Quote from: Andy600 on August 30, 2013, 03:48:20 PM
You obviously didn't read what a1ex wrote above
seems like he is just on the way to do this function...
Etiquette, expectations, entitlement...
@autoexec_bin | #magiclantern | Discord | Reddit | Server issues
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Show posts MenuQuote from: Andy600 on August 30, 2013, 03:48:20 PM
You obviously didn't read what a1ex wrote above
Quote from: rommex on August 30, 2013, 01:17:39 AM
I explained it in my post. Also note that usually DR is wider at lower ISOs.
And please stop this trolling. Obviously after all the forums and nicks that you've gone through, you've grown some hard forehead of yourself to ignore remarks to your meaningless posts.
I guess soon the time will come when we on the forum will have to address the moderator to keep this forum clean and acceptable for those who are hungry for 50D RAW info, rather than having to sift through someone's egotistic garbage...
Quote from: rommex on August 30, 2013, 12:53:57 AM
Hi all, I recently was shooting on BMCC and decided to make comparison of BMCC vs 50D.
Quote from: 50Deezil on August 29, 2013, 10:58:39 PM
Hey guys UWA lenses that aren't fisheye do exist. The Sigma 8-16mm f4.5-5.6 is a rectilinear wide angle. It's also a good option for Crop Modes. Better than the Samyang 8mm Fisheye IMO.
There is also a Sigma 10-20mm f3.5 which is another nice option.
Quote from: Andy600 on August 29, 2013, 09:47:00 PM
@menoc - http://www.ebay.com/itm/Isco-Iscomorphot-16-2x-Anamorphic-Cinemascope-Lens-/200956832944?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item2ec9f5ecb0 right on the money and a seriously nice lens for video. You'll be able to shoot over 2.5k 16:9 with this. I would buy it myself if I could.
Pair it with a Helios 44M-2 or an old Nikon 50mm (as both flare) and you'll get pure Hollywood
Quote from: dlrpgmsvc on August 29, 2013, 09:59:13 PM
True, so not viable for normal cinema use (big and bulky tripods, optical stabilizers, and great spaces, not viable for indoor use, and so on)
Quote from: Andy600 on August 29, 2013, 09:36:33 PM
A Tokina for $400 is very much a possibility. The other option is to get an anamorphic. There are a few 2x for around that kind of money and it will give you a wider field of view with cool bokeh and flares. It's actually a much cooler option in my opinion
Quote from: menoc on August 29, 2013, 09:45:10 PM
I see what you're saying. There will still be some distortion around the edges . . . the price sounds right though.
Quote from: menoc on August 29, 2013, 09:25:26 PM
Interesting . . . but I'd like a non-fish eye lens though. How difficult is it to defish video and what would be the results?
Quote from: menoc on August 29, 2013, 09:01:39 PM
I need a recommendation on the best cheap ultra wide angle (14mm or less) lens to shoot in crop mode . . . under $200 would be nice.
Anybody?
Quote from: rockfallfilms on August 29, 2013, 07:49:59 PM
The DOF changes because you are changing your camera to subject distance!
Seriously, monti or silkway or whatever you prefer to be called, your comments on here are making me think you're just a troll.
This used to be a helpful and polite forum but lately it's turned into dvxuser, such a shame.
Quote from: rawmania on August 29, 2013, 07:13:39 PM
Hey Monti
A lot of noice on this forum
May you take a brake for a while or take from courses?
muchas gracias
Quote from: dlrpgmsvc on August 29, 2013, 06:51:31 PM
@Monti : your test is not correct. You are progressively going away from subject (the Matchbox) by lens or by 50D phisically (not important). You have to test at the same framing the normal, the 5x and the 10x, so that the Matchbox occupy the same area on the sensor. It is obvious that more you go away from Matchbox and the more you have DOF. Can you redo the test in this way ? Only in this way we can judge
Quote from: Andy600 on August 29, 2013, 06:42:34 PM
@Monti - A little tip. If you don't have a tripod, rig or stabilizer put the camera on a cushion and put that on something solid. This will reduce movement and still allow you some degree of tilt and pan. For handheld you can also use your camera strap - by putting it around your neck or body and pulling it taught. It won't eliminate movement but will reduce shake a little.
Quote from: bzhwindtalker on August 29, 2013, 05:59:04 PM
Hey man wow great test so usefull really.. all that talk about composition for this haha! seems like you where drunk and on acids when you shot this man.
Btw I don't know where you found that komputarbay cards were bad, I shot 400gb+ on two 32gb without a single issue. As for the issue a few pages back, the poster probably could have recovered his card. There is a lot that can happen and corrupt a card/flash memory disck but it can be fixed most of the times with the rigth partitionning/formatting tools.
Quote from: dsManning on August 29, 2013, 02:42:01 PM
And Auto Exposure http://flic.kr/p/fEjWBG
Quote from: Andy600 on August 29, 2013, 02:30:44 PM
"Circle of confusion" - yep! that describes this subject nicely
Quote from: dlrpgmsvc on August 29, 2013, 10:21:33 AM
Totally wrong again. If you frame the same size object, the dof is the same at all focal lengths. http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm
Quote from: Andy600 on August 29, 2013, 03:30:38 AM
We all would but no can do! HDMI is 8bit and nowhere near the bandwidth needed for raw video.
Quote from: araucaria on August 29, 2013, 03:11:53 AM
The d7000 thing is not going to happen, there is just 1 guy looking into it and they are still figuring out basic stuff on the firmwares, don't even think of being able to use the two card slots to give 40mb/s. The test he made was writing around 20mb/s so... And it was just junk, no actual images.
Quote from: 1% on August 29, 2013, 03:15:34 AM
How much slower? I was waiting for it to hit the main tree at some point.. even HDMI plugged in makes a difference.
Page created in 0.102 seconds with 13 queries.