those of you who shoot film here; do you use a negative scanner to digitise your photos or is there some other magical method that i'm unaware of?
i'm looking for the best way for when i switch to film but the reviews of popular scanners on amazon are discouraging
[QUOTE=Greaterbeing;44439539]those of you who shoot film here; do you use a negative scanner to digitise your photos or is there some other magical method that i'm unaware of?
i'm looking for the best way for when i switch to film but the reviews of popular scanners on amazon are discouraging[/QUOTE]
get a scanner, I (and many others here) recommend the epson v series (v500, etc.)
Aye, epson v500 ain't too bad
I use the V750 pro from school, it works great but too bad the glass is a mess (smudges and scratches)
scan a black frame in and use that to remove the smudges and scratches in your scans
[QUOTE=paul simon;44438617]They never got 1080p to work with it, did they?
That was sort of a letdown for me, at least.
The 5D3 still reigns supreme within "cheap" RAW filming as far as i know.
[editline]3rd April 2014[/editline]
To you who wonder though, Magic Lantern works well and is stable on my 6D at least.[/QUOTE]
the problem is the SD card controller tops out at 45mb/s so you can only really pull 1600x600 (2.67:1) from the camera, or 1280x720 in 16:9.
my workflow is basically into camera raw in after effects, apply the visionlog colour profile and no sharpening, drag into render queue, set it to export as a 1920x1080 video upscaled in prores 422 (hq), take it into resolve, grade it, export again at 422 hq before delivery to the editor for ingestion into avid media composer. it's backwards (colour then edit rather than edit and colour) because i won't have the time to do it in a few weeks when it's edited as i'll be concentrating on my own project and the crit is too soon.
after effects took about 2 hours to churn out 9 mins or so of mov's
you have described my personal hell
[QUOTE=Trogdon;44442076]you have described my personal hell[/QUOTE]
for me, it is a lifestyle
I would looooveee that.
[QUOTE=codenamecueball;44441978]the problem is the SD card controller tops out at 45mb/s so you can only really pull 1600x600 (2.67:1) from the camera, or 1280x720 in 16:9.
my workflow is basically into camera raw in after effects, apply the visionlog colour profile and no sharpening, drag into render queue, set it to export as a 1920x1080 video upscaled in prores 422 (hq), take it into resolve, grade it, export again at 422 hq before delivery to the editor for ingestion into avid media composer. it's backwards (colour then edit rather than edit and colour) because i won't have the time to do it in a few weeks when it's edited as i'll be concentrating on my own project and the crit is too soon.
after effects took about 2 hours to churn out 9 mins or so of mov's[/QUOTE]
Damn I wish I knew how to use resolve, tried it and looked around for some tutorials but could never find any that were helpful
I've always thought though, you could export your film as jpeg frames, import into lightroom, do some badass processing, export, import images as frames into the timeline and bam, super high quality grade
If you want an easier workflow, you can convert the .mlv files into cdng + wav using raw2cdng. If you set it to 12 bit linear you can just directly drag and drop the dng files onto your premiere timeline.
[QUOTE=Dvorak231;44444037]Damn I wish I knew how to use resolve, tried it and looked around for some tutorials but could never find any that were helpful
I've always thought though, you could export your film as jpeg frames, import into lightroom, do some badass processing, export, import images as frames into the timeline and bam, super high quality grade[/QUOTE]
i could, but it's way more time consuming
[editline]4th April 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Dominik93;44444354]If you want an easier workflow, you can convert the .mlv files into cdng + wav using raw2cdng. If you set it to 12 bit linear you can just directly drag and drop the dng files onto your premiere timeline.[/QUOTE]
premiere is not an editing program i would use, i prefer avid
[URL]http://www.fujirumors.com/new-source-x-pro2-will-feature-full-frame-sensor-3-5-ff-lenses/[/URL]
If this rumor is true then the perfect camera will exist.
If it has a nice 28mm f/2.8 pancake or something similar I will fall in love.
[editline]4th April 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=codenamecueball;44441978]the problem is the SD card controller tops out at 45mb/s so you can only really pull 1600x600 (2.67:1) from the camera, or 1280x720 in 16:9.
my workflow is basically into camera raw in after effects, apply the visionlog colour profile and no sharpening, drag into render queue, set it to export as a 1920x1080 video upscaled in prores 422 (hq), take it into resolve, grade it, export again at 422 hq before delivery to the editor for ingestion into avid media composer. it's backwards (colour then edit rather than edit and colour) because i won't have the time to do it in a few weeks when it's edited as i'll be concentrating on my own project and the crit is too soon.
after effects took about 2 hours to churn out 9 mins or so of mov's[/QUOTE]
Couldn't you just fill the buffer with 1080p raw video while writing to the card at 45MB/S (is it megabits or megabytes?) and you could get maybe like 30 seconds of 1080p before it fills?
I doubt fuji would go that route, they have already said that they want to focus on APS-C. Older article, but I doubt things would have drastically changed since then. I don't see anything competing with the a7 (FF mirrorless) for at least another year.
[url]http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2013/12/17/fujifilm-not-coming-up-with-full-frame-x-mount-camera-according-to-manager[/url]
Don't really get the FF obsession, but then again ive never shot on it
Edit: the heaviest camera ever ive held was a d7000 and it felt like a brick to me, so theres that
i like FF because it allows me to use my old lenses to their full original ability, and its makes wide angle lenses a lot easier to find, a 28mm lens is 28mm, you don't have to resort to 16mm lenses and stuff.
p.s. i just shot six rolls in the city, 1 35mm roll of portra 160, 1 120 roll of ektar (first ektar), and a 120 roll of portra 800.
picking them up tomorrow!
probably going to regret trying to take reverse lens macro pics of my eyes using a flash to light them
wow in retrospect that was an awful idea fuck my corneas
[editline]3rd April 2014[/editline]
it was only 3 pics but like woah
[QUOTE=notlabbet;44446002]i like FF because it allows me to use my old lenses to their full original ability, and its makes wide angle lenses a lot easier to find, a 28mm lens is 28mm, you don't have to resort to 16mm lenses and stuff.
p.s. i just shot six rolls in the city, 1 35mm roll of portra 160, 1 120 roll of ektar (first ektar), and a 120 roll of portra 800.
picking them up tomorrow![/QUOTE]
I can definitely understand a legit need like that, what i dont get is when ppl buy cameras for only that reason, that infectious /p/ mentality really gets me riled up cause i used to fall for it.
I would use FF for the increased ISO performance, lower DoF and cheaper fast wide lenses.
[QUOTE=Limpid;44445850]Don't really get the FF obsession, but then again ive never shot on it
Edit: the heaviest camera ever ive held was a d7000 and it felt like a brick to me, so theres that[/QUOTE]
-ISO performance
-Bokeh with FF lenses
-Image quality
[editline]4th April 2014[/editline]
ohh im late
FF is also gets you higher resolution, more dynamic range, more color tones, and it's easier to achieve apparent sharpness. For FF wide angle primes are better (zooms I would say APS-C is almost equal with the Tokina 11-16 and Sigma 8-16), the 24mm and 35mm focal lengths achieve the shallowest DoF available on any format, and there are the most amount of lenses made natively for the size.
APS-C isn't left in the dust, but FF does have a lot of advantages that aren't always considered. I've shot APS-C for 4 years and haven't had any big issues, but I do want to go to FF eventually because most all my lenses are designed for FF. APS-C would be more viable if companies supported it better, but most of the time companies just make zooms, and usually zooms with massive focal ranges. Native APS-C primes are actually really great.
some shots from my film today
i'm pretty happy with it
[IMG]https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7234/13631817065_9053e364ac_c.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7420/13631851333_05d2fef561_c.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Trogdon;44451673]FF is also gets you higher resolution, more dynamic range, more color tones, and it's easier to achieve apparent sharpness. For FF wide angle primes are better (zooms I would say APS-C is almost equal with the Tokina 11-16 and Sigma 8-16), the 24mm and 35mm focal lengths achieve the shallowest DoF available on any format, and there are the most amount of lenses made natively for the size.
APS-C isn't left in the dust, but FF does have a lot of advantages that aren't always considered. I've shot APS-C for 4 years and haven't had any big issues, but I do want to go to FF eventually because most all my lenses are designed for FF. APS-C would be more viable if companies supported it better, but most of the time companies just make zooms, and usually zooms with massive focal ranges. Native APS-C primes are actually really great.[/QUOTE]
Why would dynamic range be affected? Is it a side effect of better ISO performance due to more surface area for light to hit? If so then would it only be the case for lower res ff cams with bigger pixels (like a D4) rather than high res with small pixels (like a D800)?
Should I get a crop frame e mount lens for running around, or get a me mount lens and adaptor?
I've been in Paris for a day and a half now and haven't taken any photos yet
what's wrong with me
[QUOTE=Dvorak231;44458743]I've been in Paris for a day and a half now and haven't taken any photos yet
what's wrong with me[/QUOTE]
You're enjoying your time there. It's nice to take pictures of things but it's also nice to experience them regularly and not through a viewfinder.
[QUOTE=Roll_Program;44457680]Why would dynamic range be affected? Is it a side effect of better ISO performance due to more surface area for light to hit? If so then would it only be the case for lower res ff cams with bigger pixels (like a D4) rather than high res with small pixels (like a D800)?[/QUOTE]
I think it's just to bigger sensor area. Sensors with smaller pixel pitches usually perform better than ones with larger pixels, especially in color depth.
[img]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6696045/Gifs/what_have_i_done.png[/img]
My cat is not amuzed =(
i found out the problem with my computer
timemachine was auto backing up every file I deleted to the hard drive even though I have an external hard drive and somehow the files it backed up would take up more space so deleting crap took up more space. pretty dumb seeing as I back up to an external hard drive anyway but figured out how to delete it and now I have 130 gigs free.
Sony α7-S confirmed.
ISO range from 50-409600
"Very high dynamic range"
12 megapixels apparently
4K filming.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
