Jump to content

Taranis

Members
  • Content Count

    245
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Taranis

  1. Because I thought it shows the exact same issue. You can easily ignore it if you don't like it.
  2. Yeah I haven't seen this in my footage either, it seems to be a rare problem. It's not a post processing error.
  3. I posted two examples of in camera lens correction problems, to prove that in camera correction works for video too. Please read the thread before you start to criticise.
  4. By accident I just found another one, this time with the 10-24 lens. I wonder if this is some kind of lens problem, or body.
  5. From what I've seen so far I'm pretty sure it's applied in video mode too. An evidence might be this video where the correction is faulty. It's been shot with the 18-55 btw.
  6. I uploaded a short video for reference. It contains 4 of my sharpest clips from my last trip, using the 18-55: https://www.dropbox.com/s/y5tselgh7a3yol6/tihany_spring.mov?dl=1 These are all shot with sharpness set to -3, at high shutter speeds with OIS left on. My other clips from this trip are all blurrier than these 4, a lot of them are completely unusable. I'll do some more tests this week at the same location with the same settings but with OIS turned off. I'd like to know if I have a focusing issue and/or an OIS issue.
  7. Another screengrab from a recent footage with the 18-55: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qyesr6rvh25g6el/DSCF1519.jpg?dl=1 This is with -3 sharpness, looks okay.
  8. Okay, this is a screengrab from my movie: https://www.dropbox.com/s/weec4k8c4jdmpot/compare1.jpg?dl=1 And this is one from BTM_Pix's ProNegStd.mov: https://www.dropbox.com/s/tni42dns4ibr9li/compare2.jpg?dl=1 This one is even more blurry than mine, at least to my eyes, but I let you guys make the judgement. It's sharp when I compare it to other 1080p footages, but I watch it on a UHD monitor, so it can't be as sharp as a properly shot UHD footage, naturally.
  9. Yeah we don't know that for sure, and this is a 1080p footage, hard to make a judgement.
  10. Yes I see the difference, but I don't know how sharp those scenes would look with the 18-55.
  11. No, I rarely use smaller than f/11. It would be nice if another 18-55 user could comment on the sharpness of this lens. Should I be worried?
  12. Yes it was one of my first, it's mostly underexposed, I only posted it to show moiré. You might remember this one, is this sharp to you? This is with the same lens, but with -3 sharpness. If this is sharp to you, then -4 might be too low for this lens after all:
  13. Are you sure you are not talking about the D5200 footage? The X-T2 footage is fine, but from 0:33 you see the moiré at -4 sharpness.
  14. Check this roof in 4K, I shot it with -4 sharpness. It doesn't really help.
  15. The sharpness was at -3. I used to have it at -4, but then I read somewhere that at -4 some extra blur is applied. I did not test this at all, just used -3 from that point on. Does anyone have info about this? I can't test it for a while.
  16. Thanks a lot, I'll test this out as soon as I can!
  17. Thanks, I'll switch OIS off and try to remember to switch it on then. But do you think this something that should be serviced? Yeah it's not the sharpest in general but this one shows what my problem is. The edges are clearly sharper. About moiré: If you never seen anything this bad, then you are lucky. This is not my first rooftop that makes a footage unusable. For me it's been black or white so far, either I don't see any moiré, or I see it to this extent.
  18. I bought the X-T2 for video, but every now and then I take photos too. I use the 18-55 and I noticed some kind of flaw and I'm not sure if I should send it back for repair. Some of my photos are only sharp at the edges and blurry in the center. I've been told that the OIS is the cause, and I should switch it off when the shutter speed is faster than 1/80. I did not test it yet but I don't really want to focus on turning that thing on and off. Here is an example, check it at full res: On another topic, I thought the X-Trans sensor was developed to fight moiré, well, this roof is not looking
  19. Thanks. For the boat scene I prefer the ProNeg Std version, the restaurant scene was the only one where I found F-log to be useful: This is F-Log (not a proper grade, just pushed DR for comparison): And this is ProNeg Std, if you try to achieve the same: Lots of noise. However, in situations like this you can let the background blow out a bit, or light the scene if possible.
  20. Thanks, that would be nice! I was considering the BM Video Assist 4K too, but I read too many reviews about it being unstable. And yeah, if you can get a 4K60p capable recorder for a little more money, it's reasonable to save up for that one, as a recorder can easily outlive a camera body.
  21. Yes, I tried both Fuji LUTs. I played many hours with the F-Log footage posted so far. I really wanted to see how it compares to ProNeg Std as I was about to purchase a Ninja Inferno. Now I'm in doubt. I could get decent results with F-Log and I liked what I saw but when I compared it to ProNeg Std, it was not better at all, just a bit different. I just don't see anything with F-Log that can't be done with ProNeg Std, unless you really need those extra stops. I'd still like to see some F-Log footage exposed to 90-95 IRE, but I doubt it would be different. Above middle gray the F-Log curve is a
  22. Can this be the reason of what I see here? I applied a curve to the ProNeg Std JPG posted earlier, to see what's in the highlights. The sky is not pretty but this is a compressed JPG. And I tried to grade the F-Log footage to something similar, and the sky is ugly with lots of artifacts.
  23. Seems like it has a crop: "In full-frame shooting, the angle of view will be narrower under the following conditions: – When [File Format] is set to [XAVC S 4K] and [Record Setting] is set to [30p]."
  24. I tried to give it a warmer, sunset type of look.
×
×
  • Create New...