Show Posts

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.

Messages - noisyboy

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9
Feature Requests / Re: Slate board substitute
« on: August 03, 2013, 05:14:29 PM »
Funnily enough I had requested this previously and it seems doable but it's just a matter of a programmer/dev to feel it's a useful enough idea to warrant implementing it (which to be fair they have much more exciting things to deal with right now) ;)

For the sake of tidiness I'll lock this thread but feel free to continue the discussion on the other thread :)

Check it out:

Hi all,
I would love to hear some input from people who tried both cameras - I love the 5D3 and the beautiful RAW it delivers. Never tried the BMCC. Is the image quality from the 5D3 RAW better/equal to the BMCC RAW ? Dynamic range? Low light performance? Any other important differences between the two that will make me buy/not buy the BMCC? I am only doing wildlife filmmaking with telephoto lenses from 70mm - 800mm.

Just put an order in for a BMCC myself after the price drop but one thing I will say about the 5DIII is that a) you have Magic Lantern to go with it ;) b) the full frame and low light performance of the mkIII absolutely smash the BMCC out of the water if that is something you are concerned about and c) if you EVER want to take stills with your BMCC you are pretty much stuffed.

The reason I bought one is just because it shoots prores 4.2.2 and it's shooting raw straight out of the box with less hassle and also the footage goes straight into resolve without weird debayering issues. Oh and playback in camera is a must for me really.

Either one is a bit of a beast but really you could shoot the exact same film on both of these cameras if you put your mind to it. Just different tools for the job  8)

Ps. If you are doing wildlife then you could greatly benefit from the huge crop of the sensor on the BMCC as your 800mm would become like a 1920mm or something :)

Archived porting threads / Re: Magic Lantern for 7D alpha 2
« on: August 03, 2013, 03:59:16 AM »
You don't bud. The DNG's are your "movie file", each one a frame of video. Copy them to a folder and then import them into something like After Effects as raw sequence. Once things have developed further you will hopefully have "raw video files" on the camera instead of individual DNG's but this is the first step towards that  8)

General Chat / Re: BlackMagic Cinema Camera now priced well below 5D3?
« on: August 03, 2013, 03:51:15 AM »
Held out for long enough but couldn't resist - had to buy one at this price! Roll on Tuesday :) Won't replace my DSLR's but still can't wait to put this badboy to use :)

I know this will draw a lot of "yeah but on the BMCC it's not as good because of xyz" but you definitely have to admire Blackmagic Design's ethos! They might be flakey fuckers when it comes to shipping but I love that they have just given the entire industry the finger in terms of pricing.

I guess that yeah - ML must have had *some* influence on the price but imagine the influence that they have just had on Canon/RED/Alexa/you-name-it. Bet a whole lotta CEO's just went "shit..."  8)

General Chat / Re: Animation Layered On Top OF Video?
« on: August 03, 2013, 02:15:02 AM »
Looks to me like a LOT of hard work doing "proper" animation and possibly drawing over individual frames in Photoshop (that's what I'd do anyway). It's time consuming but easy enough as all you do is trace the areas you wish to animate.

Well done! Great presentation!

ML FTW!  8)

Ooo! Maybe that will help when I (eventually) find someone nice enough to help me with my feature idea ;)

Niiiice  8)


;) i love to see how software make synhro from 5  audio sources recorded lets say on musci festival where all 5 recording devices are in diferente places :DD ..  software never replace human ear.

Nope - wont replace it... But will bash the living hell out of it...

Raw Video / Re: Shot some raw at a club. WHY SO NOISY!
« on: July 03, 2013, 04:06:50 AM »
If you're getting used to shooting raw and exposing correctly then this might make for good reading:

Are you getting this noise with the actual DNG's or when editing your TIFF's?

My guess is that you probably underexposed which is quite an easy thing to do when getting used to shooting raw as you end up getting kinda obsessed with the ability to pull back those delicious highlights but lifting underexposed shadows and mids is always going to yield more noise as the left of the histogram records less data (which is a pretty layman's terms way of explaining it). Best thing to do is read that article - it'll make more sense than my tired-ass ramblings at 3am.

Sorry if a) I explained that badly and b) this is stuff you already know ;)

Nice footage by the way  8)

Archived porting threads / Re: Magic Lantern for 7D alpha 2
« on: June 28, 2013, 11:56:24 PM »
you mean that I have to crop the final video like the cinemascop crop marks? and which dimensions are the right dimensions about that? can you help me please?

What you editing in? If you shot at 1080p then you can drop your footage into a 1920x800 project and the project itself will be cropped correctly instead of having to do letterboxing with a mask.

think they'd allow you to post the profile?

I doubt it bud :) They're really nice and approachable people though so I'm sure they wont mind you asking.

Hey Marten!

I hear that with RawMagic on Mac OS, you can select which camera you shot on and it will write the correct camera name into the metadata of the DNG's so you can use all the camera calibration options within ACR/Lightroom. Is that something that might find it's way into your ass kicking Rawanizer?

If I have this wrong then appologies. I only assume that this data is supposed to be written after and not during recording. I'm using a 6D and don't get any of those options of course this also means I can't use the custom profiles from people like VisionColor etc either.

Cheers bud! Great work  8)

Amazing :) Can't thank you enough dude... It's a shame Mosaic Engineering didn't provide me with some decent comparisons after the multiple requests I made as I would already own one by now judging by the results. They clearly aren't that desperate to shift them ;)

Whoops - wrong frame rate... Will re-upload. You get the idea still

Sorted  8)

Did my own comparison with some crops and uploaded to Vimeo so the quality should be better for observing the difference! Cheers again for this dude! Totally gonna be my next purchase :)

Sorry if it all happens a bit quick in the comparison video! The clips were't that long. I recommend making friends with the pause button ;)

The only adjustments I made in ACR as a half stop exposure adjustment and added a tiny bit of sharping to the footage that had the filter on to compensate the slight softness introduced by the filter. I personally think it did a great job and by adding the little bit of sharpening you'd never know that the filter had introduced sharpening in the first place :)

I think an interesting observation from my end is how forgiving a bit of compression can be on aliasing. In After Effects, the aliasing on the power cables is absolutely horrific on the footage without the filter yet once it's gone to x.264 and then through vimeo's compression it kind of gets smoothed out a bit.

Magic Lantern Forum and Site Discussion / Re: Site design
« on: June 27, 2013, 04:33:15 PM »
That actually look pretty sweet :)

Wow - dude this is amazing! Thank you so much for doing this! What a difference it makes - especially to the power cables!

At LAST I have justification to buy it :) This will turn the 6D into a BEAST!

Bonus, this also means that you can use custom picture profiles such as those from VisionColor, directly within ACR.  I am beta testing VisionColor's Cinelook profile for ACR on ML raw footage, and it works well.

Ha! No way :) Jonathan sent me the Beta profile this morning! Can't wait to give it a whirl - those guys always know how to impress me. Shame I can't use the damn thing yet :(

I use FilmConvert and as noted above you can get in the ballpark by selecting a generic profile in ACR and selecting a "flat" profile in FilmConvert, such as VisionTech, Prolost, or Marvels.  But this is just an approximation.  Further, I don't know how reliable this will be moving forward.

Yup - totally agree :) This is not an exact way of getting where you want to be but as I was advised to use this method by FilmCOnvert themselves I figure - if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me :)

Thanks for the info on the metadata dude... I need to look more into this :)

I used ACR's Canon neutral profile on the dng's and the Prolost setting in FM, seemed to work nicely. 600D wasn't an option in the version I was using so I chose 60D or 7D, a quick comparison showed them to be the same from what I remember.

Also dude - forgot to mention in my above post that Lance recommends using the "embedded" profile. Interestingly, embeded is the only option I get when using ML DNG's...

Hmmm...   :-\

I used ACR's Canon neutral profile on the dng's and the Prolost setting in FM, seemed to work nicely. 600D wasn't an option in the version I was using so I chose 60D or 7D, a quick comparison showed them to be the same from what I remember.

Cool :) Even though I was told to use the 5DmkIII profiles I was actually inquiring about using a 6D so I guess the same applies?


So basically I'm editing something I helped out on at the weekend while shooting with the Magic Lantern raw module and fancied playing around with FilmConvert but as any of you who have used FilmConvert (or even those that haven't) know - the way the plugin works (in layman's terms) is basically by knowing what the cameras footage should look like to begin with and then it re-maps the expected image into what it would look like on a film stock of your choosing.

This of course was going to be a problem for me as I have a lot of raw footage and there is no Canon/Magic Lantern raw profile (yet) for FilmConvert.

So I got on the old email to Lance over at FilmConvert and he said that they have been playing around and found that you get pretty damn close results when you choose 2012 camera calibration process inside of ACR. I'm waiting for him to let me know if this really matters as from what Andrew Reid from EOSHD has suggested - ACR 2012 process seems to do some weird automated stuff with highlights that you cannot control and that therefore 2010 is better. [edit: and also recomends choosing "embedded"]. I personally haven't had trouble with it and used 2012 with this anyway.

Then once you have dropped FilmConvert on top of your footage, you should select either the 5DmkIII VisionTech (another great reason VisionColor exist) or Prolost camera profiles.

Anyway - have a peep at this test and see what you think. Super quick edit with a handful of random shots (as I really should be doing some work... sshhh!). To show what the plugin looks like with the raw footage I applied no additional corrections or grading other than color-temp adjustments inside of ACR and a teeny tiny bit of sharpening.

I guess the real good news was that when I spoke to Lance, he said they had been playing and knew already how to get results so I guess they must be bubbling away in the lab or at least have plans for when the time is right (please for the love of god don't take this as gospel to mean that they are actually baking up a ML raw profile as I'm only speculating but it makes sense to me).

Oh yeah - shot at 1600x672 @25fps and upscaled to 1080x800


And another example of FilmConvert being used by Squig (although I have no idea what profiles he used but it still looks better than mine  ;) ):

since roundtrippin is working - its no deal to make the first import into resolve, makin automatically xml and proxies, workin with it in premiere and finalizing back in resolve. (cinema dngs are useable for you as well - you could look, if you see any differences between 16bit(14bit) and 12bit)

Sweet man - just saw that it's fixed so that's a big plus :) Still need to learn more about it coz the way I use resolve is probably a real long way of doing shit. Need to get deep in some decent tutorials on roundtripping. Anyone got any suggestions let me know - otherwise I'm gonna get started with Denver Riddle. Hope he removes his 6  month minimum signup soon now that he's working with Instagram. Dude must be able to afford it now eh!  ;)

Sorry to say that, this workflow is consuming too much time - roundtrippin' with Resolve is workin' so i see no better/faster way to cut your video with proxies (in premiere, fcp or avid) and grading and finishing after that in resolve with original files.

regards chmee

Hey I never said it works for everyone so fair enough ;) The point of this is no round tripping at all once you have your project set up. It's all completely connected and editable/gradeable at any time and completely none-destructive. I personally think that this is not anywhere near as time consuming as round-tripping but then maybe I need to learn more about Resolve. I LOVE Resolve but the only thing that stops me using it every time is the lack of de-noiser in the free version and as I end up handling a lot of DSLR footage - de-noising is essential so de-noising and exporting all of my footage first before I can grade is a pain in the testis ;) Also it means I don't have to convert everything to Cinema DNG and at this stage (unless I'm mistaken) ACR seems to handle the debayering side of things a little smoother. Do you use premiere with your workflow chmee? Would love to learn more about your workflow if you PM me dude  8)


Raw Video / Re: Aliasing with RAW
« on: June 24, 2013, 09:17:01 PM »
I am going to link something I found a long, long, time ago. I never tested it myself but intended to at some point. My strategy for dealing with moire is generally to avoid things that are known sources of it. :-\

I would like to think that it's highly effective and kills any sign of moire. I do, at least, have hope (and optimism :) ).

You can achieve the same results by using Smoothkit by RE:Vision and applying a Gaussian to only the chroma. Works really well actually :)

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9