Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Viewing percentage  (Read 6308 times)
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2217


WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 19, 2012, 03:54:24 PM »
ReplyReply

One gyro is not really enough and I'm not sure a ks 4 is big enough either.

Thats where the Nex5n comes in - it is so light so gyros work better

Of course if you have the budget for more/bigger then fine

I just feel the image quality per unit mass may not be a prime value of the 1DX

S
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2217


WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 19, 2012, 04:01:58 PM »
ReplyReply

But inadequacy for 'client work' is a generality that, I don't believe, is accurate.  I've made the statement before; when major studios are using DSLRs for high budget productions they can't be all that bad.

Ok. I should have said 'mid level client' work. DSLR work well for 'ducks in the park' and also 'high budget' when you have cine lenses and a puller working from marks, and an external sound guy.

A 'mid level' solo op doing his own focus and sound trying to work with a DSLR can often fall over. Thas is not about image quality, just practicality, monitoring etc.

Also the 'high budget' pick them from a stable of cameras when appropriate to certain shots, for example (prescient in this case?) I believe Shane Halibut used mainly 5ds on his recent film, but switched to (chemical) film for the air to air work?

There are shooting situations where the 1dx probably beasts the alexa - (the dark) so it would be an appropriate choice whatever the budget but the 'mid level client' jobs the operator is generally not choosing from a stable of cameras..

I feel a DSLR is not the best all round tool for video. Is that balanced and fair?

S



« Last Edit: November 19, 2012, 04:07:01 PM by Morgan_Moore » Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2217


WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 19, 2012, 04:17:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Kevin - you mentioned over shooting (2-4k) and post smoothing

It is worth considering that AFAIK software stabilisation works on low frequency error

So you could correct the roll of a boat (or plane?)

But high frequency error - (induced by contact with the airframe) is pretty much un-curable

Simply if there is a lot of movement in the individual frames they become uncorrectable

Another reason for shooting high FPS (FS100 - FS700) is that the shutter speed is faster so the artifacts (from high frequcy) are cut in half or 4

Certainly you should try 30p for free?

S



Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2217


WWW
« Reply #23 on: November 19, 2012, 04:23:02 PM »
ReplyReply

For your amusement here is one of my gyro NEX5n builds

It has 3 axis Isolation and is pretty balanced but still a work in progress..

Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #24 on: November 19, 2012, 05:51:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Ok. I should have said 'mid level client' work. DSLR work well for 'ducks in the park' and also 'high budget' when you have cine lenses and a puller working from marks, and an external sound guy.

A 'mid level' solo op doing his own focus and sound trying to work with a DSLR can often fall over. Thas is not about image quality, just practicality, monitoring etc.

Also the 'high budget' pick them from a stable of cameras when appropriate to certain shots, for example (prescient in this case?) I believe Shane Halibut used mainly 5ds on his recent film, but switched to (chemical) film for the air to air work?

There are shooting situations where the 1dx probably beasts the alexa - (the dark) so it would be an appropriate choice whatever the budget but the 'mid level client' jobs the operator is generally not choosing from a stable of cameras..

I feel a DSLR is not the best all round tool for video. Is that balanced and fair?

S


Sure, I think that's better.  And I'd agree that a DSLR alone isn't the ideal solution in some cases.
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2217


WWW
« Reply #25 on: November 19, 2012, 06:09:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Sure, I think that's better.  And I'd agree that a DSLR alone isn't the ideal solution in some cases.

But if you trawl the net this point of view is seriously under represented, particularly by some of the loudest voices. Caveat Emptor.

S
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2217


WWW
« Reply #26 on: November 20, 2012, 01:40:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Back to viewing size/softness i think its worth having a download of this http://www.eoshd.com/content/9214/the-eoshd-blackmagic-cinema-camera-shootout

the 1dx is not there, but there are some BMC frames that look sharp, while the rest in the main has a general muzz..

S
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #27 on: November 20, 2012, 03:22:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Now try it in a helicopter! It's easy to build something you can bounce around in a car and think you have got it sorted. Stick it in a aircraft and it all turns to poo. Then try to get it stabilised and on a mount you can point at a subject rather than just fly-by shots, you solve one problem and create two more!

Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #28 on: November 20, 2012, 06:02:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Hey Kevin, maybe one of these is what you need.   Grin
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2217


WWW
« Reply #29 on: November 20, 2012, 07:46:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Now try it in a helicopter! It's easy to build something you can bounce around in a car and think you have got it sorted. Stick it in a aircraft and it all turns to poo. Then try to get it stabilised and on a mount you can point at a subject rather than just fly-by shots, you solve one problem and create two more!

Kevin.

Interesting stuff, My test for cars (im well happy most of the time) is changing gears and starting the engine (high frequency vibration) - I think If you get that sorted it will take a heli?

And my thing does point, its basically a mini steadicam with that gimbal

S
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #30 on: November 22, 2012, 03:24:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Morgan and Bob,
If you want to stabilise the Nex 5 and are happy with one lens, the problem is well and truly solved with the Zenmuse. It apparently is given Cineflex quality stabilisation. Of course you don't have to fit it to RC flying machines, I've seen it used in full size helicopters. Not a bad price either 5k should get a rig up and running.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVEDj667DOA

Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2217


WWW
« Reply #31 on: November 22, 2012, 12:40:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Doenst seem to be a very UK friendly website.

It is interesting however

It does not seem, I guess, to stabilise the other three axes which is critical when in contact with the ground

If they had a UK dealer I would go and play..

S

Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 23, 2012, 02:17:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Doenst seem to be a very UK friendly website.

It is interesting however

It does not seem, I guess, to stabilise the other three axes which is critical when in contact with the ground

If they had a UK dealer I would go and play..

S

They do have uk dealers, I doubt you could go and play. They sell to the RC people that want to build their own flying machines, the chances of them having a demo unit are slim and if they have one it would be on something like a Droidworx multicopter.
If it stabilisers on a wind battered multicopter on the ground it will be very smooth.

Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2217


WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 23, 2012, 02:32:45 AM »
ReplyReply

If it stabilisers on a wind battered multicopter on the ground it will be very smooth.

Im not so sure.

Say from a car - you need to take out gear changes for example - fore aft - this only does pan tilt roll?

Like the steadicam gimbal both does PTR and also uses the arm to do height and left-right and fore aft

But very interesting.

My device is smooth - handheld - but hard mounted with no boom-L-R and F-A it is horrid..


==

On cameras - I think you should check some BMC footage .. it is sharp

S
« Last Edit: November 23, 2012, 02:34:54 AM by Morgan_Moore » Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Sareesh Sudhakaran
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


WWW
« Reply #34 on: November 24, 2012, 09:55:02 PM »
ReplyReply

I would have liked to see the BMCC compared with a 2/3" HD camera. BMCC footage looks like video from a high-end broadcast camera like the HDC series.

DSLRs were never sharp for video to begin with, but that's their charm - skin didn't look all that bad.

Dynamic range is overrated. Even Roger Deakins doesn't believe film had more than 10 stops.
Logged

Get the Free Comprehensive Guide to Rigging ANY Camera - one guide to rig them all - DSLRs to the Arri Alexa.
billy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 274


« Reply #35 on: December 23, 2012, 04:46:20 PM »
ReplyReply

If you want a better more 'intelligent' image stabilizer, check out CoreMelt's Lock & Load

thanks BTW for this. I downloaded and installed the trial version and it did seem to work better but I never got to far beyond its default settings. Can you expand a bit more? Would it also be better at keeping resolution than FCPX own image stabilization?
Logged
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1906



« Reply #36 on: December 23, 2012, 08:43:37 PM »
ReplyReply

I do not have any direct experience with a comparison to FCP X's  stabilization mode to L&L

My guess is that frame by frame it is likely no better or worse. However what particularly impresses about Lock & Load is the 'intelligent' ability to zoom in and out while making the necessary blow-up in order to preserve as much resolution as possible. The settings for that are worth experimenting with.
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad