kye

The phrase that we used to use when I was an IT Support Monkey was "percussive maintenance".

It's unlikely that software will do anything usable in that regard, at least for a long time. The general approach would be to look to frames either side and kind of interpolate what a non-blurred frame would look like, but you'd need to track levels of blur across the whole clip (as it's not a "sharp" vs "blurred" situation) and if the frames either side are blurry then there's less information available to work with. Plus, I don't see the market really demanding this. More likely it's a case of just using it for cameras that expose with the shutter like action cameras and drones where EIS is commonly built-in already (eg, GoPro and Osmo Action). Yes, with short shutter speeds EIS starts to make sense. I'm not sure why the various stabilisers out there can't correct the wobble-vision from IBIS and wide-angle lenses, the information is all there, it's just applying the algorithms to correct warp, which themselves already exist. One thing that caught my eye recently was the idea of using a short SS, stabilising in post, then applying a fake motion blur to emulate a 180-shutter after the stabilisation has been done. I think for my work, which isn't for commercial purposes, that might simplify things quite a bit and might be good enough from a quality perspective. Of course, just holding the camera steady remains the best approach, if at all possible.

OIS and IBIS stabilise the image DURING the exposure, and software solutions stabilise the image AFTER the exposure. If you shake a camera during the exposure (which is likely to be something like 1/50th of a second, which is quite a long time) then the camera shake will show itself in the motion blur. Once it's in the motion blur it's baked into the footage. There is nothing that can be done. OIS and IBIS prevent the problem, EIS does its best to salvage what it can with what it gets.

All those lenses should be good or great optically as they're the classic manufacturers. Interesting that the set has a 36mm and 38mm - I wonder if the owner bought one and then upgraded to the other, although I don't know enough about these lenses to know which way around that might have gone. Keep us updated, and definitely post some stills if you get a chance!

Probably the ultimate resource for BMPCC and BMMCC and C-Mount lenses is this thread here: It's the first result in google if you search for "bmpcc C-mount" and it's easily the best thing I've found online. Lots of lenses mentioned in it, although some of the links and images haven't survived.

The video isn't mine, so I can't comment, although the video description has a bit of detail. It says: In terms of GH5 vs BMMCC, have a look at this thread: I'm only new to the BMMCC, so I haven't used many lenses on it. The only C-mount lens I've used on it is a 12.5mm f1.9 lens, that is a FF equivalent of 35mm, which is my favourite FOV. If you google you can often see forum threads where people take sample images with a lens, and still images are often of higher quality than video (especially when the video is compressed heavily for streaming services) so they're a good way to get an overall impression of how the lens performs.

This was shot on the original pocket camera, essentially hand-held with one lens. It's not essential to rig this up. You need something with pretty decent 4K to get a similar image (I know, I've been matching my GH5 with my BMMCC).

Congratulations!! We are very impressed with your application and are delighted to announce you will henceforth be leading the development of this very exciting product! Please let us know when you anticipate a first prototype for us to trial. I have cleared my schedule for next week in anticipation.

While I think this is theoretically true, one advantage that having a great rolloff in-camera has is that the compression doesn't take the bad rolloff and make it worse, as the cameras rolloff is done prior to compression. If you think about early digital video cameras, the highlights looked so awful partly because the rolloff was so awful, but also that the bad rolloff had edges that the high-compression rates and poor codecs then turned into awful jagged messes, and sometimes not even low-contrast jagged messes, but high contrast ones.

Maybe a Digital Bolex D8, but maybe not. The list of redeeming features of the digital bolex wasn't just a single item about being able to get shallow DoF. Imagine if the ML guys decided to make an open-source camera on this platform, where anyone could develop the algorithms to process the RAW image data coming off the sensor.. @Sage or @Juan Melara having full control of the colour science, debayer algorithms, etc. Dual exposures for high DR, and all manner of computational photography options. Think of all the cool things that smartphone apps can do that your video camera can't do. This could enable all that stuff and more. It would make a pretty good form-factor too, especially for places where it's difficult to mount anything, etc.

If this can output a RAW video stream, then camera hackers everywhere will begin churning out truly interesting products... digital bolex, remotely cinematic action cameras, etc etc... the price of C-mount lenses will also rise!

More DR would be great. I'm watching lots of YouTube and even on things that were only uploaded at 1080 or less (which are heavily compressed by YT) I can always tell when they've used a nice camera because outdoor scenes in full sunlight look natural and the light looks soft whilst still not being diffused, giving great skin tones and a natural rendering of DR. RAW 1080 with high DR and nice colours beats 4K, 6K, or 8K+ when the lighting becomes difficult. the year 20205?? by then my ultimate camera system will be 100K+ RAW, full EMF bandwidth, 20+ stops of DR, sensor modules for each eye, a processor that uses AI to build a current and predictive 4D model around me, with all the usual AR augmentation... and they should look completely natural, and I should be able to change the colour of my eyes to suit my outfit. anything less and you're a sucker!

I thought he meant "internal focusing", as the conversion still extends during focus adjustments. There aren't a lot of situations where that matters, but I guess there are some?

You can get them, but they're expensive and they do go far into the mount. I can't remember if they're MFT -> DMount or MFT -> CMount -> DMount but I remember finding something and deciding it was too expensive, but you can get them. P4K is the BlackMagic Pocket 4K camera which is MFT and does 4K60 RAW, so it's an absolute cinema beast.

One thing you may consider is instead of the Pentax Q or the Samsung NX is to use the P4K. I know it has a m43 sensor which is far too big, however, it's a 4K m43 sensor and it has several crop modes. D-Mount lenses were designed for 8mm film, which is either 3.3mm x 4.5mm for 8mm or 4mm x 5.79mm for Super 8 film. The P4K sensor is 18mm x 10mm, which makes 8mm film 25% the width/height, and 25% of 4096 is 1024 pixels wide. So, even if a D-Mount lens only covered 8mm standard film and not Super 8, it would still project a large enough image circle to get a 1024x576 resolution image, and remember that this is RAW. The P4K has a 1080 mode, which if you shoot in RAW it just uses the middle of the sensor, so its cropped in. Depending on the lens you use, you might end up being able to get a larger crop than just 576p. In comparison to the quite compressed files from the Q or NX, having full RAW (and up to 120p) would definitely be an upgrade in image quality. I was going for an action camera due to the size and weight, but as soon as you move up to something normal camera sized then that's gone out the window and you may consider other options like the P4K.

I don't own the lens, so........

Hey, no excuses... dig out a halogen work light, put up the xmas lights in the bg, switch to 60/120/240p, get a family member to dance (some only require wine and a little encouragement) and LET US SEE THE FOOTAGE!!!!

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/04/universe-einstein/

Hi Florin.. I haven't done it yet, but I can tell you that you're probably not going to be able to fit the lens on without significantly modifying the GoPro. I believe that both D-Mount and C-mount lenses should cover a GoPro sensor. In my research I did find that CS to C-mount adapters exist, but I'm not that sure on how the flange distance goes, which is the main hurdle on this conversion. I do have a vague memory of finding a youtube video showing a CS-Cmount adapter fitting into a camera without needing to take the camera apart, but I can't recall what camera that was, so it may have been an alternative action camera, although I suspect they probably all use the same sized sensors and lens mounts, so the flange distance is likely to be equivalent. If you have a look at the images I took, you can see a few things: Firstly, the threaded hole that the original lens fits into is very narrow compared to a d-mount lens, and also a d-mount lens will be designed to screw in and stop against a reference surface, whereas the GoPro lens is designed to adjust for infinity focus by screwing the lens in and out and there is no reference surface. You can also see from the above that I had to grind away parts of this metal piece. I don't know if the newer models will have the same design, but the original lens sticks out much further away from the sensor before it gets larger than the threaded hole, so I anticipate you're not going to find a d-mount lens that will work without having to essentially remove parts of the GoPro. One thing that you might get some good info from is videos showing you how to mount a GoPro on one if those super-tiny DIY racing drones, as they always take the GoPro apart to make it as light as possible and relocate the battery for weight distribution etc. This is useful as they should show you how to take things apart and also which things are needed for the GoPro to operate and which things aren't required and can be removed. It's a pretty serious project, so best of luck!

I recall previous conversations where people talked about the legacy architecture that Canon had in place being a bottleneck, do you think that perhaps it took them a while to wake up and smell the 8K, but then took a long time after that to work out alternatives to their architecture issues? I don't know how long their product development cycles would be, but I've heard in other industries that although the product cycle might be new models annually, that the complete end-to-end can be 4 or 5 years, so they essentially have 4 or 5 models in development simultaneously, so it might have been a few years between them deciding to bite the bullet and go for a new architecture and that new product seeing the light of day. Not sure if you've gleaned anything in your conversations with reps and vendors?

32-80mm is a common range. My three primes are 1) 35mm equivalent 2) 15mm equivalent and 3) 85mm equivalent. and only the other day a wedding photographer released this video in which he says he uses two bodies, one has a 35mm and the other is an 85mm: so that's a common range.

Absolutely agree on this one. I think there's an element of focus - the more you shoot the more you shift your focus from equipment to composition and the things you think about when shooting.

Be careful with attaching lenses. Every one I have seen reviews of is a disaster optically, corners smeared, CA in spades, etc. Even the most expensive ones. The expensive ones are at bad-vintage lens quality, and the cheap ones are at "I made this lens with magnifying glasses and tape" quality. Think of them as instant very-vintage, which is fine if you lust after IQ that rivals a Petzval, but night-and-day to any real lenses.

Have a look online about upgrading the firmware, which may overwrite whatever is going on. If it's got the latest version of the firmware then see if you can find an older version and try and install that, then install the latest one over the top of it so you're back to the latest features. Often firmware upgrades can be triggered via having a file on the SD card and holding down a button on startup, so may not require the menus to work, see if you can get lucky with it. Otherwise, trying to get around the recording limit essentially voids the warranty, so if it's bricked, then it's bricked.

Nice work! For a limit of an hour you did a really good job. Lots of variety of shots to keep the edit moving, etc. I also kind of like the design of it, considering that the song is basically about the guitar, and so is the video, so it kind of suits.