Jump to content

HockeyFan12

Members
  • Posts

    878
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About HockeyFan12

Profile Information

  • My cameras and kit
    Arriflex 765

Recent Profile Visitors

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

HockeyFan12's Achievements

Frequent member

Frequent member (4/5)

490

Reputation

  1. Here's the lite version again: https://www.dropbox.com/s/bvq3mw4lnek50ps/5DtoRGB Lite.app.zip?dl=0
  2. I'll take a look, I should have it backed up somewhere.
  3. I was trying to shoot something under moonlight. I think I should get almost enough coverage for 2.35:1 and an equivalent of f0.90 based on some photos I saw (and can no longer find) on Flickr of someone with a 85mm f1.2 and speedbooster on an A7. But there are f0.95 lenses that cover full frame fully with modern coatings. Anyway, this was a failed experiment lol.
  4. Thanks, it's no problem getting the lens off the adapter. The adapter just won't mount on the body. I noticed the set screws on the mount seem to be a bit stripped. Starting to think someone returned it because they had the same problem I have. 😕 This was probably kind of a misguided plan in the first place probably when there are f0.95 lenses available for rent that actually do cover full frame.... but I saw this for 40% off and had to try it.
  5. It just arrived today but the speedbooster won't mount on my camera. The mount is an L mount for sure. Any idea how to make this work? There's an "on off" ring around it but I'm not sure what rotating that does. I doubt it'll work out anyway (doubt there will be enough coverage) but I'm really curious to give it a try and it was on sale (open box) so I had to give it a go!
  6. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1682916-REG/metabones_mbspfd_l_bm1_canon_fd_fl_lens_to.html Someone on Flickr was doing this with an A7 and I think an off-brand speed booster. But I should probably just get (rent) a 50mm f0.95 of some sort.
  7. I've read that some Canon FD L lenses (85mm f1.2, I think), for instance, cover nearly 645. Metabones has recently released an FD to L mount speed booster, which got me thinking.... I was wondering if these (or any other f1.2 lenses: EF mount or adapted to EF or FD mount so Nikon, Rokinon, Olympus, etc. would be options) can be used full frame in 2.35:1 crop as f0.9 lenses. A little bit of vignetting is fine. Or does the speed booster limit you to crop via the contacts on the adapter somehow? Is there a way to overrule that? Would be using an S1. I was thinking 50mm f1.2 FD L, 85mm f1.2 FD L, 50mm f1.2 Olympus OM, 50mm f1.2 Nikon AI would be options. Full moon on Wednesday....
  8. Right, the over/under charts Arri publishes support this. Early Red cameras were the same way. I talked with an engineer about this and didn't totally understand what he wrote. But why are all these cameras base 800 ISO and don't go any lower than that? I think it's because that is where the minimum gain is applied and then the gamma curve redistributes the dynamic range. As I mentioned, 640 ISO on the S1H V LOG is really (probably) 100 ISO with a gamma curve. Can you just apply less gain and have a sensor be like 5 ISO and start from there? If so, why not do that now that sensors are closer to ISO invariant and just have tons of highlight detail? Why is there a minimum ISO with most cameras and it's usually 100 for dSLRs and 800 for cinema cameras? And, in my experience based on dynamic range distribution, 100 ISO on dSLRs clips at the same point as 800 for cinema cameras? I always figured the issue was full well capacity? Why do the higher res Red cameras seem to clip sooner than the lower res ones? Why did the F3 with its 2.8K sensor have more dynamic range above 18% gray at 800 ISO than the F5 had above 18% gray at 2000 ISO? Anyway this is all over my head but I trust Arri's over/under numbers. But is "full well capacity" dependent on voltage and you can achieve infinite highlight detail with a lower gain? Or is it also a factor? The physical capacity of the photo site before it saturates? I've spoken with engineers and they imply that full well capacity is a factor. http://photonstophotos.net For instance has a maximum dynamic range for an ideal system (oddly, Arri seems to surpass it).
  9. Thanks for the insight, but I'd read that with ISO invariant cameras the limitation was no longer from the noisy A/D converter and instead from full well capacity and photon clipping. (At least for the most part.) It sounds like there is more to this story though. I actually don't know much about this and am curious how they achieved it. Regardless, what Arri has achieved here seems nearly as unique in today's market as the Classic was ten years ago.
  10. I have a very limited understanding of sensor design, but highlight dynamic range should be dictated by full well capacity. Each photosite is like a bucket. It can only fill with so many photons before it overflows. The reason most of these current cameras are 500-800 base ISO is because they need to underexpose and dig into the shadows to distribute DR since the photosites are only so big and can only hold so much light before being saturated. I suspect when the S1H shoots 640 ISO in V Log, the sensor is reading out the same signal as 100 ISO in another picture style. It's just digitally redistributing the dynamic range into the highlights. The Alexa has about half as many pixels per square inch as the C200 (4K S35), S1H (4K in S35), Venice (4K in S35), etc. Its photosites are about half as big. (2880X1620 = 4665600 photosites; 4096*2304 = 9437184 photosites) So they should hold twice as much light (one stop) before overflowing. Unsurprisingly, the Alexa has about a stop more highlight dynamic range than its competitors at base ISO. The Alexa35, however, has pixels that are about the same size as the C200, S1H, Venice, etc. But it has 1.5 stops MORE highlight dynamic range than the Alexa Classic. So that's 2.5 stops more than the competition. Maybe the base ISO of the Alexa35 will be 1600 to account for some of that (it underexposes and pushes an additional stop)? And the sensor design has physical improvements that account for the rest? Regardless, this puts the camera on another level from everything else on the market. But if its base ISO is 1600 that might explain it to an extent. Or maybe I misunderstand this and there are other factors like voltage involved? Regardless, this camera has already far surpassed my expectations.
  11. I've compared most of those cameras but not side by side (worked with almost all of them either in post or in person). LOVE the EVA1's image but the LCD and ergonomics are terrible. I put a little loupe on the LCD as I like a minimal set up but it would be a pain to "rig up" traditionally. I much prefer its image to the S1H actually. The colors are just better. It's not a world apart but it just looks better. Noisier though. C200 has a great image but the noise pattern is ugly and there's CMOS smear. It's just not the image I want. P6K I've only worked with in post but it's a pain in some ways from what I can see but the image looks great too. I think it boils down to ergonomics ultimately (and getting the right IRND filters for the P6K – or just getting the pro model) but both the EVA1 and P6K are capable of beautiful images, right on par with (or just a step down from) the Varicam35 and Alexa, which have quite different looking but really beautiful images too.
  12. I believe the digital definition of ISO (depending on whether you place middle gray at 12.5% or 18% saturation) implies 2.5 or 3 stops of highlight detail. It's "highlight boost" effects like Canon had that would underexpose and then push a stop to improve this. But clearly most video modes (as sensors have gotten ISO invariant) take this even further. Why is 640 the base ISO for the S1 in V Log but not in other picture styles? Because it's really exposing at 100 ISO probably. (Underexposing at 80 ISO then pushing three stops for a total of six stops of highlight detail.) https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm The fp looks like it has a great image. I own an S1 and from what I can tell the fp has a better image. Is there a more elegant way to redistribute dynamic range than underexposing three stops, though?
  13. I know it's cheap used since I just sold mine but I still feel the EVA1 has possibly the best image under $10k new (Komodo might be better but feels like a lot more work). It lacks some of the amenities and durability of its competitors and is just a weird product. But the image is amazing.
  14. In Adobe Suite? Adobe's HEVC implementation seems to be broken and there can be banding but I find the 6K HEVC files super robust if I transcode them in OSX (or Resolve should work) instead. Not sure about 4K. How is the fp's 4K center crop mode btw? Feels weird putting a speed booster on a FF camera but that could fix the aliasing issues I've seen (which, to be fair, are limited to fabrics that might cause even the Alexa to have aliasing, except on the fp it can be crazy bad).
  15. I guess to me the S1 is the ultimate in on set convenience and the Alexa is the ultimate in convenience in post. Increasingly I feel like I should have gone for the middle ground for both (P4K and speed booster XL) and left it at that but the last thing I need is to invest more money and time in another camera system. Were I starting over I think I'd go for a P4K, speed booster XL, and a LOT of old Nikkors. But I'm not sure I'm starting over. So I don't really know.
×
×
  • Create New...