tupp
-
Posts
1,148 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Posts posted by tupp
-
-
10 hours ago, SteveV4D said:
Aperture is controlled manually. You can lose the aperture control in some cases and not get a readout of the aperture on the camera screen.
The most important thing is that one can control the aperture (and view a scope). The aperture readout is not crucial.
10 hours ago, SteveV4D said:Why not use IS on the Cinema cameras? Is it a rule? Did I miss the no IS on Cinema cameras instruction in the manual.
Most cinema lenses are completely manual for good reasons. There is too much riding on the line in larger budget projects to rely on decisions made by the camera or lens. Furthermore, any IS glitch could bust a take and/or force a cut in post, which could prove to be expensive and detrimental to the piece's impact.
Additionally, it is likely that most cinematographers want lens manufacturers put their efforts into optical performance rather than into automatic electronic features. Nobody buys a Master Prime to shoot handheld at Bar Mitzvahs.
11 hours ago, SteveV4D said:Shooting 105mm on non IS lens isn't advised.
It's not easy to handhold a narrow non-IS lens, but it can be done with success. Back in the film days, there were no IS lenses, so one had to learn how to be smooth when handheld. The non-IS results generally do not posses the same look/feel as handheld with a modern IS camera/lens, but I wouldn't say that handheld without IS is generally worse the with IS.
Of course, a tripod eliminates a lot of stability problems, and one really should disable IS when using a tripod.
11 hours ago, SteveV4D said:Having paid for the camera, I feel I can use it as I like. 🤣🤣🤣
Certainly.
11 hours ago, SteveV4D said:As I don't yet own the P6K Pro or a Canon camera, I can't comment on your point there. Only on my situation where I have had issues with 3 adaptors. No doubt I shall see how they perform when I get the P6K Pro and then be able to clarify if the issue is with the adaptors or not. Don't worry, I will consume humble pie if they are not found to be at fault.
If there is a nearby rental house, it might be wise to go there and test your EF-S lenses on a P6K or s P6K Pro prior to making a purchase.
Not sure how "consuming Humble Pie" is relevant, but getting a camera that works for you is more important. By the way, I prefer the Small Faces.
11 hours ago, SteveV4D said:Maybe an adaptor would work well with the C70. I'm not ruling out adaptors in the future if required. However having had no issues with my MFT lenses and several issues with my EF lenses via the adaptors, I am biased towards non adaptors. Maybe once I've enjoyed using a S35 camera for the first time in 10 years with my S35 lenses, I will look to something like the C70 and try again with adaptors.
Again, it would be useful to actually see how your lenses work with any camera in consideration (if possible), prior to a purchase. In the case of the C70, try it with an official Canon adapter.
11 hours ago, SteveV4D said:Yes I was aware MFT lenses can be used, though rarely seen as encouraged by others. Again I'm keen to take a step away from adaptors for now. And also to invest in fullframe lenses to compliment my S35 ones for future proof.
Full frame lenses are a wise investment if they have a deep mount, and especially if they are completely manual.
One of the great benefits of having FF deep-mount lenses is the ability to use them with speed boosters on shallow-mount Super35/APS-C cameras. Such a combination gives an extra stop of exposure along with almost the complete full frame view and character, plus the image is usually sharper than using a full frame lens with a dummy adapter.
-
20 minutes ago, SteveV4D said:
Wow so many assumptions and false conclusions in 1 post.
Please point out where there are assumptions or false conclusions.
21 minutes ago, SteveV4D said:Most of my lenses are EF-S
Okay. I asked if your lenses were EF-S -- there was no assumption (although I suspected as much, which is why I asked).
24 minutes ago, SteveV4D said:I have had issues with adaptors.
Okay.
25 minutes ago, SteveV4D said:Loss of aperture at key moments.
Never experienced that. Are you shooting manual exposure or is the aperture automatically controlled?
27 minutes ago, SteveV4D said:Loss of IS at key moments.
Never experienced that either, but I would tend not to use IS on a cinematography camera such as the P6K.
On the other hand, do you think that your EF-S lenses would perform on the P6K just as well as they perform on Canon EF-S cameras?
32 minutes ago, SteveV4D said:Noting the C70 has an EF adaptor isn't endorsement of adaptors. Merely an observation. I'm not buying the C70 or its adaptor.
Do you think that your EF-S lenses would perform on the C70 with a Canon EF-to-RF adapter just as well as they perform on a Canon EF-S camera?
36 minutes ago, SteveV4D said:Using MFT lenses on a S35 sensor is not something I would ever consider.
No doubt.
Do you realize that most M4/3 lenses can be used on Cameras such as the C70 and the P6K with no vignetting?
46 minutes ago, SteveV4D said:Personally I still prefer S35 to fullframe. I prefer not to use adaptors if I can. My own personal preference. Sorry if this offends you.
It doesn't offend, but I truly hope that your preference is informed.
-
20 minutes ago, independent said:
What is it, laziness or incompetence?
I think it is a combination of a biased interpretation of one's own link, plus poor comprehension of another somewhat misleading source.
24 minutes ago, independent said:Watch the GU videos of the c70 and Fx6, which he compares with the a7s3
I already addressed the Gerald Undone video that you linked. I disagree with the conclusions to which he jumps in regards to dynamic range. He sets up arbitrary conditions (the size of the C70's sensor and the lack of NR options on the A7S III) for which the C70's dynamic range is "better" in his mind than the A7S III.
However, at 09:52 in the video, he additionally states that the low light performance of the A7S III is far superior to that of the C70:
Quote"If you like to shoot at iso's 12800 and above, the two options from Sony [A7S III & FX6] will drastically outperform this camera [C70]. It's not that the noise performance is bad on the C70 (in fact it's quite good and it even rivals full frame sensors like the A73) -- it just can't really compete with the cameras specifically designed for low light, like the A7S III or the FX6."
While he makes this statement, we see a side-by-side comparison of the performance of the C70 and the A7S III starting at iso 12800 and 25600, which reveals that the A7S III is exceptionally cleaner than the noisy C70.
So much for the CVP and "GU" links. The C70 is not "clean" at 12,800 iso, unlike the A7S III.
36 minutes ago, independent said:Anything beyond that, you'll have to compensate me for my efforts. PM me, I'm affordable
I see. Well, once again, I would have to take your word on that, but after seeing the discrepancy between your statements and your links, I don't think that I will.
-
7 hours ago, independent said:
Well, you didn't click on the link that I posted, which would take you exactly to the iso tests. So that tells me you're lazy, and I did all that work for nothing. Pay me!
Ha, ha! I actually did click on the link to the long CVP video, but on my YouTube viewer the link didn't parse correctly to the point that I now see that you cued.
Although that video is not actually a comparison between the C70 and the A7S III, I noticed that a few seconds after your cued point, your CVP boy states:
Quote"Looking at the C70, up to 3200 iso is very clean, and at 6400 it starts getting a little bit noisy. but I would say up to 12800 it's 'usable.' At 25600 [and] up, it starts getting unusable."
"Usable" is not the same thing as "clean." The A7S III is "clean" at 12800, while the C70 is "usable" at that same iso.
Again, please link examples of heavy artifacts that appear above 12800 iso in the A7S III, as you maintain, and please link the CineD comparison that you mentioned.
-
13 hours ago, SteveV4D said:
Since I have EF lenses, I am delighted it has an EF mount. All these other mounts is why I struggle to upgrade to fullframe.
Why? Do you actually have EF-S lenses?
13 hours ago, SteveV4D said:It means choosing between RF, L or E or any others.
Your EF lenses should basically work on all of those shallow mounts with adapters. If your lenses are electronically controlled, the most important thing is that the electronic aperture can be set.
14 hours ago, SteveV4D said:I prefer to avoid adaptors if I can.
Why? Have you actually had a problem with an adapter?
If not, please get over the notion that adapters are "bad."
13 hours ago, SteveV4D said:Having so much invested in MFT only for Panasonic to cut their MFT almost dead in favour of FF makes me reluctant to invest totally too much in 1 system.
That is why it is important that cameras such as the BMP6K have a shallow mount -- it makes it possible to use your M4/3 lenses on the BMP6K (especially in the crop modes).
14 hours ago, SteveV4D said:Didn't Canon have a M series of lenses too.
Yes. I mentioned the shallow EF-M mount in my posts above. I believe that Canon is currently on the eleventh version of the M camera.
By the way, the EF-M mount is large enough to handle a full frame sensor.
14 hours ago, SteveV4D said:At least with EF lenses, there is plenty of them and at good 2nd hand prices too.
The main problem with many EF lenses is that they rely on electronics. Such lenses are useless on many cameras and special effect adapters.
Furthermore, because the electronics have to be incorporated, it takes longer for EF adapters and EF speedboosters to appear for new shallow lens mounts. Nikkor F to EF-M focal reducers and tilt-shift adapters appeared a couple of years prior to the EF versions.
Of course, Nikkor F lenses can be adapted to EF cameras and adapters, but not vice versa. So, lenses with the Nikkor F mount are more versatile than the those with an EF mount.
Additionally, one must occasionally contend with the problem of Canon's wonky "stopping flange" that prevents EF-S lenses from being mounted on EF cameras and EF adapters. One generally has to modify the rear of an EF-S lens to get around the problem.
14 hours ago, SteveV4D said:Even the C70 has an adaptor to use them.
It appears that you have already gotten over your aversion to adapters in the span of a single paragraph. That was quick!
14 hours ago, SteveV4D said:The future should be cameras with interchangeable mounts, so you're not limited to just one system.
I mostly agree, although adapters on cameras with shallow mounts mostly accomplish this same goal.
-
4 hours ago, mercer said:
It's a manufacturing supply thing. The majority of their cameras already use the EF mount. Their molds are designed for this.
They likely retool for each new camera body, but no doubt there are shared components.
The BM CEO once commented that people want the EF mount, but I don't think that is the real reason why BM hasn't used a shallow mount nor a shallow interchangeable mount.
4 hours ago, mercer said:They sell their cameras for a lot less than their competitors, for similar, or better features, they aren't going to change now and lose the little money they make on each camera.
BM already has already had interchangeable mounts, but they just weren't shallow enough. If they would just offer such an interchangeable mount system that would allow E, EF-M, M4/3, L, Z, and RF mounts, then whole worlds of lenses and special adapters would be available for their Super35 cameras.
4 hours ago, mercer said:Not to mention, they've decided to market their cameras to a larger demographic than just cinema and the majority of those other people use EF lenses, or lenses that easily adapt to the EF mount.
As I have repeatedly stated, shallower mounts and/or interchangeable lens mounts do not preclude a camera with a default EF mount, nor would shallower mounts inhibit EF lens performance.
By the way, if I had to buy a camera with a permanent EF mount, the first one that I would consider would be a 5D III with ML.
-
3 hours ago, independent said:
God forbid unsubstantiated opinions!
Okay. The A7S III has more dynamic range than the C70.
3 hours ago, independent said:GU, CVP have done some rigorous testing—up to 12800 is clean and usable.
That video is over 40 minutes long (and it was produced by an equipment dealer). Please give a link cued to the specific section regarding iso, or please give an appropriate time code.
3 hours ago, independent said:Above that, the Fx6 is the way to go with the higher iso kicking in at 12800, with NR controls to avoid the heavy artifacts in the a7s3.
Please link examples of heavy artifacts in the A7S III that appear above 12,800 iso.
3 hours ago, independent said:As far as dynamic range, GU, deep in Sony's pocket at this point, nonetheless acknowledges that the c70 has better dynamic range than either a7s or fx6, which is quite remarkable because the c70 has a super35 sensor. CineD also corroborated this w/ the c300iii, using the same sensor and codec as the c70.
In that Gerald Undone video, I didn't see a comparison of the DR of the A7S III along with the C70. Also, I don't agree with with his reasoning on why the C70 supposedly has better capture dynamic range.
Please link the CineD comparison.
3 hours ago, independent said:That somewhat makes it even more exciting, because the focal reducer transforms the c70 into another camera really.
Well, yes, that is an advantage of a Super35/APS-C camera with a shallow mount, but doesn't the A7S III have a crop mode?
-
3 hours ago, KnightsFan said:
By software failure, I mean that if you have an existing protocol, like L, and translate to another protocol, such as EF, there is the very real chance that not every lens and camera will work. For example, Viltrox's EF to M43 adapter can control aperture, but not autofocus
Okay, but why would the quality of the BM protocols for EF lenses differ if they merely used an extra set of wiping contacts in the circuit? Furthermore, if BM bypassed the wiping contacts on the shallow mount by using a ribbon cable connector directly to the EF-mount (as I suggested), how would it adversely affect BM's existing EF protocols?
3 hours ago, KnightsFan said:I think that RF would be the only good option. E, L, and M43 would have a very high chance of failure in some combinations of adapters and lenses.
The shallow mount doesn't really matter in regards to maintaining the quality of BM's EF protocols, as the contacts on the shallow mount can be bypassed, if necessary. The camera would be an EF-centric camera with a default, bolted-on EF adapter. The shallow mount merely enables one to mechanically adapt a huge variety of lenses that would not be possible with a permanent EF mount.
3 hours ago, KnightsFan said:I also suspect Canon isn't licensing RF to Blackmagic.
About that, there has been a lot of discussion in this forum about "licensing" lens mounts, especially the Sony E-mount. Many insisted that Sony "would never allow" any camera manufacturer to use their mount. Lo and behold, other camera manufacturers are using the E-mount along with its electronic protocols.
Here is the likely scenario that allows one manufacturer to use another manufacturer's lens mount -- you can't patent a bayonet mount. Such mounts have existed for over 100 years, and, unless you can modify it with something novel, you will probably not be able to get a utility patent.
It is doubtful that one could even get a design patent on a bayonet mount, as changing the width of a tab or the throat diameter doesn't really amount to any design novelty. Furthermore, the claims would have to give very specific and precise dimensions, which would make it easy for another manufacturer to merely copy and change by a millimeter to get around such a patent.
If there is anything that can be protected or licensed with a lens mount, it would be the electronic protocols, which might qualify as software or a "method." Software can be both copyrighted and patented, but I can't imagine that software IP would apply to a lens mount.
If you do a search, I doubt that you will find a separate patent for the EF, RF, E, Z, M4/3 and L mounts. There might be some claims included a larger camera or lens patent that involve protocols/methods communicated through the contacts of a lens mount, but they would need to be novel in some way, which is unlikely.
4 hours ago, KnightsFan said:As for mechanical failure, adding support screws would solve it, but would also require 1st party adapters since there is no standard for it.
How does a camera manufacturer making a default adapter for EF differ from a camera manufacturer making interchangeable lens mounts for a camera?
4 hours ago, KnightsFan said:Z Cam did it, to their credit. I just don't know if it would really sell enough extra units to offset the cost.
The camera would be an EF camera by default, with a hidden shallower mount. Or, the camera would merely have interchangeable lens mounts that defaulted to the EF mount/protocols. It's already been done by Red, Kinefinity, Sony and machine vision manufacturers, and enough units are being sold.
4 hours ago, KnightsFan said:How many people do you really think would have bought on in L mount, but not EF?
I think that if they sold it with an L mount with a calibrated, solid EF adapter that is undetectable, they would have sold the same amount.
Again, they could have also sold it with a shallow interchangeable lens mount system (just like Red and others) that defaulted to EF, and they would have sold the same number of cameras. BM has already release cameras with interchangeable mounts -- the system just needs to allow for shallower mounts.
It's all
very simple.
4 hours ago, KnightsFan said:If Sony allowed it, E might have added some sales since there are numerous E mount lenses, but if you're targeting users who use EF lenses... I don't think the EF mount is a big hindrance.
Again, the shallow mount would not matter to the EF users, as the camera would be an EF default camera with a hidden shallow mount (or with a shallow interchangeable mount system).
Sony likely can't prevent anyone from using the E bayonet mount, even if they wanted to do so.
-
7 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:
There's a large swath of people who just want things to work with absolutely no hassle. I have friends who are very good at making movies--better than me, in fact--and are making a living from their art, but would be unable to go on ebay and buy a vintage lens because they can't wrap their head around adapters, and would end up ordering something incompatible.
There is absolutely no hassle in what I am proposing. The clueless EF users would never realize that they are using an adapter.
10 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:And personally, if I'm adapting to EF anyway... I don't mind an EF mount. I see no reason to add another point of mechanical and software failure.
Well, firstly, shallow interchangeable mounts have a proven track record on several cameras. For instance, Red cameras have interchangeable lens mounts, and most who get one with an EF mount probably never remove the mount (and likely aren't even aware of that possibility). Likewise with the FZ mount, the Kinefinity mount, the AJA Cion mount and with countless machine vision cameras that have bolt-on mounts. Heck, Wooden Camera made modified BMPC's with an interchangeable, bolt-on mount.
Have you heard any complaints about mechanical failure of any such configurations?
Secondly, if a camera is designed with an existing shallow mount (EF-M, Z, M4/3, L, E, RF, etc.), the EF adapter can incorporate a flange so that it additionally bolts onto the body at four points, with the design following the lines of the camera body -- looking just like the front of the original Ursa, for instance. Such an arrangement will never budge unless one uses a wrench. If the camera comes configured that way out of the factory, EF users will never know that the camera actually has a shallow mount hidden inside.
Thirdly, in regards to "software" failure (I assume that you mean "lens signal failure"), the above established cameras with interchangeable electronic mounts have successfully eliminated any such problem, and there absolutely is no reason why it cannot be the same when utilizing an established shallow lens mount. If contact reliability is a huge concern, a manufacturer could always use a separate ribbon connector for the default EF mount, bypassing the contacts of the shallow lens mount.
However, these are dumb simple design/mechanical solutions to a problem that is essentially imaginary. Is it correct to sacrifice whole worlds of lens choices for a cinematography camera, merely to avoid the possibility of a few momentarily confused EF users?
Additionally, more and more popular cameras are appearing with FF shallow mounts. Are the clueless (yet successful) EF users going to ignore the C70 and other Canon R-mount offerings because it's too confusing to use their L glass with an official Canon EF-to-R adapter?:
- KnightsFan and IronFilm
-
1
-
1
-
21 hours ago, independent said:
The a7s3 gets its dynamic range number w/ noise reduction - artificially boosting the S/R of 2
The ginormous photosites of the 12MP FF sensor might also contribute a smidge to the low noise of the A7S III.
21 hours ago, independent said:The c70 is 13+ stops at that S/R if I recall correctly, better than the a7s3--or the fx6 (below 13), which makes sense because of the c70's dual gain sensor. Only the Alexa is better.
Will have to take your word for it that the C70 has greater dynamic range, but can the C70 shoot at 12,800 iso clean like the A7S III? Also, isn't the C70 a Super35 camera?
By the way, there are HDR/dual-iso cameras that have a greater capture dynamic range than any Alexa. Of course, that doesn't mean that such cameras produce a better image than an Alexa.
20 hours ago, IronFilm said:Do I detect sarcasm? It would be sarcasm if I wrote it! ha
Oh, I am never sarcastic!
Seriously, it's perplexing as to why BM continues to choose the EF mount on their Super35 cameras over an existing shallow mount (EF-M, Z, M4/3, L, E, RF, etc.) or over simply incorporating a shallow flange for interchangeable mounts.
17 hours ago, KnightsFan said:Most of us here are very tech minded and love adapters, and external rig parts, but I don't think this style camera is aimed at us. No adapters, no front-of-lens ND filters, no rigged batteries (if you use the grip), no external monitor or recorder.
Having a shallow mount (or a shallow interchangeable mount system) does not preclude easy use by EF users nor does it prohibit "built-in" NDs for such users. BM can merely make a "default" EF adapter (or interchangeable mount) with NDs that follows the design lines of the camera, and the clueless EF users will never know that they are actually shooting through an adapter (or through an interchangeable lens mount).
17 hours ago, KnightsFan said:Simple enough for intro classes, don't need to teach students how to rig it up just to use it, but still makes great images.
"Intro" students should probably use a lower-end camera. Once those students graduate to using actual cinema cameras, then they definitely should learn about using front filters, batteries, follow focus, monitors, mics, etc.
-
1 hour ago, Video Hummus said:
I’m wondering if the new design is part of a future FF EF mount model with internal ND?
Not sure how that makes sense nor how that would even work, as it appears that they would have to retool the camera body to do so.
Furthermore, there is no technical reason to have a permanent EF mount to incorporate "internal" filters. The camera could have an established shallow mount or a shallow interchangeable lens mount flange. One could then use one of the existing third-party EF adapters with internal NDs and/or use a more integrally designed adapter offered by Blackmagic. None of these options could make the camera any uglier.
-
Yet another Super35 camera from Blackmagic with an EF mount.
Wonderful!
-
It might help to insert a "footnote" within the frame identifying the source of the footage. For instance, while the third-party footage runs, "Source: PewDiePie/YouTube.com" appears in the lower right corner of the frame.
That way, the viewer realizes that the quality of the footage comes from the original source -- not you.
-
59 minutes ago, leslie said:
I personally kinda feel its getting a bit trollish to drag comments/ jokes from one thread to another unrelated thread.
I mostly tend to agree. I had to scroll up to see who it was who dragged comments/jokes from another thread into this one.
-
6 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:
I've decided that the German word for people who get their fun through the misfortune of others who have over tightened their glass balcony clamps and caused the destruction of said glass balcony should be "Shardenfreude".
Well, the English word for the overwhelming emotion on set when some is seriously injured or killed is "Shattered."
The entire location goes silent and all the work stops. While the paramedics are busy, most stand around looking distraught, while those who might be involved in the cause of the accident wear expressions of anguish.
After experiencing such a mishap, one usually becomes serious about avoiding accidents, and one tries to instill the same sense of safety in others.
19 minutes ago, leslie said:remember try not to feed the trolls 😛
By all means, don't let those trolls succeed in preventing dangerous set practices. 👍
-
-
Like this:
This is the way a movie grip hostess tray mounts (with safety straps, of course) -- one would never hang an Alexa off of car window glass.
-
54 minutes ago, kye said:
I give up.
If you are giving up on reckless, dangerous rigging, that's wonderful!
57 minutes ago, kye said:You obviously think that working for years and learning the names of all the clamps is required for anyone to exercise any judgement or awareness of safety and that I'm an idiot because I think I might know things when I can't because I've never worked as a grip or learned the names of the clamps.
No, years of experience is not required. One can learn from others who have experience -- that is a smart way to begin.
I don't think you are an idiot, but some of your notions hint at minimal rigging experience. Additionally, not knowing the names of common grip items also indicates limited familiarity with such gear.
Of course, your OP asked which clamp should be used for your purpose, so, by default, you seem to lack the knowledge/experience on the proper grip items to use.
I have some grip experience and a fairly solid sense of safety. I along with another poster have suggested a safe, easy and lightweight way to get your balcony time-lapse shot, plus you could utilize the same gear to stabilize shots in other parts of your travels, to boot!
1 hour ago, kye said:I wonder how much you could possibly know (beyond knowing the names of the clamps) if you fail to understand that the universe is literally maths and physics,
If you really think that one uses math and "physics" to rig a camera on a balcony, implore you not to clamp anything to the rail.
1 hour ago, kye said:I'm also wondering why you haven't come up with literally thousands of photos of those little camera clamps sitting in the middle of piles of shattered glass - there are no shortage of images of people using them that way.
I do not know of any instances in which a camera rig clamped to a glass balustrade has failed, but I know that clamping to tempered glass can shatter it, and that would be especially dangerous on a balcony.
Furthermore, I have seen plate glass installed at a location accidentally shattered, with a crew member going consequently going to an emergency room. In addition, an acquaintance was involved in a balcony rig that fell an killed someone at an event. Trust me -- accidents like those can ruin your day.
In regards to the number of folks mounting a camera to glass balustrades with a clamp, I will have to take your word that there is "no shortage of images of people using them that way. However, if there is no shortage of such pictures, it begs the question: "why would post a query here if you were aware of all of those solutions?"
2 hours ago, kye said:I could debate this forever, but your method of assessing judgement or practical ability seems to be one-dimensional and I don't fit that narrow definition, and am never going to because I don't aspire to the same career path as yours, so how about this:
- you have fulfilled your legal and ethical duty to tell me (and anyone else reading this thread henceforth) to never even look at tempered glass until I am the god of all grips (and can name all the clamps), and
- I will go ahead and use the judgement I have and when it all inevitably comes crashing down just like you have predicted I will not hold you responsible.
You asked for a solution. I and another poster have pointed out safety issues and given you an easy, versatile, inexpensive and safe solution. The rest is up to you.
1 hour ago, mercer said:I hope the waitress had a ground guy with a tag line as she placed the tray on that glass...
I feel bad for the ants on the ground with the amount of localized pressure on that glass.
Well, hopefully the hollow plastic ice cream cone won't land on one of the ants.
My recollection of actual car hop trays hooked over the door (they didn't hang off of the window glass):
-
On 2/9/2021 at 7:02 PM, kye said:
I try to always be respectful of items (regardless of if they're mine or not) and clamping force would be something I'd be very aware of, both for the possibility of breaking something and also leaving teeth-marks on things
[snip]
My inclination would be to apply as little clamping force as possible - sufficient to make sure it wouldn't fall,
A Super/Mafer clamp is like a mini hydraulic press. As I mentioned above, it can crunch through many items/materials that other clamps cannot. Due the heightened leverage involved, clueless folks tightening that type of cam-action clamp have damaged and ruined location pieces and caused material failure resulting in accidents.
If one has no experience with such clamps, one should avoid them.
Clamps should almost always be tightened to be firm -- not just "sufficient to make sure they won't fall."
On 2/9/2021 at 7:02 PM, kye said:I would also try to put the centre of gravity on the inside of the railing so that should anything fall it would be towards safety instead of towards other people's heads
That might seem like a good idea, but the torsion stress makes such an offset rig precarious and sets it up for failure, which is undesirable and unsafe -- even if the CG is inside the balcony.
In addition, with such positioning, the grip items might creep into the bottom of the frame.
On 2/9/2021 at 7:02 PM, kye said:In terms of a safety line, any tips on something that's easy and practical? fishing line tied to a chair perhaps, or a bottle filled with water? or something else?
Do not use fishing line. Use something with a high enough test strength that holds knots well. If you can tie a bowline and a clove hitch, you are good. Extra points if you can tie a trucker's hitch, which is very useful for tag lines.
In regards to pick points, the more solid they are, the better. A chair is probably not good for the balcony scenario, unless it is very heavy... likewise with a water bottle. I would first look for pick points that are part of the building structure. They need to be significantly inside from the edge of the balcony, and the higher up, the better. Sometimes two pick points are necessary if there is not one far enough inside.
On a balcony the primary safety should be a tag/guy line that prevents a rig from going over the rail -- not a safety cable that "catches" the rig if it falls (as you suggested). Of course, using a safety cable in addition to a tag line is good practice.
On 2/9/2021 at 7:02 PM, kye said:be careful being critical about people knowing or not knowing the terminology of something - I may not know the terminology of clamps, but I have postgraduate level physics and math, and it seems to me that this is a physics problem, not a "I can name all the clamps" problem
Actually, the clueless and uninitiated need to "be careful," especially when they contemplate rigging anything at altitude (which they should generally avoid).
It is misguided and dangerous to think that rigging a camera on a balcony rail is a "physics problem" or that doing so somehow involves "math." If one has to calculate the stress tolerances of location items, such an endeavor should be abandoned. As Murphy's Law suggests, failure is often more probable than one anticipates -- especially for a cocksure newbie. Additionally, the odds of failure are compounded by all of the unknown variables one encounters at a location.
What one really needs when rigging at altitude on location is a strong sense of safety, along with a good deal of experience in anticipating and preventing/avoiding the various failures possible. Such qualities are often found in grips and set electricians who have been around the block a few times.
If one doesn't have the proper sense of safety nor rigging experience, it is best to avoid rigging a camera to a balcony rail.
However, speaking of physics, I would like to reiterate that the physical properties of tempered glass are complex and that clamping to glass should never be attempted.
Here is a lecture on breaking glass cued to the start of the section on tempered glass. Note that the lecturer states that if one tries to modify tempered glass in the slightest, "fun things will happen!"
Tempered glass is primed to explode into little pieces. As shown in my above links above, strong flex stress or a tiny tap in the right spot can shatter tempered glass. Here is another video showing that tempered glass can take strong, broad impacts, but a local tap can cause it to shatter. In addition, the risk of shattering is exacerbated by any tiny damage or imperfection in the glass or by any stress added by a rig/clamp.
Here is a closeup of the stress on a block of glass generated by a C-clamp, in a photo taken with a polarimeter setup:
As more force is applied, the stresses increase.
Here is a similar image showing stress lines on a clear block of plastic that deforms more easily than glass:
These stresses are not visible when one tightens a Super/Mafer clamp onto a glass balustrade.
So, although a drunk person falling on a glass balustrade might not be a problem, a tiny impact and/or clamping force on a local spot of the glass might cause that balustrade to shatter. That could ruin one's day.
I have the benefit of years of experience as a member of an IA studio mechanics local working a set electrician and as a grip. If a new guy joined the crew and announced that they had postgraduate level physics and math, they would start out huffing cable, sandbags and carts just like every other newbie. The sense of safety, rigging techniques and set protocols has to be developed.
In the meantime, don't put towels or t-shirts inside overhead clamps, always use a substantial tag line (with solid pick points) on a balcony rig, and avoid attaching anything to location structures... oh, and never clamp to glass!
-
Here is a short video on how to "normalize" audio in Resolve.
In regards to the breathing and noise, I would guess that there are filters that can reduce that in Resolve, plus you can use eq and compression functions. Here is a short primer.
Perhaps someone here who is more knowledgeable in audio could chime in with other tips.
-
On 2/5/2021 at 8:50 AM, Trek of Joy said:
This is a pretty cool small solution - a clamp with the platform adapter and a ball head. https://digital-photography-school.com/manfrotto-super-clamp/
Thanks for the link, but the article demonstrates everything that one shouldn't do when rigging on a balcony.
Nothing is safety'd, so that fact alone makes the rigs hazardous.
Also, the reviewed clamp happens to be a strong cam-action clamp -- they can generate enormous clamping power that can crunch through soft/brittle materials and tubing. Only use Super/Mafer style clamps on solid metal, pipes with a minimum schedule 40 wall thickness or solid wood (be aware that these clamps can leave jaw indentations in wood).
Also, the article shows this:
There is so much wrong with what is happening in this photo that it is difficult to know where to begin. There is no safety line. The rig's CG is off-axis which suspends most of it's weight precariously beyond the "rail's" edge, and which puts flex stress on a small, local area of the glass.
However, the big doosie is that a cam-action clamp that generates huge clamping pressure is tightened onto a sheet of tempered glass. NEVER DO THAT!
Glass (and particularly tempered glass) isn't very stable/reliable when subjected to stresses, especially if more than one stress is applied to it simultaneously and/or if one of the stresses is focused on a small local area. If the above clamp is reefed down to set up powerful, unseen stress on the glass and if there is any imperfection in the glass, the pane(s) could shatter if someone merely hits the pane with their wedding ring.
Here's what a little tap can do to unstressed tempered glass.
Here's what mere flex stress can do to tempered glass.
Here's a short primer on what can cause glass to inexplicably shatter (which happens occasionally).
Never rig to glass at a location, especially if it is on a balcony!
On 2/5/2021 at 5:17 PM, kye said:I'll be running the risk I can't mount it to whatever they have if it's slightly larger in diameter, but I guess having a clamp that's slightly bigger teleports me to a different universe where people think I'll be destroying the universe if I mount an action camera on a sheet of drunk-person-proof and gale-force-wind-proof toughened glass!
No. It's not the size of the clamp. In fact, if I was forced to mount a camera on a balcony rail of unknown width, I would likely bring a large (relatively light weight) Space Clamp and plan on at least one tag line, with a bailing wire run between the different rig items.
The main point is to avoid altogether rigging to a balcony rail. Again, If one doesn't know enough about rigging to even know the names of the grip items, it is probably a really good idea for one not to attempt any rig on a balcony that could pose a hazard and/or possibly cause property damage.
Rigging items small or large to a glass balustrade on a balcony hugely complicates the risk. You could have the lightest action cam mounted with a Super Clamp, and that Super Clamp could still crunch right through that tempered glass, or the clamp set up stresses that cause the glass to shatter at an imperfection when someone lightly bumps the pane with a chair.
Mount your camera on balcony rail at your own peril, or, more accurately, at the peril of those who venture below your rig.
-
-
On 1/24/2021 at 7:52 PM, kye said:
Balconies are designed so that drunk people partying will be stopped by the fence/railing when they trip or get shoved towards the railing.
This scenario closely approximates the stresses of the rig that @herein2020 and I propose -- a tripod lightly leaning against the rail (or not at all), but with the added safety of earth and/or a tag line.
In contrast, most of the clamping rigs presented in this thread are analogous to standing the drunk people on top of the rail -- precarious and generating stresses for which the rail was not designed.
Also, anyone who shoves someone (drunk or not) toward a balcony railing is way too reckless to be rigging anything higher than one meter above the ground.
On 1/24/2021 at 7:52 PM, kye said:People who fall from balconies do so because they fall over the railing, not that the railing fails!
Yes, but (using your scenario) if you clamp someone standing to the top of the rail, the rail could fail and/or the person could fall.
On 1/24/2021 at 7:52 PM, kye said:I'll take the structural integrity of something designed to hold up 100kg+ falling people over the structural integrity of an aluminium tripod with a rating of 10lb/5kg 🙂
I'd rather set a tripod on top of a balcony that is rated to hold 1000+ Kg, rather than clamp to a piece of glass that was designed to block people from moving laterally off of the balcony.
On 1/24/2021 at 7:52 PM, kye said:Obviously it's important not to over-tighten the clamps, and also to ensure that the teeth or clamping surfaces aren't sharp in any way, which can easily be done by just putting a towel or t-shirt inside the clamp,
Oh boy... I implore you never to rig anything above anyone's head.
On 1/24/2021 at 7:52 PM, kye said:I can also arrange to put a tether around it to catch the setup if the clamp fails, but the orientation I would set it up in would put the centre of mass on the balcony side of the railing so it would tip into the balcony rather than over it anyway.
A tag line is not intended to "catch" the rig if it falls -- it is intended to keep it from moving laterally so it doesn't fall.
Don't clamp anything to the rail that would create torsion or flex stress -- even if the CG is above the balcony (and especially if the rail is supported by a glass panel).
On 1/24/2021 at 7:57 PM, kye said:This hook, which is designed to sit on top of a door, works because all the force is applied to one side of the door, and because the force from gravity is down, which keeps the hook securely on top of the door:
A balcony rail is not a door.
This "hook" is essentially 1/2 of a grip "trombone" or a Tota-mount. Even though those two grip items are exceedingly more secure than your "hook," I wouldn't use either of them on a balcony rail -- especially if it were supported by a glass panel.
Furthermore, never use a single "hook" (such as the one pictured) with the CG above the "hook.
On 1/24/2021 at 7:57 PM, kye said:Obviously the clamps we're talking about can easily rotate if kept loose, but I'm just saying that they don't need to be super tight because they're not fighting gravity, they're working with it.
Yeah... don't set up a rig that generates that kind of stress on a balcony rail above people.
On 1/25/2021 at 5:16 AM, kye said:This picture clearly shows a guardrail that is oval in shape and waaaay larger than 2" in diameter:
A light-weight Space Clamp with a small ball head would work on the rail shown in the above Bevo football photo, and the same rig would also work on balcony rails, but clamping to balcony rails is really not the best option.
On 1/23/2021 at 2:27 AM, kye said:half the battle is knowing the right terminology.
If you don't even know the names of the grip items, perhaps it would be best not to attempt a hazardous rig and just use a small, light tripod and a length of tag line.
I have an inexpensive tripod that weighs 0.75 Kg with it's ball head, and it extends to a height of 1.43 meters. Another advantage of employing a tripod is that you can use it to get other steady shots during your travels.
On 1/24/2021 at 1:22 PM, herein2020 said:I go out of my way not to attach anything to anything I don't own if at all possible
This is basically the creed of most professional grips and most professional set electricians. It prevents damage and injury and avoids liability. Non-professionals would do well to heed this fundamental guideline.
-
2 hours ago, Video Hummus said:
Black Promist is one of the best "mist" filters that preserves contrast, especially in the blacks, hence its name.
The word "Black" in the filter's name refers to the tiny black particles embedded in the filter to absorb light that scatters sideways through the diffusion, thus reducing "glow haze" and "halos."
This black particle technique first appeared in Harrison & Harrison Black Dot diffusion filters.
Blackmagic Camera Update Feb 17
In: Cameras
Posted
I didn't see any FPN with the BM cameras using Fairchild sensors. The BM cameras with CMOSIS sensors (BMPC, OG Ursa, Ursa Min 4k) can exhibit FPN if one is not careful, but having a global shutter is a worthwhile trade-off.