black on the inside? I think that there have been reports on some of the focal reducers causing a similar problem.

​Well, it might be possible to get the same/similar settings with the choices offered by IFFMPEG, but I don't really know much about that "app" nor about the ffmpeg front-end which you linked. Of course, I am talking about trying to duplicate/approximate settings -- not change the "code" of any "app." ​Not sure if I made the scenario clear. We have three (3) "apps" in question here: 1. The "RockyMountains transcoder" (which you linked). 2. "IFFMPEG." 3. The venerable, robust, command-line decoder/encoder, "ffmpeg." Both RockyMountains and IFFMPEG are front-ends for ffmpeg. There are lots of front ends for ffmpeg. Ffmpeg is open-source and free. If you know the ffmpeg settings that are used in RockyMountains, you can merely use them on the command line to get the same (or faster) results. Better yet, you can include those settings into a simple batch script and use it on a separate bare-bones render box, while you do the "creative" work on your GUI machine. I doubt that there is anything particularly remarkable about the ffmpeg settings used in RockyMountains. A web search could probably find settings for similarly transcoding h265 with ffmpeg. However, with IFFMPEG, you probably won't be able to use the exact same settings as those employed by RockyMountains, because such front-ends often limit the choices that are allowed (and ffmpeg gives a zillion choices).

Don't know which settings differ. Someone would have to look at the code. I would guess that the front-end introduced in this thread does not do multiple passes.

​The "app" that you linked uses different settings than IFFMPEG. Both of those "apps" are front-ends for ffmpeg. If you just used identical ffmpeg settings on the command line, you would get the same (or faster) speed with less cpu/memory overhead, and you would have more flexibility to change settings. With such front-ends is that the choice of settings is often limited by the author of the "app." By the way, one of the more popular "front-ends" for some of the ffmpeg encoding libraries is the open-sourced handbrake.

​This front-end probably uses different settings than the IFFMPEG front-end, so the speed wouldn't be the same.

​The grease should eventually diminish, and there shouldn't be any grinding or stiffness at that point. On the other hand, it sounds like this grease is unusually runny.

Thanks for the link, but this converter is just another front-end for ffmpeg.

It's just excess grease coming out of the aperture ring. The internal mechanism of this ring is over-engineered on some adapters/focal-reducers (not just Metabones), and it requires grease to function smoothly. Hold the adapter with the "grease" side facing down and turn the aperture ring fully back and forth about five times. Then, wipe off the excess grease with a clean towel. Repeat until satisfied.

Thanks for the thoroughly informative rundown on stand deals! When someone says "C-stand," they usually mean a C-stand with a grip head and a grip arm. So, C-stands are generally used for grip applications (to hold flags, silks, nets, etc) -- not for electric. On the other hand, many have certainly used C-stands to boom/cantelever 2k Mighty/Baby-Junior fixtures. When a truck and crew are available, I prefer the typical, heavier baby and junior/combo stands. However, when I have to carry gear by myself, I opt for the lighter stands, of course. By the way, it might also be good to price Lowel stands. Lowel switched fabricators from Pic to Kupo long before Kupo was "cool," and Kupo mimicked the Lowel stands on some of their own light-weight offerings. Don't know what has happened to Lowel pricing since they were bought by Tiffen.

Hmmm... not sure what you mean, but it sounds like you did not remove the rear lens mount to see what was underneath. I am happy to help, but it would make things easier if the reply information was more detailed, forthcoming and prompt. Did you remove the rear lens mount?

​Did you try to unscrew the rear lens mount?

It doesn't appear to be fully locked, and that's unsafe. The first video that I linked is a tutorial from Metabones. They attempt to show an internal black tab fitting into a black slot along with demonstrating which external ring to unintuitively turn. I am afraid that they don't do a very good job of conveying what's needed for the operation, so you have to pay very close attention to everything that they try to show. There have been reports about folks having to file the internal tab to make the lens function properly. Mechanically, these lenses seem a little "over-engineered." If I had to eliminate the rear protective ears, I try to remove them cleanly by unscrewing them. If there are any screws attaching the ears to the body of the lens, they are under the rear lens mount. So, it might be good to remove the silver Phillips screws shown in this photo below that attach the lens mount. Then remove the rear lens mount and see what's underneath. If the ears are mounted with screws to the lens body, then merely unscrew them and save them and the ears in a small container/plastic bag, and reattach the rear lens mount. If there is no easy way to remove the ears with the rear lens mount off, then the ears might need to be sawed or snipped off. I would be very careful in doing so, to keep plastic chips and metal filings from getting into the lens and/or onto the optical elements. One way to get the optics safely away from such work is to remove the entire optical assembly, as shown here. Here is an example of a lens with the ears cut. Hope this helps.

Thanks for posting the photos. It is surprising that such a shallow protrusion could touch any internal structure in the GH2. If that's what is happening, I would guess that the best thing to do is to remove the ears or "mill-off" the portion of the ears that hit the GH2. Before you take such drastic action, it might be worthwhile to try another Contax G lens that doesn't have such ears. By the way, is your lens fully "locked" into the adapter?

​Please go back to having message preview in the message editor. The current editor is unwieldy, and it is not WYSIWYG. For instance, one can't follow links while composing, and the links appear with an underline which doesn't show in the posted message -- one has to manually underline links, but there is no way to tell for sure if the underline took, until the message is posted. This problem and others are compounded by the lack of a way to view the format coding. Please bring that back, too. Thanks!

This article perhaps gives a little extra insight into the NX1 sensor tech and digital processing, in addition to how Samsung lenses stack-up against Canon and Sony offerings. It would have been great if they had instead compared the newer A7S and 5D III with the NX1.