|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 3rd, 2009, 04:32 PM | #46 | ||
Inner Circle
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Camas, WA, USA
Posts: 5,513
|
Quote:
Quote:
Still, HTP seems like it might be a helpful tool. Also helpful is knowing what settings don't matter. For instance, knowing that anything over 100 ISO displayed is actually 1/33 means we don't have to sweat getting the light just right so we get 1/50. That can save a lot of time on the set. Just dial the ISO above 100 and shoot.
__________________
Jon Fairhurst |
||
April 3rd, 2009, 04:41 PM | #47 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Laguna Niguel, CA
Posts: 277
|
Quote:
I wonder how bad 1/33 looks? It certainly isn't anything we had wished for. |
|
April 3rd, 2009, 04:57 PM | #48 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Camas, WA, USA
Posts: 5,513
|
Quote:
No wonder people have been complaining about a non-film, soap opera look. It's not just 30p; it's a ~325 degree shutter!!! Not only do we need fast lenses, we need lights! (or sunshine.)
__________________
Jon Fairhurst |
|
April 3rd, 2009, 05:06 PM | #49 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Laguna Niguel, CA
Posts: 277
|
Quote:
That would mean LaForet's video was all 360 shutter. I'm going to go back and look at his blur. |
|
April 3rd, 2009, 05:09 PM | #50 |
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Laguna Niguel, CA
Posts: 277
|
I wonder if the difference between 1/30 and 1/33 was some kind of compression time problem. This last test was of a blanket with a fuzzy pattern and the 1/30 result test was a blank wall.
|
April 3rd, 2009, 05:57 PM | #51 |
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Laguna Niguel, CA
Posts: 277
|
Once again I am totally confused.
I looked at the Laforet first scene where the guy crosses the screen to kiss the girl. It was a dark scene and no lens could have allowed enough light to get to ISO 100. If the exposure was 1/30, then I should have seen blur as wide as the distance he moves each frame, right? The blur was much smaller than that, maybe one fourth (90 degrees?). His hand moved 22 pixels and the blur on his sleeve looked like about 6 pixels. P.S. I don't see how it could make any difference but this latest test was locked at f1.4 and the previous was locked at f5.6. Could the algorithm behave differently when we lock (electronically isolate) the lens? P.S.S. Looking at the numbers closer (I used excel this time), I found that the strobe lasted about four lines. The smallest number of lines in a fast band was around 300 so that source of error was small. P.S.S. Could my test be flawed? When a fast strobe can fill the entire screen with light, which happens often, that means it exposes for a long time, close to the 1/30, right? How can this thinking be wrong? I have an idea. I'll do my flash test and then in the same scene wave my hand in front of the lens or get some other kind of motion in. Then I can compare the blur to the speed. |
April 4th, 2009, 01:53 AM | #52 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 181
|
Mark:
Very interesting data coming out of your experiments. Now, you're probably going to hate me for this, but I assume your tests have been performed with Nikon lenses to take focal length out of the equation. Maybe you should try again with canon lenses and different focal lengths and that might throw very different data your way at iso speeds higher than 100. If that works out to be correct, canon effectively worked out a system to really prevent us users from ever hoping to have any sort of manual control. If you use nikons to control aperture, shutter speed effectively goes out the window at iso's higher than 100. Use canons and shutter becomes predictable but only as a function of focal length and aperture is fixed at certain positions. The only way we could ever hope to effectively control shutter speed would have to be by tricking the camera into thinking the lens was always fixed at the focal length that gives us the shutter speed we expect. Maybe a custom nikon mount that somehow faked canon lens info into the camera? :) P.S. Laforet shot usng canon glass. Last edited by Luis de la Cerda; April 4th, 2009 at 01:54 AM. Reason: added a PS |
April 4th, 2009, 01:01 PM | #53 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Laguna Niguel, CA
Posts: 277
|
Quote:
Are you saying that maybe my results are the way they are because it doesn't know the focal length? I will try a quick run without locking/rotating the lens. If it changes my focal length it won't really matter for the purpose of this test. |
|
April 4th, 2009, 02:23 PM | #54 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 181
|
No, what I'm saying is that the camera might be trying to adhere to the 1/focal length rule to set your shutter speed. Since your lens is a 35mm lens, the camera might be trying to stick to 1/35 which sounds plausible, given your 1/33 results. The same battery of tests might yield diffrent results with:
a)Unlocked lens b)Longer focal lengths, like a 50mm, 85mm or a 135mm |
April 4th, 2009, 02:49 PM | #55 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 513
|
Quote:
Mark, I just want to say thanks for doing this work (and Jon before you)... Like many others, I'm following this with great interest. Very very useful! |
|
April 4th, 2009, 03:19 PM | #56 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dusseldorf
Posts: 32
|
If you don't untwist, the camera will use 1/focal length for video recording. I rarely shoot less than 50mm, so everything's fine even in low light.
|
April 4th, 2009, 03:45 PM | #57 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Laguna Niguel, CA
Posts: 277
|
Quote:
P.S. As I said before, all my tests before now had the lens locked (rotated). |
|
April 4th, 2009, 04:03 PM | #58 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 513
|
Quote:
After three months switching between EF and Nikkor lenses on the 5D, I find Nikkors are the only way to go for the control I need. I find the numbers posted in this thread invaluable. It's tricky to get the f-stop where you want it, but once there you can lock it (for one take! then go through the process again). However, the shutter will vary with focal length. I think your work is all about gaining control of the camera through better understanding the shutter (and readouts). I think the way you've gone about it (rotated) is correct. This is the only means (along with using Nikkors) that we can do serious work with the camera. Perhaps the one exception to this rule is when shooting with EF lenses in the 50mm range, where they will shoot 1/50th. |
|
April 4th, 2009, 05:06 PM | #59 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dusseldorf
Posts: 32
|
I haven't been able to test this because I'm still waiting for my 100-400 to arrive, but IIRC the camera doesn't go faster than 1/125s at any focal length, which would be a 90° shutter angle. I can live with that. Dodging the 360° shutter is my main interest.
|
April 4th, 2009, 05:10 PM | #60 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Laguna Niguel, CA
Posts: 277
|
Quote:
I showed on page 3 of this thread it going to 1/300 and others have shown even higher. Think about it, if can only go down to ISO 100, what can it do if you put more light in? It has to go to a faster speed. It has no choice. |
|
| ||||||
|
|