Jump to content

TrueIndigo

Members
  • Content Count

    60
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TrueIndigo

  1. Michi, this Wiki page gives some info about Fuji Super CCD technology (link below). I remember seeing their promotional material at the time and it looked like a great idea for organic images. And of course it was a CCD (not CMOS). Andrew asked if I took stills -- not recently, but I remember when I first got it the stills struck me as having a very nice grain structure, very photographic, and the colours were vivid but retro vivid, not modern electric vivid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_CCD
  2. The camera used was a compact stills camera, the Fuji FinePix E900. I bought it new for £140 in May 2007 and haven't used it for seven years (the first thing I had to do was reset the clock!). The 4:3 video it shoots (auto exposure only) is 640 x 480 x 30p. I enlarged this with a video utility to make it 1440 x 1080 x 30p before editing on a 1920 x 1080 timeline, so the "Academy" shape was retained. But absolutely no exposure or colour changes were made, so the colours you see are straight from the camera. Interestingly, it's the auto exposure (and it's sudden changes within a shot) that makes it look amateur, more so perhaps than the ultra low resolution. A sad sign of the times regarding increasing obsolescence: I took out the xD card to put in my computer multi-memory card reader, only to find that xD was not one of them! Luckily, the camera features a USB socket, so I could connect the camera directly to access the files. Michi: "I'm particularly curious to see what camera @TrueIndigo has used. I liked the colours of that one the most." -- This camera features a 9MP 5th generation Super CCD HR sensor. From the days when Fuji photsites were octagonal in shape and some were of a different size -- wild times!
  3. Here is my cheap DIY viewfinder eye cushion. I sewed together two elasticated hair bungees. The first one clasps the EVF surround, and the second one comes in a little over the viewfinder and makes a more comfortable cushion than the firm rubber eyecup. These things come in many different colours, though I chose photographic black to suit the camera. They also come in different sizes/thicknesses. You may be able to see from the scale of the Panny G7 what size these are (they fit quite tightly on the viewfinder surround, which is the main thing). Also using these lower profile hair bungees means I can swing the articulated screen past and it doesn't come off. You could choose a more bulbous bungee which would make an even more comfortable cushion, but if you are opening and closing the screen a lot it would be inconvenient.
  4. aaa123jc: "hopefully I won't lose my new camera" -- don't worry your camera's quite safe, I've just uploaded my entry:
  5. Yes, great colour separation and pleasing, natural look (without any processed harshness). I don't know what else you could do for colour or texture to make this more organic.
  6. For many years I used Final Cut at work and Premiere at home. Then a different sort of decision was approaching me -- I was surprised to realise my "latest workstation" was actually 8 years old! I had been shooting in UHD for a year or so and seemlessly went into a proxy workflow without much disruption, but even so, my machine was practically obsolete in computer terms. Why had I not upgraded before? I did not want Windows 10 with it's endless updates (Win 7 was fine by me). And I had also stopped at Premiere and After Effects CS6 (everything was of a similar age), because I did not like the Adobe subscription model. It seemed these two things that were important to me were coming together requiring a change of some sort! Having used Linux for many years, I decided I would take that route with my next workstation build, as a feasibility study. But how to replace Premiere? I looked, as I periodically do, to see what was the current situation with Linux NLE's, and tested the latest KdenLive and Shotcut, but finally settled on Cinelerra (the GG version) as being the closest to what I have been used to. Still finding my way, but it's looking to be the most serious contender. My Photoshop replacement is GIMP and Krita (more a paint program than an image editor).
  7. Yes, I've watched quite a few videos shot by the GH5 which is why I'm interested in it as a future camera. And what you have said on other threads about grading makes a lot of sense to me. An attractive straight out of camera look is nice to have (I'm thinking of Fuji or Olympus), but not so important as grading (knowing what you want and being able to achieve it using the software of your choice). And camera usability now becomes more important to me since the technical threshold of UHD resolution has been met for most cheap cameras. I favour Panny because they just get out of the way to let you go to work (I owned a GH1 years ago and have a G7 now). Regardless of what may come next, I think the GH5 will remain a viable camera for some time because of it's high levels of usability and economic 10-bit codec for advanced post flexibility. The GH5 is as close to the mythical pocket cinema camera as I am likely to need for my skill level; what it makes available answers a lot of video shooting questions.
  8. Many thanks, mate. Might be looking at getting this one later in the year (going to sell some lenses and books to help off-set the cost), so I wanted to get familiar with it early -- I have some reading to do 🙂
  9. I don't yet own the GH5 and would like to read up about it, but can't seem to find a download for the user guide -- anyone have a direct link to the PDF?
  10. Because I am of a certain age, in my youth I had a 16mm Bolex which featured a turret containing three Switar primes. You pulled the hinged chrome central stick to one side to use as a leaver and: click-click-click -- you immediately had a different lens in place. I don't miss the dark and dingy view through the prism block, though.
  11. More on the lens turret: https://www.newsshooter.com/2019/04/10/multi-turret-old-school-meets-new-school/
  12. The Panasonic press release for the paid-for SI upgrade is on DPreview. Should be coming by July, but still no price: https://www.dpreview.com/news/5805992591/panasonic-s1-10-bit-and-v-log-paid-upgrade-coming-in-july
  13. Although Panasonic design continues on the unitarian theme, I must say these robust mag alloy bodies look very good to me, especially compared to say the P4K (if they were painted bright yellow, I'd half expect water to squirt out of the lens). For full frame weatherproof cameras they aren't much bigger than the MFT G9, and quite dwarfed by Olympus's recently announced E-M1X with the built-in battery grip. Unfortunately, for ultimate usability they stop short of featuring a fully articulated rear screen (even if you swear you'll never use it, it's great for protecting the screen when not in use), though I'd give them full marks for featuring the high (highest) resolution EVF unit. Is the S1 too expensive at £2,199? I've previously thought it was a wrong move to charge near full frame prices for high end MFT cameras, though since the GH5S was the same body-only price (at £2,199 on release in January, 2018), I suppose I can't really argue against it now for an actual full frame mirrorless camera. If the promised firmware update doesn't deliver though, it may date these first FF Pany's quite badly in the next few years if you considered them as a long term investment. Still no details about the rolling shutter performance from the VistaVision size sensor in video mode, compared to the fast readout we have become used to now in the MFT format. So much will depend on that video update to bring the S1 alive, otherwise the future GH6 may prove to be too much competition for less money. And perhaps a little embarrassing if the S1 doesn't get certified as a Tier 1 camera by the EBU, when the two-year-old GH5 is.
  14. The standard definition 16:9 proxy frame size I use is 1024 x 576.
  15. Gerald Undone talking about the X-T3:
  16. An update on the Viltrox/Tamron 17-50mm situation. The lens does work again with the adapter now. I don't know what made me try it again, but I found that twisting the lens more firmly round when I mount it seems to achieve a more reliable connection with the adapter's contacts. But, I do not hear a definite lock when I mount the lens, so although the fit is firm, I never feel confident the lens is actually locked on the camera! The vintage Yashica prime locks fine, though. The issue with infinity focus: again, I thought I had turned the inner element as far as it could go, especially as it's not easy to do this, but having tried it again, there was actually more rotation to be found (it was becoming quite tight to turn, and you are never sure if you should really be turning it this far or not!), but it does now feel like infinity focus has been achieved. Just wish the lens would lock...
  17. If I remember the DVX100 hack started on the DVInfo forum (in the Alternative imaging section), then they got their own website and it was named Andromeda. There seem to be a lot of desperate stuff going on in those days - I was one of a handful of people trying to use industrial camera heads for video, RAM-recording about 20 seconds at a time of Bayer video to a laptop, great times!
  18. I also remember following this development all those years ago. It seemed as exciting back then as the start of the Magic Lantern RAW video hack.
  19. I tried the Canon-fit Tamron 17-50mm (f2.8 constant) on the Viltrox EF-M2 and it worked on that first occasion. But thereafter, it did not (ie. I could not change aperture). I have emailed Viltrox about this several weeks ago but never received a reply. So right now, I'd say don't consider the Tamron.
  20. Waited for ages for the Viltrox EF-M2 to arrive, and on the first day, my Tamron 17-50mm zoom worked fine. But that was the last time! Cannot change aperture since that first day. Very disappointed and wondering what I'll do with it now. Have been using an old Yashica 50mm prime because that's the only lens I have that fits via a C/Y to EF adapter (unfortunately, all my Nikon old primes have transmission pins that will clash with the Viltrox contacts, so I cannot use them). I have never used the Metabones so I can't compare it, but I would say the optical quality of the Viltrox is generally very good for the price. But infinity focus needed adjusting. You loosen the small screw (with the mini screwdriver provided) and turn the rear element. It's a bit fiddly - once I misjudged it and the screw came right out. Luckily, the screwdriver is magnetic which helps, but it was a hectic few moments trying to get that small thing back in. You have to use a bit of down force to get the rear element to rotate counter-clockwise while trying to avoid touching the glass. With it moved to the fullest rotation, I'm still not absolutely sure infinity focus is perfect, though.
  21. How far back was Panalog with the Panavision Genesis, 2005 or something?
  22. I brought the in-camera highlight curve down a bit on the lowly G7 which I thought helped highlight roll-off with the more fragile 8-bit image.
  23. Saw Blade Runner 2049 yesterday (no plot spoilers in my observations). This is a generally well-realized near-future sci-fi film, as many of the modern fully-funded Hollywood blockbusters are (this one is estimated as costing between $150-185 million depending on what you read). But it does seem somewhat formulaic, lacking any special distinction or energy. It pays homage to the advertising nightmare rainy city as before, and in the breakers yard wasteland goes for a more Mad Max vibe. But non of it has a truly unique knock-out experience as the earlier film managed with less advanced effects. Seeing Blade Runner in 1982 was nothing short of a cinematic revelation about what was possible, given the commitment of various art departments through sheer force of personality and vision. And since things have moved on so much now (the artistry of the CGI people is incredible), it does not give anything like a new version of that sense of wonder which jolted me in the eighties. The sound design follows the trend of many modern action films in being set at a painfully high level - the sort of film in which just putting a drink down on a table sounds like a firecracker going off, and drawing on a cigarette briefly sounds like a bush fire. On this film, a gun shot was as loud as an huge explosion, taking me out of the story every time because of the discomfort. And this was more easy than it should have been, because the story itself felt confused to me and several times I found myself wondering how much longer the film was going on (never a good sign). Although the trailer gives the impression of a sophisticated fast-paced action thriller, in fact everything takes a long time, and is not particularly worth waiting for. Unfortunately it's not very sophisticated either, with uninspired dialogue. I did actually feel mildly bored, which surprised me - I didn't think they would make that mistake - because the overall drama remained cold and uninvolving. Non of the characters turned out to be anyone I could care for, compared to key scenes in the original, such as when Rachel starts playing a piano (and says: "I didn't know I could play."). With the original the audience felt like crying, in this new one some of the characters cry, but it doesn't ring true. It's a bit like watching a full-on romance movie in which it is obvious there is no chemistry between the two lead actors - all of the humans watching such a movie know it immediately: that these two people are only together because they have been badly cast in a movie. In the same way the new Blade Runner story continues with the theme of what it means to be human in a difficult future world of synthetic people, yet tells it with little show of the humanity which is supposed to be so important. Seeing the original movie in the cinema was a life-changing experience, and I eagerly bought the VHS, then later many versions on DVD, etc-etc. It was a way of keeping in touch with a dream, but I have no interest in watching this one again - in any formats that may exist in the future. I opted to see the 2D version of the film because the movie was shot in 2D - ironically, the 3D version has been synthetically processed to give a 3D effect. It's not that I dislike this movie because I liked the original so much, my reaction would be the same if the original never existed. Because it's a disappointing movie in its own right, though obviously without knowing that I had to see it out of a slight hope there was something of the mesmerizing quality of Rachel's self-realization. But of course there is only one Sean Young.
  24. Here's the colour graded version, produced in After Effects, using the Color Finesse plug-in. The YouTube contrast looks more harsh than I saw when I was actually grading it, and the shadows I fought to keep have gone to hell here. Oh well!
  25. buggz: "Guess it's time to build yet another Linux box...." Yes, my old workstation runs Win 7 and I'm not that keen on continuing with Win 10 for a new machine. I've been using Linux on my other DIY computers for several years, but not for video use. I think GIMP and Krita (together) might be a viable alternative for my Photoshop use, but is the free Resolve on Linux an alternative to After Effects and Premiere? Last time I looked into it I thought there were some serious limitations on export options (for example, no H.264 ?), and do you need a specific distro for it to run on (I like using Mint). Have dipped into Kdenlive over the years: it has been getting better but I never felt really at home with it, probably just lack of familiarity -- anyone else on here using it seriously? I think with a viable alternative to Photoshop, Premiere and After effects, I would be much more confident in finally going over to Linux full time.
×
×
  • Create New...