kye

12 hours ago, mercer said:

Thank you! The actual shot turned out pretty nice. I was able to do a rack focus just as he appears in the window and since my story entails a symbolic union between ghosts and memories, even an over used rack focus can play into the narrative.

Screw what is over-used or under-used or what the cool kids are wearing, if it fits the story then use it

It's like that saying about continuity "if someone notices continuity issues, then your film is crap".  Shoot the whole film in slow-motion in golden hour and into the sun with flares all over the place and it will be fine as long as all that stuff fits the story.  It's when it doesn't fit that people start complaining.

10 hours ago, noone said:

All I can suggest is taking note of photos and videos that YOU like and asking the photographer/videographer what they used.        As for the 3d thing, well to me that is just subject separation and the lenses said to give 3d type results all just make it easier (and most will be faster and tend to be longer or if shorter, used in close).    Even a kit lens can give a 3d look with enough space behind the subject though will be a lot harder to achieve than say a 85 1.2 or 300 2.8

I used to think that the 3D thing was just a DOF thing, but I'm beginning to understand.  Last night I did a bunch of reading and found this comparison:

https://www.thephotoforum.com/threads/warning-lrg-lens-shootout-contax-zeiss-planar-50mm-f-1-4-t-vs-pentax-smc-takumar-55mm-f-1-8.394768/

Tell me that the 5mm difference in focal length (and therefore aperture) is responsible for the differences in those shots.  I suspect it's the contrast, which likely comes from the coatings.  I would have expected the Takumar to be sharper than the CZ, but not so.  Maybe I just let my mind wander with Takumar sounding like Tak, as in "tack sharp"

4 hours ago, kye said:

Does anyone have any good links to articles or whatever talking about the artistic aspects of lenses?  

Like, how to look at images and understand the visual aspects that the lenses contribute.. I'm not talking about lenses 101 with the "the background blur is caused by aperture" or anything, I'm talking like if I sat down with a Hollywood cinematographer and asked them to explain what makes a great lens great and what to pay attention to and how you can tell when looking at the images.

I know I prefer a Zeiss or Angenieux to my kit lens, even when on the same settings, but if someone asked me what differences there really are I don't think I could say much beyond "it looks nicer".

If I can work out what I'm looking at and responding to then I can figure out what works for me and use my brain to evaluate options, instead of just using emotional reactions and having my impression of a lens also being influenced by how recently I ate, exercised, or if the kids are behaving nicely or not.

@heart0less I'm assuming you're laughing at the last part of my post?

I wish it were a joke, but sadly not.  We've all heard jokes about how we have to apologise to our wives if we do something mean to them in one of their dreams, but it happens to all of us despite not wanting to admit it.

I remember reading about a debut album that was meant to be spectacular and I went and listened to it at the shop but it didn't do anything for me.  Months later a friend had it with him and asked if I'd heard it and said I'd really like it.  I said I had and that I didn't, and he told me I was crazy and made me listen to it again on his Discman.  What followed was an hour of the best music I have ever heard.  That album is spectacular, received wide critical acclaim, and is still one of my favourite albums 20+ years later.  

I thought long and hard about why it didn't strike me on my first listen and the only explanation I can find is that maybe I wasn't in the right mood for it at the time.

Photography is such a subtle art that it's hard to get past all the noise to be able to really see properly.  Even great photographers deliberately sit with their work and only over time do they decide if they like an image or not.

If I can work out what to look for in an image then my brain can cut through some of that noise and I'll at least get in the ballpark of which lens characteristics I like or don't fuss me.

29 minutes ago, tomsemiterrific said:

I didn't laugh at your post. I was trying to say thanks, that what you said pleased me and I was grateful you took the time to see and comment on my video. Unfortunately, there are damned few emojis you have to choose from.

You know, I didn't make any comment on Snowbro's comment that I recall. If I indicated anything is was thanks. I can't explain why you got these emojis. It's bizarre.

 

I didn't do any of these things. Has someone hacked my account?
What little I commented was thanks for taking the time to see and comment. This is totally freaking weird. Why would I respond to Kye by writing: "

Thanks. I'm impressed with the Nikon Z6. IMO, a few improvements in firmware and it will be hard to compete with it. Fun to shoot---nikon could make it a lot more so with just a few changes.

Hey Nikon: start thinking like a video shooter, not a snap shot taker."
and then insult him??? Is this some kind of sick joke?

I submit my work for constructive criticism. I certainly don't do it to insult people who comment, whether negatively or positively.

 

Their comments were about the reaction emojis, not your posts.  People do get touchy about those emojis..  I figured you'd done it by accident, I know I've done that before!

I gather you shot that video as a test shoot to see what the camera/lens combo was capable of?  I'm a big fan of camera tests being made into a nice end product (like you did with this) so that they serve artistic value as well as just technical usefulness.  I'm particularly fond of the idea of shooting a test video of your family or friends, as it makes a nice family momento as well as serving as a real-world test, although privacy comes into it a bit and so shooting in public can be a good alternative.

5 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

? 4k footage looks sharper for sure! At least comparing 4k to HD on the same camera. However lets compare XT3 4k to high quality 1080p like on a C100 and see what the difference is. Why can't they market dynamic range instead or color depth! ?

I know, right!

6 minutes ago, Snowbro said:

I'm going to join in & see if it goes viral

Jeez, you say one nice thing and there goes your whole reputation!!???

14 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

I've heard people speak of certain lenses looking more 3D. I can't say I take much stock in it but I've heard it before. 

I've heard that too, and seen it a bit in some lens comparisons but it was pretty subtle, at least to my eyes.

15 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Almost forgot Nikon focuses the other way. I am sure the 4k monitor is not useless but I haven't seen a noticeable difference in detail or color when editing. 

OMG keep quiet!!  If you say things like that people will realise that 4K isn't 4X better than 1080!  and then people would stop buying things, manufacturers would go under, and we'd be left with only one or two companies left.... and knowing our luck Canon would be one of them.  

So keep quiet..  even if not for yourself, think of the children!!

Does anyone have any good links to articles or whatever talking about the artistic aspects of lenses?  

Like, how to look at images and understand the visual aspects that the lenses contribute.. I'm not talking about lenses 101 with the "the background blur is caused by aperture" or anything, I'm talking like if I sat down with a Hollywood cinematographer and asked them to explain what makes a great lens great and what to pay attention to and how you can tell when looking at the images.

I know I prefer a Zeiss or Angenieux to my kit lens, even when on the same settings, but if someone asked me what differences there really are I don't think I could say much beyond "it looks nicer".

If I can work out what I'm looking at and responding to then I can figure out what works for me and use my brain to evaluate options, instead of just using emotional reactions and having my impression of a lens also being influenced by how recently I ate, exercised, or if the kids are behaving nicely or not.

11 minutes ago, kaylee said:

sorry im so dumb jeez ?

This isn't you, this is ML.  It took me quite a while to figure it out, and I have a degree in computer science, so don't feel bad!

People talk about the Sony menus being difficult to use, but ML is on a whole other level... and in a parallel dimension!  It's almost like they don't want anyone to be able to use it.

9 hours ago, Kisaha said:

It is a good and cheap solution, even better than the ones presented here, but..

..I was reffering to Rode Video series mics, great when first produced, but there are many solutions for in camera cold shoe mics these days, with unique, or better, characteristics.

I went down a several-hundred-dollar dead end before switching to Rode.  I'm sure there are alternatives that are better, but considering the Rode VMP range has been battle-tested by the vloggers the world over, and the VMP+ update basically addressed every issue that vloggers had, Rode seems like the safe choice.   Plus with 19 hour battery life, if you can charge it daily then you can turn it on when you wake up and still have it available all day without having to carry extra batteries.

It even turns on and off automatically, so apart from charging it I basically don't even think about it.  I couldn't have bought any other mic and had that certainty.

8 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Apparently 1 in every 4 kids wants to be a youtuber now. Seems like a big market.

Lots of kids also want to be astronauts or firemen but sales of space-suits and fire-axes isn't through the roof, I suspect due to the same problem.

Both my kids have made a dozen or so YT videos each, plus who-knows how many other videos on Musically/TikTok etc, and with my entire camera collection the only thing they've ever wanted to borrow was my tripod - they just use their phones.  I gave my daughter my Rode VideoMic Me as her phone still has a headphone port and mine doesn't but I'm not sure if she ended up using it much.  My daughter asked about using one of my cameras once, and I didn't even get through explaining that it records to an SD card, then you get an SD card reader and plug it into your computer, and then...  <screws up face> "nah, I'll just use my phone".  She uses airdrop.

But what about video quality you ask?  They care about content, editing, and making them funny.  They don't even have the YT flippy screen problem because they use the selfie camera not the much better quality rear one.  The screen of a phone kills almost any camera screen and it's built in.  Kids are like professional film-makers - they want to get from idea to pay-off in as quick a time as possible.  

You'd be forgiven for thinking that vloggers want flippy screens for their DSLR / MILC cameras but I'd say the vast vast majority of them are using 'lesser' cameras.  

YouTubers are like online marketing people - the internet makes it look like the world is full of them, but in reality the world is run by other people doing useful things instead of just endlessly talking about themselves online.  Of course, we probably watch the camera vloggers who talk about cameras much more than the fashion/food/lifestyle vloggers who talk about everything else, and the camera guys are telling you that you need a 1DXII and cinematic b-roll partly to get you to get you to click the affiliate links in the description.

Besides, quality from a phone can be just great...

My advice to my daughter goes something like "your phone is fine, but use a shitload of light" and to use the microphone I gave her because it will make the sound less like she's recording in a bathroom.  She's 15 BTW, so no dummy.  If these things mattered to her then she'd be all over it by this age, but they just don't.

5 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Correct workflow is the one that works for you. 

...and gets the images you want to get.

This is art, not science.

They say that restriction breeds creativity...  Sony says "you're welcome!"

3 hours ago, tomsemiterrific said:

Shot this mood piece to show a bit of Nikon's low-light capabilities in video. No use of noise reduction at all, so doing so should get you some super clean video with not a lot of trouble---IF your lenses are fast enough in certain circumstances.
Also, you can get an idea of how well 420/8bit video grades--I did some fairly extreme things to get the looks I wanted.

 

Nice work!!

8 hours ago, heart0less said:

I just didn't feel any chemistry with 5D2. 

Considering that I mainly take photos (video stands for maybe 20% of my hobby), I realized my relationship with 5D2 may prove to be a bit troublesome.

Decided to let this one go and look for some all-rounder in similar (~500$) price.

If you didn't like the experience then you're right to change.  Film-making is a creative pursuit and it's hard to remain creative if every time you think about your camera it gives you a little bump of negative emotion.  There are so many cameras around these days that are "good enough" that you should be able to find one that gives you a little positive bump throughout the process, or at least doesn't detract or get in the way.

7 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

I want a good set of manual focus glass. Currently have a set of Minoltas; 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4, and 135mm 2.8

I really want to get a speedbooster to make full use of them but my go to focal reducers Lens Turbo doesn't make one. That leaves me with Metabones, which is $400, unsure if its worth it.

I am debating selling it all and getting a Nikon 35mm 1.4, 105mm 2.5 or 85mm f2, plus a cheap lens turbo speedbooster. Than I'd have the option of using with or without the focal reducer to get different FOV. 50mm lenses are cheap but I don't really like the focal length. Its either too long or too short. 

This is definitely more of a passion move as for practical purposes super fast glass isn't very useful. Accurately focusing the 50mm 1.4 is difficult if not practically worthless for live events, unless the subject isn't moving. I was thinking about getting a 58mm 1.2, but imagine focusing that with a speedbooster lol. Buying glass is fun though. May just keep all my minolta glass and get the Nikon glass as well.

Be aware of focus ring direction on lenses.  IIRC Minolta and Nikon are opposites, so if you have any muscle memory then it won't like changing from one to the other!

5 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

I'll probably just pony up and and buy a metabones. Its probably more useful than this useless 4k monitor I just purchased for not much less ??

A 4K monitor is useful for having a 1:1 window of 1080p plug the tools of your NLE visible at the same time.  Just like how they were advertising 5K monitors as having 4K preview with a GUI also visible.

So if you want to justify your 4K monitor purchase then get shooting and then get editing!!

10 hours ago, Heera said:

What old canon camera models would you recommend to someone who doesn’t yet have a camera body but has a 70-200mm lens?

Are there any that wouldn’t break the bank? Under $500 if possible. Also, is a newer APSC sensor worth it if it’s newer than the old full frame body?

edit: Someone is giving me a Canon T6i. When I save up enough money for those cameras you all mentioned I know that the 6D or the 5Dii are the two obvious choices. Thanks to everyone who answered!

What are you shooting?  70-200 sounds pretty long as your only lens.  Unless you're buying some other ones to go with it?

33 minutes ago, mercer said:

@heart0less some of my favorite ML Raw videos were shot with the 5Dii. Check out Northmen on Vimeo for some beautiful samples. For the money, I think you made a great choice. 

The Northmen videos are really nice.  I kind of wish they were pumping them out like lots of other creators.  I think YT has spoiled me!

17 minutes ago, mercer said:

The C200 has a Super 35mm sensor... the crop factor is 1.4-1.5x. So the 20mm would technically have a FOV around 28-30mm.

You're right.  I just found the C200 review I got that from and discovered I read it wrong.  My bad ???

That makes it even more of a general purpose lens I guess, but my point was that my default is 35mm so it's all relative to how you shoot and what you like to see

3 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

For me it depends on the project. For events I usually shoot 1080p unless I have to deliver in 4K. Because I'll have coverage from multiple cameras I rarely ever feel like I wish I had the extra resolution to crop in. 

For music video or narrative work I'll usually shoot in 4K even if I am delivering 1080p. Even though I'm a big proponent of shooting it right, there are enough times where I'm glad I had that extra resolution to crop in that it's worth shooting it in 4K. For creative projects like that the more options the better. 

When you crop is it to try and create an additional camera angle?

My wife does public speaking and they film the talks but only from one angle, so if you want to edit them without jump cuts then you have to crop to create a virtual second angle.  It's an odd thing but it kind of works.  I'm curious how you use it.

11 hours ago, KitaCam said:

Can I ask, would I be making some fundamental ballsup by thinking that mounting a (full frame) Sigma 20mm F1.4 on the C200 would be a sane idea? Manual focus (most of the time though autofocus will probably work ok) and no stabilisation, but that F1.4 is enticing and there's plenty of excellent footage with the unstabilised Sigma F1.8 18-35 out there. Of course the C200 has internal ND's so that bypasses the bulbous front element filter issue. I really want wide, perhaps that is not wide enough...

In terms of focal lengths, having the 20mm lens on the C200 (with it's 1.74x crop factor when shooting 4K) would be the same field-of-view as a 35mm lens, which is a nice length.

I shoot home videos and travel films and the occasional project for a friend and these mainly consist of landscapes, environmental portraits, and close-ups when people are close by (like at a table).  I'd been shooting with the normal 24-80 / 80-400 range of my zooms and my phone and came to the realisation that 24mm isn't wide enough, and also not long enough, so when I changed camera systems to the GH5 and had to start a lens collection from scratch I decided to avoid 24mm altogether.

I now have these 35mm equivalents:

• 16mm f5.6 (great for landscapes, architecture, and that Wow factor of a wide lens)
• 35mm f1.4 (this is my main lens, it works for people, environmental detail shots, or general environment shots)
• 116mm f4 (this was my only longer lens and I found it to be a bit too long, so I'm looking for a replacement around 80mm)

I'm also looking for a good sports lens in the 270-400mm equivalent range.

Although I can use the ETC mode to get a 1.4x digital crop which makes the 16mm a 24mm equivalent I never found myself doing that, I'd change to the 16mm only if there was something really Wow and then just change back to the 35mm 1.4 without thinking about it as that's my default lens.   The same crop mode turns the 35mm into a 50mm and I did use this quite a bit.  When I have the GH5 being stored at home I always have it charged, with memory card in it and ready to go so that when something interesting happens I can run and grab it and capture the moment.  For this reason I always store it with the 35mm lens on it because that's such a good all-around lens for me.

It's good to really pay attention to what you're shooting and understand what focal lengths work for you.  Also pay attention to the aperture - having fast lenses is great but if you never open them up that much, or those shots never make the final edit, then you might be better off with a slower but more flexible zoom.

Everyone is going to have their own preferences that suit their style.  Just as I skip 24mm the next person might only ever use that length and might love it.

2 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

In some ways the G85 doesn't need a successor yet. It'd be nice, obviously, but it's still such a great budget camera even today and I still recommend it to people on a budget. It still kinda blows my mind that they released such a feature rich camera so shortly before launching the GH5. Panasonic had a lot of swagger from 2014 to 2017!

Let's hope they still do!

19 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

I'd be surprised if the GH6 isn't announced by early next year. I think the S1 factors very little in Panasonic's GH plans. I'm guessing we won't see a video focused full frame camera announced from Panasonic until mid to late 2020 at the earliest. 

The GH line is their bread and butter right now, as it should be. It'd make no sense for them to prioritize the S series over the GH series until there's reason to. 

I think they're separate too.  Canon proves that you can have FF MILC without great video and still be successful.

In a way many other companies are limiting video quality on their FF cameras and keeping video quality for their cine-lines.  If you think of Panasonic as having two cine lines - the cine EVA and the GH series, then it kind of makes sense.

10 hours ago, DBounce said:

Then you are really also talking about changing the recording media also. I don't think sd cards have bandwidth for internal raw. However, if they choose to go the Nikon/S-Line route and adopt a CFExpress compatible slot on the GH6... well, internal raw could easily be accommodated. And honestly, at that point I think few would choose a P4K over the GH6. There are certainly things that Panasonic could do... but they could do those things right now with the S1/R. Why they don't is open to debate.

Come to think of it... why did Panasonic put XQD/CFExpress in the S-Line? Are they, like Nikon, planning to offer internal raw recording via a firmware update? You just might be onto something.

In my mind the GH5 and P4K are completely different cameras because the GH5 has IBIS and is rock solid and the P4K doesn't have IBIS and isn't rock solid.  The GH5S doesn't have IBIS but is rock solid.  Of course, the P4K also has RAW/Prores, but that's not a deal-breaker for me as the 10-bit GH5 files are good enough (hell, they're great, what am I saying!).

Anyway, the GH6 will be rock solid and if it had IBIS and RAW then that would be spectacular, and we haven't mentioned 8K yet....

They could even make it a hybrid where it would do up to 4K RAW and 8K in H265, that would sure be something!

9 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

I don't know, I think AI could change everything. 

I think AF is a funny topic that people don't really talk about sensibly / consistently / somethingly.  I've been an AF person for a long time because I wanted the camera to do it for me, and have only recently changed to MF.  Dear mother do you get kick-back on these forums when you say you need AF for your shooting style...  all the "they don't use it in Hollywood" " you're not a real film-maker unless you use MF" "growing up I only ate gravel" type comments all get trotted out.

I think our views of AF still haven't stabilised - the same people would criticise AF reliance and then turn around and criticise the GH5 for not having good AF.

If you want a good argument for not needing AF then here it is...  the GH5.  Hopeless as shit for AF, sells bucketloads, reputation as industry standard workhorse.

By the time we get around to accepting AF (and having some consistency in our opinions) I think AI and processing power may well have solved it.  Panasonic might turn out to have made the smart move by getting their AI sorted out and when it finally starts delivering the others may be years behind.  Sure, Canon might focus on the face, but film-making isn't always about faces.

5 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

I just hope that whatever Card slots they use that they're both the same. Not a fan of one being SD and the other being XQD. I'd also absolutely LOVE being able to record to an SSD. That'd make my life a million times easier when I'm shooting long events. 

I also think that would be great.  Not only would it mean inexpensive media, huge speeds, and less internal heating, but it would be cheap and small to implement in the camera body.  Anyone who has seen the size of the SD and CFast slot in the XC10 knows that those things take up quite a bit of space in a small camera body.

4 hours ago, @yan_berthemy_photography said:

Hi there,

 

I was wondering which quality settings do you guys use for commercial stuff such as weddings, music videos, etc.

I found 4k very hard to edit with some leggings issues, etc. what do you recommend to shoot with? 4k 10bit/8bit 60fps or FHD 10bit?

 

will 4K look like FHD if downscaled to FHD?

 

Thanks

If you're delivering in 4K: shoot 4K and use proxies to edit with.

If you're delivering in 1080 and need to crop a lot in post: shoot 4K.

If you're delivering in 1080 and don't need to crop much in post: film a few test shots to compare the 4K 10-bit mode and the 1080 10-bit mode and see how the image looks to you and if it's acceptable.  The 10-bit modes are one of the key advantages of the GH5 and I'd suggest that for commercial work 10-bit vs 8-bit probably makes more difference than 4K vs 1080p.

@Ehetyz @mercer My Takumar 55 1.8 arrived yesterday and I compared it to my Helios and found some interesting results.  Wide open the Helios was tack sharp (ha ha) in the very centre but got crazy soft on the edges (even with the 2x crop of MFT) and the Tak was considerably softer but had the same level of sharpness / bloom / flare across the whole frame.  By F4 they were getting similar, but the character of the softness was quite different.

I'll do some more tests and post a little write-up in the lenses thread when I'm done.  I've still got some lenses on the way.

17 hours ago, leslie said:

the lens looks immaculate, got a hand written note and a piece of origami no idea how it works or what it does but its the thought that counts ?

 

I've recently ordered a bunch of lenses, mostly from Japan, and the main seller I bought from sends these:

I don't know what chazuke is yet, but each packet has a different picture on it (this one is the fish) so it will be fun to find out.  The instructions are photocopied, but they're obviously drawn by hand, which isn't something you'd get from many other countries!

3 hours ago, KitaCam said:

Thanks. No issue at all with Super 35mm, just wanted as wide and as fast (F1.4 (real?) vs. F1.8 (real?)) as reasonably affordably possible with perhaps the ability (hence my thinking twice about the 18-35 which is for DX/Super 35mm) to mount on a stabilised full frame mirrorless (potentially canon, panasonic or otherwise) further down the line.

How about just buy the 18-35 second hand and then when/if you go full-frame just sell it again.  This is a classic lens and it should hold its value relatively well, or at least won't cost much if you think of the loss as a kind of rental fee

I've done this too.  I wasn't sure about my 700D and for a while was wondering about Magic Lantern and so I just bought one to try, and now that I'm not really going to use it I'll probably sell it again.

14 hours ago, Mmmbeats said:

Another thing to consider is that filters apply the effect to the actual light entering the lens. Post effects are added to the heavily compressed data you end up with in your edit codec. Even the most efficient codecs are massively compressed when you also consider chroma subsampling, debayer, etc. The physical filters have a considerably greater amount of 'data' to manipulate.

True, but considering this filter adds a massive blur, I wouldn't think it would make much difference.

Maybe for other filters it might matter.