AdrParkinson

9 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Sounds like you'd be happier with 200Mbit 4K on the E-M5 III for a bit more money

I'm sure I would be happier, but my bank account wouldn't be. I've been using a Canon 550d for six years. I think that even if the E-M10 isn't the best camera money can buy right now, it'll be a huge upgrade over the Canon.

Quote

I can upload some original files from the E-M10 III but won't be today

Thanks. I appreciate it.

50 minutes ago, tupp said:

I never experienced artifacts with Cinestyle.  Are you referring to  compression artifacts in the shadows or to posteriztion/banding?

Yes. Featureless skies tend to band quite heavily.

50 minutes ago, tupp said:

At any rate, I haven't noticed problems on the E-M10 III with my highlight/shadow settings (in my brief experience so far with the camera), but, again, I am using a light touch with those settings.

That's good to hear. I'm not usually a fan of heavy grading, so I doubt I would run into any issues.

2 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Why don't you look at the blog post that started this thread?! I posted my straight out of camera footage there and you can download the original Vimeo clip

I have, hence why I'm here. But there seemed to be some compression artifacts when I downloaded the clip from Vimeo. That's why I prefer unedited footage straight from the camera.

2 hours ago, tupp said:

One thing that never gets mentioned about the E-M10 III is that, although it cannot employ custom picture profiles, it does share the highlight/shadow control feature found in other OMD cameras.  This attribute allows changes in the camera's contrast curve over a large range of values.  It's a powerful control, and one must use a light touch to avoid pushing the curve too far, as it can look unnatural.  I set the highlights to "-1" and the shadows to "+1," which levels the contrast curve a bit.  Additionally, I enable the "Muted" picture profile, with @TiJoBa's recommended "-2" setting for sharpness and with a "0" setting for saturation.

 

This Imaging-Resource review gives examples of how the highlight/shadow control can affect those areas of the contrast curve.  Scroll down to the "Highlight/Shadow Control" section and "mouse over" the different values to see how it changes the detail and brightness in those areas.

 

By the way, the OMD highlight/shadow control also allows adjustment of the midrange values (at the "center cross" in the display).  Eventually, I will test setting the shadows to "+2," the midrange to +1 and the highlights to "0."

 

 

How would you say it compares with the old Cinestyle profile for Canon? I always found that while it made grading easier, the bitrate just wasn't there to support it and so there were too many artifacts.

4 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

Raw, really raw, footage when (trying) to walk the dog:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/3oaq7mi3ih7a2lw/AAADf0DOxJiBbdiKOdOulsbJa?dl=0

Kinda all over the place sorta stuff.   Some with variable ND. Some not. Some auto WB, some not. Some modern lens (oly 12-40 2.8) some not. Some auto focus, most not. 24p, 30p, 60p. 4K, 1080.  200 ISO, 3200 ISO.  You get the idea. It's a hodgepodge. 

Its all shot with "natural" setting tho. 

Thanks. This looks like a good varied set of samples.

I'm looking at getting the E-M10 at some point in the near future. Is there a place I can find good sample clips? Most of the ones I've found so far have been rather poorly shot or are on Youtube an Vimeo and so are too compressed to properly judge. Does Andrew or anyone else here who's used it have any straight-out-of-camera clips they can share?

I was at a Canon Roadshow event earlier this year and in the section where they talk about new products they discussed the 4K on the MkIV, and basically said all other manufacturer's 4K video was useless because they don't have Dual Pixel AF. I just thought that was ridiculous as cinematographers have been pulling focus manually far longer than they've been using AF. The only other thing they could seem to think of in Canon's favor was the fact that Sony and Panasonic don't sell their cameras here in South Africa.

http://vimeo.com/116198217

I shot this the other day on what looked like it was going to be a wet and gloomy day. Instead I ended up with a bad sunburn. But it was worth it as I came back with some shots I liked and had a good time. I used a Canon 550d/T2i and a Sankor 16C. All the shots but one used a Pentax 50mm as the taking lens. One big problem I ran into was banding. Some of this I was able to correct with masking and blurring, but in future I'll know not to use Cinestyle for days like this.

The specs certainly sound impressive. However, I want to know who at Samsung thought it would be a good idea to use the name "Backside illumination". Maybe it sounded better in Korean.

Forgive me if this is a stupid question as I still don't completely understand the topic. I know that achromatic filters are of much higher quality, but also much higher price. So how usable are normal macro filters like the cheap Vivitar ones or these even cheaper ones from China:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/52mm-52-Closeup-Close-Up-Macro-1-2-4-10-Filter-Kit-/300932412048?pt=Camera_Filters&hash=item4610f83290

Also, what size would be best to avoid distortion at the corners?

That sounds expensive. It isn't serious on any of my lenses so hopefully it won't be a problem. It sounds like it could be worse for Anthony though.

Nearly all of my lenses (anamorphic and normal) are old ones I've bought used and some of them have minor fungal marks. Would leaving them in the sun help?

Prob spend a bit more than $1.5, maybe push the boat out and spend $5.

I'm a cheapskate. :D

M42 is a type of lens mount that screws on to the camera. EF is the name of Canon's mount type. I bought a cheap $1.5 M42 to EF adapter which doesn't allow me to screw the lens in all the way so I would suggest spending a little more on that than I did.

Cool. When it's been tightened all the way will the lens be level or do you have to unscrew it slightly to get the correct angle?

Then you might want to buy a regular step down ring and just glue it to the back of the Sankor. That fits every budget, but it's a very poor solution, I'd say.

Yeah, I figured it isn't the best option, but I doubt I will be using it for crazy run and gun work, mostly tripod shots. Gluing it on sounds a little scary though.

Thanks. Unfortunately both of those seem to be a little beyond my budget at the moment.

Without wishing to be a pest, is using a step ring a good way to attach an anamorphic lens or is it not reliable enough for more stressful situations (handheld and so on)?

I had a look around. I did see on this forum a DIY adapter that looked like it might be a good cheap option. I don't have a lot of money to spend on gear. I've been fortunate enough to find some amazing bargains. At the same shop as this lens I also got two others (one being the Pentax I mentioned) and a fluid-head tripod. I suppose that in a way this has spoiled me in that I consider things such as the Vid-Atlantic clamps to be too expensive.

I would like to know how viable it is to use a step ring. In this thread here:

'?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>>

It seems to work but there were concerns about durability.

I've read that with the 16C there are variations in the rear threads. I compared it to an M42 adapter of mine and it was smaller so I assume the threads are 40mm or so but I don't know if that's true. Can anyone confirm if there was a version with threads of that size?

Hello everyone. First post.

So I just found a 16C at a charity shop today for a bonkers low price and now I need to find a way to adapt it to my camera. I'm using a Canon 550d/T2i with a Pentax 50mm that has 49mm front threads. The 16C has threads on the back so I was wondering if it's possible to use a step ring to attach it or if I have to have a clamp like the ones from Vid-Atlantic.

Any information will be appreciated.