Jump to content

Devon

Members
  • Content Count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Devon

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Nebraska USA
  • My cameras and kit
    Sony A7s, Minolta SRT101, MinoltaX700, Canon T2i

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I just preordered his Big Metal 1.33x! Very excited! Have you used the SLR Magic 1.33x's?
  2. When you say "Vormax" do you mean the lenses from the freelancer in Russia? Maxim Voronin?
  3. When using an anamorphic adapter (like SLR Magic's 1.33x,) does the stretch factor DECREASE or INCREASE when focusing close-up? Thanks!
  4. Does anyone know of a rig component that simply holds lens filters? Similar to the one linked below. https://www.rapidotechnology.com/products/clamp-package/v3-clamp-large I need it to mount to standard 15mm rails. Thanks!
  5. I totally agree @Bioskop.Inc. If you're using spherical lenses, you're limited to 1920x1080. If you use anamorphic, and stretch the footage, you're doubling horizontal resolution. So if we decide to crop in post, it's hard to think of it as a loss in resolution when you just doubled your horizontal resolution. Depending on the horizontal crop I choose from a 2x lens, it also produces the same horizontal FOV the other anamorphic options (1.5x, and 1.33x) would produce (assuming the taking lens doesn't change.) Is this true too?
  6. So I had a thought today. WARNING: I tend to ramble, so bear with me --I have been thinking about buying an anamorphic lens lately. I shoot with a Sony A7s, and therefore am resticted to 16:9. I don't have a large budget, and have settled on buying a 2x anamorphic lens off of Ebay. One of my concerns is the ultra-wide aspect ratio 2x produces on a 16:9 sensor (3.55:1.) If I stretch the anamorphic footage in post, rather than squeeze, I double my horizontal resolution. But that horribly-wide aspect ratio (3.55:1) it produces is just too wide for my taste. So, after doing a bit (a lot) of math, I realized that if I just horizontally crop the image in post to fit a 2.66:1 or 2.39:1 composition (correcting the distortion by horizontally stretching the footage), that there is essentially NO need to buy a 1.33x or 1.5x lens.---Depending on the horizontal crop, a 2x lens essentially has all 3 types of anamorphic lenses (1.33x, 1.5x, and 2x) "built in" (depending on the horizontal crop I choose.) Depending on the horizontal crop I choose from a 2x lens, it also produces the same horizontal FOV the other anamorphic options (1.5x, and 1.33x) would produce. So after all this rambling, my question is as follows... For those of you familiar with anamorphic shooting, is this theory essentially correct? Thank you for sticking with me I know this is a lot of info to take in.
  7. Hello all! I was curious if anyone knew of a fancy trick to have a video file recorded at 60fps, playback at 24fps without opening in after effects, premeire, etc. and re-rendering the whole file. Could this be done by altering the video file's "code" in Mac's Terminal app, or something fancy like that? Please let me know if you guys are completely lost as to what I'm asking. Thanks!
  8. I'm having trouble understanding what After Effect's "Linearlize working space" does and where it can benefit me. I shoot all my footage in SLOG-2, and as soon as I check "Linearlize working space" and "Color management" in after effects, I cannot seem to recover highlights and shadows. The image just looks bad. If I don't use this feature, can my video files look differently from computer to computer when watching on youtube (assuming I color manage my footage in sRGB?) Do the gamma values change? Once you render to H.264, isn't the footage linearlized during the rendering process anyway? Sorry for the lack of detail here. I have read posts about this here http://prolost.com/blog/2009/9/30/passing-the-linear-torch.html and here http://prolost.com/blog/2006/6/4/know-when-to-log-em-know-when-to-lin-em.html Even after reading these posts, I still cannot determine if I should be using "Linearlize Working Space" when editing SLog-2 encoded footage.
  9. Sorry for digging up an old thread, but I just wanted to say @Gregormannschaft 's above video is beautiful! The DR is HUGE! Did you shoot in s-gamut too? My favorite shot is the screenshot below. Is this shot on a 35mm lens or a 24mm?
  10. Looking at @EyeSoul 's sample photos he uploaded, I'm quite impressed with its level of detail. Is it possible that the speed booster can "sharpen" the image?
  11. @EyeSoul thanks for getting us back on track. When you say it lacked the "pop" of your nikon, are you referring to the color and contrast rendition? Or are you referring to the character of the barrel distortion? Wow that focal reducer looks great! I would never guess you shot those on a crop! That's a cute pair of kids btw
  12. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1174425-REG This is so tempting. I shoot with a Sony a7s and legacy film lenses are my "go-to." Most of my film lenses are a bit soft compared to modern lenses. With that in mind - I've been looking for a fast 35mm lens to adapt to my Sony, and I'm thinking the image quality from this would closely match a legacy 35mm lens. This lens is also cheaper than most legacy lenses too. What you guys think? Would it be a waste of money to buy it?
  13. When I shoot video in Slog-2, then switch to manual for stills, it seems that PP7 is affecting the color of those images. I am shooting RAW, and from what I thought, RAW files were data straight from the sensor. How is this happening?
  14. Thats exactly what i was looking for!! Thank you
  15. Thanks for all your help! That helps clear some things up! I've searched all over, and there isn't much info on what these parameters actually do. Even Sony's documentation is vague. I'm also seeing that everyone finds it difficult to grade slog-2? Why is this? I find it rather convenient with the help of Conversion LUTS.
×
×
  • Create New...