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.

Show posts Menu

Messages - Flynt

No, city lights did everything. That was really dark when I shot this footage, but city lights produced a lot of ambient light, so I could shoot with iso 100. It was not really necessary to use 1.4 aperture. I could use less shutter speed and get 2/3 stop or could increase iso 2-3 stops or even more. It was test with iso 100, but there's no problem to use high iso level on 5d mk3. Sometimes I even shoot with iso 2500-3200. The main idea when you shoot with the high iso level - don't touch exposure (especially shadows), use rec709 curve (not srgb) in post and you'll get a good result without noise.
Wide open aperture isn't so important. But I was surprised to see how sharp image is with 1.4. When I take photos I don't like to use less 2.0 aperture because of depth of field. But in video mode 1.4 works really good. It gives a sharp crisp image. This lens is the best lens I've ever had for video. Any lens is good for close-range and mid-range shots, but only this lens is the best for long-range shots, it still has perfect contrast, colors and details even with wide open aperture.
Hi. Recently I've tested my latest 135mm f/2.0 lens in different light conditions. Here's the result.
Danne croprec firmware, MLVapp, Davinci Resolve, Adobe Premiere

By the way, watch my other tests what I never posted here.

Asters - Canon 5D mk3, Canon 35mm f/1.4L

Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L ML raw test

Flowers - ML raw, Canon 50mm f/1.4

35mm film grain test

City walk with Canon 5D mk3

A wooden church
Quote from: IDA_ML on September 13, 2020, 12:16:39 AM

Although I appreciate your efforts to adjust the same field of view and film these comparative shots, they may create the wrong impression that the 5k anamorfic mode is much more inferior in terms of image quality than the 3k 1x1 mode.    The crop mode uses much smaller  sensor area, therefore the depth of field is much larger causing much more of the image to appear sharp.  The lack of sharpness in large areas of the anamorphic shots is attributed to the much smaller depth of field which creates an overall impression of a soft image.  Those areas are soft not because of lack of resolution or inferior image quality but because of defocus.  If you want to be correct with the comparisons, in your anamorphic shots, you will need to close the apperture to achieve equal depths of field in both modes.

In fact, image quality of the 5k anamorphic mode is so good that it is barely distinguishable from 3k.  This is evident from the pink flower shots where depth of field for both modes is large enough for the entire flower to appear in sharp focus.  I use 5k anamorphic for landscape videography all the time and it resolves fine detail perfectly.  Videos look gorgeous on large high-resolution screens.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with you. There's no out of focus, softness, etc. Let me tell you something. Just watch other ML videos on my channel, and you'll understand that I know how to focusing, how to work with ML and so on. I'm working with Danne's firmware for about a year, and all this time I've been comparing it with 3K crop rec mode in different situations.
3K footages always look amazing - with any lens, at close- mid- long-range distances , F-number, in real size with 100% crop, in fit in view mode, etc. There are tons of detalization in 3k mode. The keyword is - detalization, not softness or something else.
Yes, at first sight 3K and Danne's mode look pretty close, maybe the same for someone. But Danne's mode has less detalisation, it's a fact, and everyone sees it here, even you. That's what I want to show in this comparison.
Do you really think that 1920x2340 anamorphic pixels upscaled to 5.5K have better detalization than real 3072x1728 pixels, especially with the same or less bitrate, especially in 100% crop comparison? No, even mathematically. And in practice, as i said before, even you see it. These fake anamorphic 5.5K pixels not even close to real 2x anamorphic lens with the same matrix resolution.
I know there are lots of Danne's fans here, and I don't want to say that Danne's mode is bad or something else. It's good when you need to get long-time rec, large FOV, pseudo-panoramic automatization in post, long-range distances. But when you need detalization 3K is better.
As for me, I would prefer to work with real 3K upscaled to 4K (like ARRI Alexa) than fake anamorphic 5.5K  downscaled to 4K, but my CF and SD cards don't support long-time rec in 3K mode. That's why I use Danne's firmware. As you can see on my channel 3K looks great in any situation, even with Youtube compression, in post-production you can crop it, or upscale, or whatever you want without details loss.
And also I think you should try 5.5K full matrix resolution mode in ML to understand what 5.5K really means) There is fantastic detalization even with ultra-wide lenses at long-range distance, full sensor area, etc.
Share Your Videos / 3K mode vs 5K anamorphic quick test
September 09, 2020, 02:56:07 PM
Last month I shot a few footages playing with different ML-modes. Some results in the video below.
Canon 5D mk III, Canon 35mm f 1.4L, Davinci resolve

Share Your Videos / Fall - low light ML video
October 12, 2018, 12:54:20 PM

Canon EOS 5D Mark III, Canon EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM, ML 3K crop rec, Davinci Resolve 15. Thanks for watching.

Hi guys!
Watch my video, what I shot with my 5DM3. 1440p for the real texture detalization. Thanks for watching!