Messages

have you enabled adobe mercury playback engine for GTX 760 ?

back in the film days there was so called pre flash, exposing a negative with a white flash just before it was exposed with picture, it elevated blacks so they would not be so grainy and ou could see in shadows more.

For this I also use older lenses that flare, and a light flare does the same trick, I guess the principle is the same.

Poor quality can also be thing in grading, you tend to push footage much more if it lacks contrast, and h264 in dslr is 8 bit so not much pushing can be done before it falls apart completely. RAW would benefit I guess, tough proper exposure still is vital.

You also cant expect natural lock if you are in the HDR area, even eye can't cope that well with interior/exterior, it just adapts quickly and we do not notice that.

yes it is there, could not reproduce at will, tough camera tends to not go really off. one in like 3 times it would freeze of I take the CF card out, and then it drains the battery, if not taken out. I could not get it freeze with clean install tough, but I have my own set of settings, but have not gone trough them all. Also it tends to happen after some use of camera, not fresh boot. So can't pinpoint where to look, but it is there. Happens countless times, so I have a habit of taking the battery out just in case.

Our eyes are used to it, because film cinema mostly is 180* tough it seams to change, younger generation seam to see it as to blurry.

But you can use that for you benefit - less than 180 makes it stresful, up tempo, thus good for high dynamics, fight scenes, sports, more than 180 makes it romantic, nostalgic, dreamy.

You can especially feel than when making time lapses, where often you have trouble following the rule. In general - it is a neutral result, rest is a creative choices.

I personally dislike HFR and TV interlaced except for sport live, there is benefit. Otherwise it kills movie magic.

My two cents - I juggle between Technicolor and Marvels. Marvels mostly when the production is DSLR only, but I use Technicolor when I have to mix with other pro video cameras, Somehow it is easier for me to get them look the same. Tough yes - skin tones is problem, I get them first with vectroscope, and technicolor is rather unforgiving g if the white balance is not exactly right.

please do not remove it, it is useful. It could be optional. I'll try to explain why - I had shot time lapse with radio telescope and partly clouded sky, the thing is that telescope brightness flickered, but sky did not as much, with the percentile I was able to make one or the other without flicker. here is sample with first iteration of .5 median deflickering:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N-ZULQL6yE

with first boot happens the ROM dump, 7D makes 2 - ROM0 UN ROM1 in ../ML/LOG/ each is 16MB, if I remember correctly, correct me if I'm wrong

I can't copy ML program to my CF.
I have no external CF adaptator.
When I try with my 7D connect with cable to my computer, I was unable to write to CF (no right ?)
Is there any option to active this ?

(windows seven 64bits)

Get card reader - that is the only solution! you cant copy ml trough camera, and from my experience you should always use card reader to read as well, have had problems with ML cards and usb file download.

you can't trust external monitors mattering, because 7D is not true clean HDMI out, so use magic lantern's one - it will be more accurate. 5Dmk3 with true clean out HDMI is a different story.

7D is not that grate at low lights, almost never go above ISO 1250, you would be better of with 5Dmk2.

No special setting is going to help concerning the limits of the camera, just go with the best and fastest lens you can get. If you do video in h264 then cranking up bit-rate helps at high ISOs, it is easier to remove it with Denoiser or NeetVideo.

If it is photography with high dynamic range, you should look into dual-iso

good lights are costly, period. even good tungsten lights.

look for them is photography shops, they tend to have better ones, also research filters, if they are decent, you cam make them good with specific filters, like company LEE has CFL to tungsten conversion (minus green) filters and so on.

I have had bit rate control misbehave on my 7D, in 1.3x place it gave me more like 0.3 everything was very blocky and unusable. Have not found what causes it nor could repeat it at will , but sometimes it happens on my 7D, but i always was able to see that in playback of the camera, so when ever I touch h264 bitrate settings I check every clip.

in that DNG I see moire color artifacts, not aberrations.
please read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration

and with moire it is easier to deal while shooting.

you can also look at RawTherapee, quite powerful tool, not the fastest tough, and can be unstable on windows (at least mine is)

Adobe Camera RAW

well, I've shot with both, 7D moire us awful, only workaround is to shoot crop (zoomed in center part), but there is the lens issue then. 5Dmk3 binds lines, so much less moire - better picture using whole sensor. 7D gets hot much faster, lucky I'm in rather cold climate so it has never failed on this, but have had the warning show up tough.

I would go with 5Dmk3 for sure, especially raw. tough 7D can be made usable - more hassle tough. 7Dmk2 wold be another game, 7Dmk2 seams to bind pixels ans is 60p so hope is in the air. someday...

because you have DSLRs and other cameras that generate sRGB!

when HDMI is used lcd on 7D turns off, i can confirm that as I have 7D and use external monitor.

I would rather think first of the actual workflow, and then check what actual software needs and on what hardware it works the best.

I'm using Adobe thus PC /  Windows is superior because of the Mercury Engine and nVidia cuda. Form my tests I've found that pc with mercury engine vs opengl on mac runs faster. and when you factor the price for a desktop-ish solution - price performance is way better with PC than MAC. Tough in a recording studio I've built and work in - we are basically MAC only, and for the same reason price / performance (meaning legal software as well). With laptops now it is head to head, more matter of taste, IMHO

as for PC - go with Intel CPU, forget AMD, too unstable (you don't want to rerun crashed 8 hour renders), also do research in RAM speeds because the MHz ir not all, there is also RAS/CAS timings, and that can make huge difference. also look for bottlenecks, sometimes they are the main problem, like dual core cpu can work more or less with 3-4 hd multicam, as long as your hard drive can deliver the footage.

so start with workflow, then look for corresponding computer.

foams color would shift owner time in contact with sun (actually any UV source) as it deteriorates it. There are not that many plastics that are white and UV resistant.

my simple solution has been good white a4 sheet of paper. ok it's more like %5 gray but you can get it anywhere

from 1/500 to 30sec is roughly 14 stops, unless you are shooting directly in sun and then want stars, i do not see when you would need so drastic range.

Time lapses in general fallow the same cinematic 180deg angle rule, so your exposure should be 1/2 of the interval for best result, but you can live with 1/4 of that just fine.

I have tried some such transitions tough in area where I live the twilight is way to long for any interesting result unless some colors in sky, but in general I could achieve 1/10 to 20 sec, when letting some 2-3 stop iso change on my 7D.

Depends also on what camera and how high you are willing to let the ISO go, have you looked into also dual ISO?

some notes tough

• white balance card must be matte, glossiness will screw up your measurement.
• you should also have gray card for proper exposure, and that has to be calibrated, at least roughly
• some of tend tapes tend to be bluish, you should check them in sunlight & tungsten and should give the same result

sadly, all of this is rather pointless. why, let me try to explain.

I shoot much of my work on DSLRs and deliver it for broadcast, with rather strict rules (MTG). meaning 16-235 and so on. encoders mostly do not care for the levels, except few, in Adobe world -  I can encode illegal h264 within a blink of an eye, either using dslr material or color grading it wrongly. Broadcast often deals it with making you use codec that would obey either 601 (IMX30 for SD) or 709 (XDCAM).

So you should always before delivery legalize the footage for broadcast use, but for web, does not matter, people screw up their screen setting - do what ever it will be bad. Most of the smart TVs try to adjust for the material (that should contain metadata about profile) and still screw it up by "enhancing" the picture. so honestly there is no telling will or will not the tv clip illegal levels, some codecs do (DNxHD is notoriously misbehaving in Adobe world if contains illegal levels), most of satellite and cable decoders do, not the TV (except old analog ones).

funny, it was harder to encode SD wrongly, that it is with HD today. not to start an other discussion - they really should not make you pay for using a certain standard, it is one of the reasons there are so may to chose from.

few words about my workflow, If I know that I'll have to deliver for broadcast I would use Technicolor CineStyle profile, because it is matching more to the broadcast formats, than all other (there is a con tough it a bit cripples the dynamic range, i've found) - for rest, I like Marvels - easy to grade if white balance is right.

I see no point using AdobeRGB for video - to much hassle to make video legal, and there is no point converting /legalizing footage to 709 unless you use an 709 compliant calibrated external monitor trough SDI or similar. I would stick to sRGB, and grade it using scopes, and legalese it with a custom curve or your favorite tool.

can't you your self shoot comparison videos and and make the judgment? Honestly, for most uses RAW is just way to fancy and complicated.

just get the best you can afford, I can't say anything negative about hoya, B+W, Tiffen and Cokin, but get the real thing, plenty of counterfeits. I also have couple of older soviet era filters and they perform much better than many cheep brands, tough with them you have to be aware that have more reflections than modern, more prone to flaring and ghosting. this is a reasonable review: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/10-Stop-Neutral-Density-Filter.aspx