UncleBobsPhotography

Technically, I guess it is possible to apply a curve even though they are not debayered. A log-curve is just changing the representation of the values (usually compressing the range from what has been read out from ADC to reduce the bit-depth requirement), which can be performed on non-RGB values. However, as long as RAW uses 12-bits, I don't think there is any reason to apply a log-curve. That's the video that confused me in the first place. The only explanation I can think of for how RAW CLOG works would be for the CLOG to simply add metadata to the RAW file (which is still recorded in linear 12 bit), and that the different base ISO's is just to make the user protect the highlights by adjusting exposure (which is basically what gt3rs said in a post a bit earlier). I guess that doesn't match with the findings in the video, but as far as I could see they adjusted the exposure settings between the clog1 and clog3 recordings, which would make the results different. To check if they are truly just metadata you would have to record with the same settings but different base ISO, and seemingly overexposing clog3.

I believe the a7s has custom mode 1 and 2 on the mode wheel. Set one with the options for video and one for photo. Have you tried using this? I remember setting the modes on my RX1RM2 was a bit off a hassle. I had to turn the camera on and off after saving the modes for them to be recognizable. The Canon R5 has different video modes, and you can also customize which mode the camera should record in when you click the "Record video" button. This makes it possible to shoot photos in your prefered photo mode when you click the photo button (For example aperture mode) and as soon as you click the video button the camera will jump to mode C3 which is set up for video.

I really don't understand how RAW CLOG works, especially when the press release includes this line: How is it possible to record RAW in 4:2:2? As far as I knew 4:2:2 was only used for debayered RGB. I guess it's possible to use it for bayered pixels as well? At first I thought it would revert to h265 when choosing RAW and clog at the same time, but then I saw the video linked below where they are talking extensively about RAW CLOG. So what is the difference between RAW and RAW CLOG? I assume RAW is 12 bit "4:4:4". Is RAW CLOG 10 bit 4:2:2? In that case I would think the bit rate would be reduced since the bit depth and chrome subsampling is smaller, but the camera reports the same runtime with CLOG enabled and disabled. I am confused.

My only issue is that I've gotten so used to the Variable-ND adapter that it will be annoying to transition to RF lenses. I am hoping for a EF-RF tilt-shift adapter, but that would make the transition even harder.

The CFExpress is rated for 1700MB/s read speed which is 13.6 Gbps. USB 3.1 gen 2 has a maximum bandwidth of 10 Gbps. Is the last 3.6 Gbps some marketing BS which is not achievable in reality? I see that they have been able to print a tiny "*" after 1700 MB/s, so it wouldn't surprise me.

Figured out the Zebras. As gt3rs mentioned earlier in the thread, I have to set second level to 95 instead of 100. I need to learn how to read more carefully.

The zebras doesn't seem to make sense for me in clog3 either, I am wondering if they are linked to the view assist issue. View assist turned off and checking exposure with the histogram seems like the way to go so far. I've also had this annoying issue with transferring files larger than 4GB. I'm transferring the files directly from my camera since I was planning to wait on buying a CFExpress card reader until I can get a Thunderbolt3 reader to take full advantage of the read speed. When I connect the camera to the computer it only recognizes the camera properly if I use the USB-C to USB-C cable that came with the camera. Using a USB-A to USB-C makes a "USB unit recognized sound", but nothing happens. When using the Canon-cable I'm able to transfer the files, but if I do it through the file-explorer files larger than 4GB shows up as 0bytes. Using EOS Utility to transfer the files fixes the problem, but I just moved some files over earlier today forgetting to use EOS utilities and I am now stuck with 0 byte files and the memory card is supposedly empty. The video-clips are not particularly important, so no big deal this time, but it shouldn't be possible for my videoclips to disappear just because I forget to transfer them the correct way. Anyone else had any experience with this issue? Using a SanDisk Extreme Pro 256 GB CFExpress card.

My mistake, I meant clog1 400 iso and clog3 800 iso. R5 doesn't have clog2

Is ISO 800 the native ISO for clog3 on the R5? It says L(400) if I set the ISO to 400, which makes me think 800 is the lowest native ISO. So the native ISOs are as follow? Non-log: 100 Clog2: 400 Clog3: 800

My main reason to get a slider would be to get rid of microjitters. I have been eyeing the Edelkrone devices for a while, so this thread saved me some future headaches. So far I've been using a Manfroto monopod (MVMXPRO500) for my "slides". The results are quite smooth, especially when I attach a gimbal on top, but there are quite some restrictions to what movements I can do with the setup.

Do you consider the Blackmagic Pocket 4k/GH5s a true dual native ISO? Just trying to understand the difference between dual native ISO and dual gain. Is dual gain when you have two separate circuits you combine for the finale image and dual native ISO when you switch between two circuits?

I found an interesting use for a polarizer filter recently which I hadn't thought of before. I use my GH5 as a webcam for teams calls with a soft keylight. One issue is that my 27" monitor adds a lot of additional light that depends on what's currently on my screen. This will often add a blue tint to my face if I'm looking at a document, or no tint if it's a darker screen. Adding a polarizer filter to my GH5, I am able to remove most of the reflections from my monitor without affecting the keylight. I did not expect it to work so well, and the real reason I added it was because I needed some ND.

I have tried to avoid learning a new NLE (other than Premiere), but I downloaded Resolve 17 to check out how it works with Canon RAW. It plays back Canon RAW 8K in 4K with colour corrections without struggling or dropping a frame on my mid-range computer! It seems like it requires the Studio version to open the h.265 files from the R5, perhaps that will be my excuse not to learn something new.

I second this. I found the RF 50mm f/1.2 tempting, but after trying it I realized the focusing system was way too loud and the autofocus was quite jerky as well. I'm using an STM lens instead, and although it's not perfectly silent it's much more quiet and the focusing is smoother. It seems like the budget RF lenses are more suitable for video than the L RF glass.

One other thing to have in mind is that most of the old EF lenses are capable of focusing beyond infinite. With a lens able to focus beyond infinite, it should be next to impossible for a misalignment of the sensor to cause this effect. Perhaps the new RF tele-lenses have tighter tolerances around infinite? This could cause the camera-lens combination to give problems you would not experience with older EF lenses.

The focus on my R5 works perfectly, but I've heard similar reports. If you can't focus on something that is far away, but you are able to focus on closer subjects, it would usually mean the distance from the sensor to the lens elements is too large (imagine an unwanted extension ring). However, it would generally take quite a large shift for this to happen, and the adjustments inside the camera are small. Are you sure the problem is with the camera and not the lens? Would you be able to test the lens with another camera? Does any other lenses produce the same problem with your camera? A misalignment of the lens elements inside the lens could also cause this problem. Side question, does the camera confirm focus? Does the box turn green in the viewfinder even if the resulting image is out of focus?

I didn't even look at the photos in the posting. They are probably BS, but the product is still good. I use these kind of lens hoods on all my lenses because they add very little bulk, are study enough for it's purpose (aluminium), but soft enough to dent if you drop the lens, cushioning the fall. I dont feel any need for using lens covers when I have these on with the way i store my lenses. When it comes to reducing flare, modern lenses dont really need lens hoods the way old lenses does, but they'll still be better than nothing, and more importantly, they don't degrade image quality like UV-filters do.

This product is cheaper than UV filters, improves image quality instead of degrading it, and protects your lens: Magic Lens Protector and Image Quality Improver I've got a variety of filters, but don't use them all that often. The one I have used the most is variable ND filter just because of how convenience. Just got the Canon drop-in-variable ND-filter for the RF adapter, but since the sun has hardly come above the horizon I haven't gotten to use it much. The small amount I used it, it annoyed me a bit how easy it was to make adjustments by mistake. I wish it had a locking function or more resistance.

I guess this could happen in theory, but I've never had any problems with it. I don't think the force will not be large enough to do any meaningful damage to your camera, at worst a small scratch in the LCD, probably not even that. The shot will be ruined, but triple tapping the trigger by mistake will ruin the shot regardless of whether the camera crash into the handle or not.

Maybe not "fun", but my two most trusted useful tools that have proved to punch above their weight are the following: Triopo 65cm Softbox with bowens mount. Any softbox would probably do, but I got this one because it was the cheapest one on ebay, and I use it daily. Photography (with flash or constant light), filming, video calls, I use it for everything. It needs to be quite close to the subject for soft lighting since it's rather small, but that also means it's much easier to bring along and is easier to position. Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM. This lens is my most used lens even though I have 6 EF L lenses. At f/2.8, it's much sharper than the EF 50mm 1.2 or the EF 35mm 1.4 (version I, version II might be sharper), and f/2.8 is plenty for my video needs. The autofocus is the smoothest autofocus I've used on an EF lens for video. The lens is small and light, so I can always bring it with me. It works great with extension rings for macro photography (the other lenses I've tried gets massive field curvation). The only real flaw I've found with the lens is that manual focus is unusable.

I can see two fairly easy ways to get the effect on the humans: -Make the people a mask by having them lit in front of a black background. Then combine the two source files in a similar way you would do to fake a double exposure shot -Have them dress in all white in front of a background and have a projector project on them. I believe this technique is called something like "projector mapping". This is probably not done here as it's hard to avoid shadows, but a fun technique anyway.

I use the screen flipped out with the Weebill Lab and the GH5 and I haven't had any problems balancing it with M43 lenses. The S5 is smaller and lighter than the GH5, so I would guess that it works, at least as long as you don't use the heavier lenses. I can't get the GH5 balanced if I use it with a speedbooster and Canon L glass.

I have "scanned" quite a lot of film with a macro-lens. In my opinion, it works great resolution wise. My main problem has been getting the colours right. I start with inverting the colour curves in lightroom and setting white balance on the base film colour, but it still takes a lot of fiddling with the RGB channels to get it right. One problem is that since the film base colour is so red, the temperature in lightroom maxes out at 2000K while I believe it should go even lower to get it correct. Anyone else has any tips on getting the colours right? Is there something like a "Portra 400 LUT" I could use which would correct the colours?

Steadycam and Glidecam, although somewhat similar, are two different type of stabilizers. Your Digislider Pro Carbon Fibre looks very similar to a small glidecam, so my guess is that you would have similar issues. Steadycams and Glidecams can work pretty well, but needs a lot more practice than a gimbal. I've got a gimbal and a Steadycam... but in reality I use tripods for everything.

Thanks for the share, but the most important part of the video was how much he could improve the thermal management with a small piece of copper and some thermal paste. That seems to be enough to solve it for most of us.