Jump to content

no_connection

Members
  • Posts

    385
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by no_connection

  1. The biggest problem I see is it's harder to match focal length to digital intuitively (should be fine if math is involved)
    And then the perspective difference if you just crop in to the top half of the image vs center it in camera. So you need some nifty math to correct perspective for the reframe. Less of a problem with longer focal length tho. It also depends on your audience. If you use wide angle ppl would end up with long faces for example.

  2. This would make an interesting wireless solution with a point to point wifi link like UBNT Nanostation. (I use the LocoM2 as a cheap AP with great range)

    Key would be to force it to output the correct frame rate and resolution.

    Having it not scale could maybe reduce latency by a little too.

    Wonder if VLC on a phone would work too. That would make a decently cheap monitor maybe.
    With a more powerful PC or tablet adding peaking and the like might be possible.

    btw it's UDP and not TCP/IP so there is no error correction or handling of dropped packets.

  3. I came across this and found it interesting

    https://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Partners-Launching-Mining-Focused-P106-100-and-P104-100-Graphics-Cards

    It's pretty much a gaming card but without display output and intended to crunch numbers a bit more cheaply than the display capable counterpart.
    It might be a somewhat cheaper alternative to add some much needed number crushing to a video editing rig, but with the drawback that you can't use it to display anything on should you want to later.

  4. Where is the 8K? Skimming through it I don't see much content that goes above 4K, and the few that does seem to be exclusively timelapse.
    The oversaturated greens and overall horrible colors did at lease give me a horrible viewing experience.
    And did you notice the resolution of that train shot thrown in the first time? If not then there is probably a point that got proven or lesson learned.

    8k.PNG

    8ktrain.PNG

  5. They ether have to pull something magic out of their sleeves that makes the image more desirable then the alternatives, or make the experience easier/better when using it or in post.

    Else there is not much need for it. It's a neat idea, just like the modular phone was, but when it comes down to it you ether use it because it's better or because you reeeeeeely want to.

    Maybe a wonderful monochrome sensor, not sure there are any affordable cameras with that.

    If they got the pull from science community for capturing high quality footage of stuff, that would speed it up and drops some funds in.

  6. Is it while focusing or does it "move" the lens when you put it on?

    You could add another wheel to the other side to counteract some of the static side forces.

    If it is wobbling while turning then adding a linked wheel to the opposite side that turns as well should do the trick as it would cancel the up/down force added to lens. No idea if that exists tho.

    Another idea is a big ball bearing and a short "pipe" through it, The follow focus makes contact with the outside of it but not the lens. The lens is then couples at all sided to the inner part of the very short pipe. That way the pipe takes all other force and only transfers rotation to the lens. This would also support the lens as well. How much depends how soft the linking material is.
    The outside of the ball bearing would be securely fastened to the rails.

    Last idea (and maybe the simplest to test) would be adding a timing belt and use that to contact the lens. And not having the gear make the connection. Then add a small freerunning wheel to counteract the timing belts force (that would not be much). This however would reverse the direction, but the follow focus might have and option for that.

    *edit*

    Oh last last idea, add a belt that is freerunning but there to counteract the force of the follow focus. Essentially pulling the lens towards the wheel instead of it pushing against the lens own "bearing". It could use the same area or even a timing belt but have a wheel just beyond the driving wheel.

    Actually thinking about it. If you have another wheel the same size as the driving wheel, if you link that and have a timing belt that wraps around the lens, you would both get drive, solve the static load problem, and add some better grip while your at it.

    I can draw up a diagram if you want.

  7. I have had flash devices just die, but have not powered off any while writing. Not about to test ether.

    However if it had behaved like a block device to begin with we would not have these problems, yet here we are with many ppl ending up with bricked storage devices for no apparent reason.
    I would add that corrupt data is fine, and simple file systems like fat32 is easy to work with. But here the card itself have been corrupt and can't seem to be talked to. That shows  a level beyond a simple addressable block device.
    I agree that the solution seems so simple, with just a little safety added and things should be smooth sailing. SSD kinda sorta took their time but seem to be more resilient nowdays. Flash memory still seems as fragile as ever.

  8. I would say this used to be the case when cards was still block devices.Meaning the OS could freely just read any block of data and all would be good. Even if power died during a write you could recover what's left.

    But as with SSD cards now have a controller, a chip or two and more space then used. Then data is handled with wear leveling and whatnot just like an SSD. So if you pull the power you could corrupt that table of wonder and what's left is a garbled unreadable mess, cause it was never linear to begin with. And at this point the card won't let you do anything or at best read some small part of it.

    At least that is how I understand it.

  9. 4 minutes ago, jonpais said:

     

    Am I suppose to blush and feel embarrassed now? And that quote somehow gonna invalidate my opinion and everything I said?

    threads like these:

     That I have seen you in even makes that point too. I can say it again if you want, I don't think dynamic range is that big of a deal. It's not unimportant but not the be all end all number to strive for. Same with resolution, there are usable standards and 480p probably won't cut it. I can say 8k is not that big of a deal and many would probably agree. 4k is good enough. Heck 2k can still be used right?

  10. I did not say that dynamic range was unimportant or that a stop or two does not matter. Buy if it's everything then the GH4 (before v-log) could not make anything useful (as it looses 2 stops not having v-log(taken from headline)) and it's a miracle that anything was ever made with lower dynamic range. My opinion is that it's not a be all end all parameter and I'm sticking too it, and I respect that you want and need all the dynamic range you can get. But why defend that stop or two when the Alexa just walks all over the rest of them combined?


    When I see them messing up black level for footage I called it out, what more proof do you want than waveform? You can easily spot it in the original footage. And if they didn't mess up and the camera was indeed crushing the blacks, then that is even worse as it makes the camera unusable, and the fought over DR is just a bogus number. So telling me I'm wrong kind of dooms the camera for any use.

  11. 34 minutes ago, jonpais said:

    There's no such thing as clipping blacks. It's called crushing the blacks. And the reason the image is so dark is precisely because he's using the same settings for all cameras, and at ISO 1600, the X-T2 is probably in actuality closer to ISO 800. 

    Crushing would be smashing them together. Clipping just cut them off, just like you can do with highlights. But terminology aside.
    You are wrong. The reason it's darker is because they are cutting information away at the bottom. What should be an elevated shade of gray is now black. As you can see in the screenshot they are all the same brightness when this is done to the rest of the cameras. Except the sony that has a flatter profile. it has nothing to do with sensitivity or ISO. Cutting away at the bottom will darken the entire image and screw up colors.

  12. I don't own any cameras yet. I was super excited about the a6300 but you know how that camera went. Same for a number of other cameras. X-T20 maybe as I take still too, but RS is still unknown.

    I don't disagree that DR is important, but it's so high by now that it should be good enough. And I doubt you lock the X-T2 to ISO 800 using F-log at all times. There are so many other things to consider than DR. Don't the built in profiles limit DR? so would using ISO200 right? But considering the image now looks awesome and super clean, that loss in DR flies out the window.

    You may also have missed it but I made a point that DR on a chart is pretty useless and real clips is where it matters. But there is no scientific number for that.
    DR tells little how highlight are handled and how colors behave close to clipping. G7 vs a6300 pool scene comes to mind. Don't remember what DR ether of those cameras have but I digress.

×
×
  • Create New...