some grizzly footage from this weekend

Chris Fritsche · October 31st, 2006, 09:55 AM

so which would be pushed more if you were in a field that was like wheat?
would the general rule be to push red more for open feilds, blue for skys and green for trees?

Meryem Ersoz · October 31st, 2006, 10:08 AM

i don't usually push blue for skies, because it also inflects the wildlife color. the answer to your question depends on what you are shooting. for example, i experience the redness of canyons when i'm in them as more extreme than it appears in the footage. in footage, they generally look washed out, so i'll push the reds to saturate the landscape, and the animals in that landscape (lizards, snakes...) can usually "hold" that color without disturbing what looks natural to them. keep in mind as you play with the colors that your first priority is how the wildlife will be impacted.

the polarizer is a must for skies...and probably a better choice than enhancing the blues, because it won't affect the animals...

Chris Fritsche · October 31st, 2006, 10:48 AM

The point has been taken on the polorizer, will a 7" monitor help as well? I have been looking at getting one of those.

Ron Armstrong · October 31st, 2006, 10:49 AM

Chris; Start with the normal factory settings, which are pretty good, although a little flat, at least in the XL H1, and increase the CGN one step at a time until you get the color setting you like. The EF lens will require more gain than the standard lens. Reduce the blue gain for overcast, early morning and shadow shots. This will bring out more yellow and reduce the blue haze.
I sent you an e-mail with some contacts in Jackson who may be able to help.

Ron

Brendan Marnell · October 31st, 2006, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Per Johan

... In the PAL world I try to use the 1/50 shutter (NTSC: 1/60) then try to bring the aperture between 5.6 and 11 (not any lower!) Compensate with ND- or polarization filters to maintain the aperture at this level.

Shooting outdoor and 100+ metres from moving target how and when would your Arctic footage be improved or disimproved if you used 1/500 shutter, Per Johan?

Would Meryem have observations on this question too in red rock canyon country?

I'm talking basic stuff now but I'll be on to Tony, Ron & Co. when I've properly understood how moving targets respond to faster shutters and wider apertures.

Willard Hill · October 31st, 2006, 11:36 AM

I can't look at your clips as I am on a dial-up connection, but I have used the big telepotos and camcorders for quite some time now and the atmospheric disturbances are a fact of life at certain times, regardless of the season or the tempearature. There would be a scientific explanation for it, such as a difference in the temperature of the earth and air that causes the disturbance, but I am not clear on this-I just know it happens and getting close is the only good answer or shooting at a time when this condition does not exist. No filter or setting will eliminate this particular phenomena if it is the same as I have experienced. I may be incorrect on this point, but it seems to me that it is what long range (1,000 yard) target shooters mean when they talk about "mirage". At least in my area this is not a problem enough of the time sothat the big lenses are a very viable option in most cases.

Willard Hill · October 31st, 2006, 11:43 AM

Also I forgot to mention that it is not the fault of the 100-400mm IS. A 500F4 can show it, a 70-200 2.8 will and even the normal lens does if the conditions are right or should I say wrong. It is not a hze to cut through, it is motion in the air waves and no quality lens on earth can eliminate it, just as none can shoot through dense fog. etc.

Chris Fritsche · October 31st, 2006, 01:12 PM

yeah I figured, I'm a physics guy, so I know that their is no way to "avoid" it, I actually like the haze someof the time, it does add a nice affect. although I haven't noticed it much when using the XL2 lens, only when I am zoomed out all the way, again, the haze isn't bothering me, it the under exposer I am doing and the lack of color, curse 4:1:1 cameras, why can't we all have a RED camera, problem solved, you'll have to carry a Terabyte of HD in a backpack, but the picture would look great!

Chris Fritsche · October 31st, 2006, 01:33 PM

what would you guys reccomend for a polorizer (brand name and model) for a canon 100-400 tele, 70-200 tele, and the XL2 lens,

Ron Armstrong · October 31st, 2006, 07:02 PM

Thought you might be interested in seeing where Chris shot his sow and cubs. This photo is of OXBOW BEND. The bears were evidently around the bend to the left near the now defunct Cattlemans Bridge. Up until the last few years it has been uncommon to see grizzly bears or wolves in Grand Teton Nat. Park. They are on the comeback and will no doubt be more in evidence in the coming years.
See photo at;

www.ronsrail.com/gallery.html

Ron

Duane Burleson · October 31st, 2006, 10:52 PM

Ron,

Not to hijack the thread, but after looking at the ronsrail.com web site, which I assume is yours. How do the older canon 600mm and 150-600mm lenses hold up, image quality wise, in HD with the XL H1??

Duane

Ron Armstrong · October 31st, 2006, 11:46 PM

Hi Duane;
The 600mm is not an "L" lens and doesn't compare to the 150 600 mm L lens. Both lenses are FD lenses and the technology is about 20 years old. Though both are good lenses, the 150 600 resolves better and will give clearer images than the 600mm. I have a 50 300 mm FD L lens that does very well with SD, I've used it several years as my standard lens on the XL1, as does the150 600. Both of these lenses are used on cinema cams and the SD XL cameras and they serve very well.
None of them stand up to the Canon 20XHD. The two are close to being usable with HD, but the difference does show. The Canon EF L lenses are much better;But in my estimation, not as good as the 20X either.

Ron

Tony Davies-Patrick · November 1st, 2006, 04:32 AM

Ron - it is strange that you say the Canon FD-ED and 'L' lenses fall well below the 20X lens in image quality when bayoneted to the XL cameras. Any 35mm SLR lenses more than 135mm are going to be much longer than the 16X, 20X SD and 20X HD lenses, so therefore cannot be compared. All the XL lenses provide equivalent to about 800mm or less in equivalent SLR lens terms, so you'd need to match the 20X with something like the Canon FD 100mm f/2, EF 100 f2/0 USM or EF 135mm f/2 L USM in 16X9 format or the Canon 85mm f/1.2 L in 4:3 format.

Even going up a notch longer to something like the superb Canon FDN 200mm f/1.8 L would place it in a much longer telephoto range than the XL 20X lens so they cannot be compared because, as mentioned, atmospheric and other factors come into play at extreme ranges over 1000mm (although I’d doubt that even the previously mentioned 200mm or equivalent Nikkor 200mm f/2 lenses would slouch behind the 20x lens in image quality when bayoneted to the XL body).

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...nses/200mm.htm

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...nses/index.htm

I've seen superb results with Nikkor lenses on the XL bodies, but would say that lenses such as the 105mm f/1.8s would match the 20x lens in telephoto reach and would match image quality of the 20x lens.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...or/105mm18.htm

To compare shorter ranges in the 20X lens zoom we would need to compare lenses such as the 85mm f/1.4, 58mm f/1.2, 28mm f/1.4, 15mm etc or zooms in those ranges such as the 17-35mm f/2.8 or 50-135mm.

Even incredible quality zoom lenses like the Nikkor 50-300mm f/4.5 ED or 200-400mm f/4 ED would far exceed the telephoto range of the 20X lenses, yet I’m sure that these lenses can produce outstanding results on both the XL2 and H1 bodies.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...F/200400mm.htm

When we use SLR super telephotos like the 600mm on the XL cameras we are reaching into moon crater images (around 4,800mm)…so are way beyond the 800mm reach of the 20X lens. Even so, I absolutely love the quality of images given by lenses such as the 200mm f/2 ED, 300mm ED and 600mm ED lenses on the XL bodies (although of course the 200mm f/2 is always going to achieve slightly better image footage than the 600mm due to problems with stability and extreme-range waving air affects etc).

Chris Fritsche · November 1st, 2006, 08:28 AM

any reason why I can't seem to get good video when I use my 2X extender on my XL2 with either of my tele lens? I can never seem to get it to focus and the video is always just out off focus, watch the birds of prey video:

www.adventurefilms.net

Is there anything I could buy that would increase my 20X lens and allow me to keep the auto focus? and auto zoom?

(sorry Ron but I have to ask), who else has a Ronsrail, and do you like it, is it worth saving for?

Bill Ravens · November 1st, 2006, 08:55 AM

Tele-x-tenders are basically a magnifying glass of the image coming from the prime lens. As such, no matter what the quality of the glass in the x-tender, they magnify all the lens imperfections, as well as the basic image. There will always be a loss of resolution and a general loss of contrast when an x-tender is used. Sometmes an x-tender will show better contrast when the prime lens is stopped down because the light baffling is more effective (internal reflections are minimized). So finding the best f-stp for the best performance is a trade with the optimum f-stop for the prime alone.

October 31st, 2006, 11:36 AM	#21
Willard Hill Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 191	I can't look at your clips as I am on a dial-up connection, but I have used the big telepotos and camcorders for quite some time now and the atmospheric disturbances are a fact of life at certain times, regardless of the season or the tempearature. There would be a scientific explanation for it, such as a difference in the temperature of the earth and air that causes the disturbance, but I am not clear on this-I just know it happens and getting close is the only good answer or shooting at a time when this condition does not exist. No filter or setting will eliminate this particular phenomena if it is the same as I have experienced. I may be incorrect on this point, but it seems to me that it is what long range (1,000 yard) target shooters mean when they talk about "mirage". At least in my area this is not a problem enough of the time sothat the big lenses are a very viable option in most cases. __________________ Willard http://pawildlifephotographer.blogspot.com/

October 31st, 2006, 11:43 AM	#22
Willard Hill Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 191	Also I forgot to mention that it is not the fault of the 100-400mm IS. A 500F4 can show it, a 70-200 2.8 will and even the normal lens does if the conditions are right or should I say wrong. It is not a hze to cut through, it is motion in the air waves and no quality lens on earth can eliminate it, just as none can shoot through dense fog. etc. __________________ Willard http://pawildlifephotographer.blogspot.com/

November 1st, 2006, 04:32 AM	#28
Tony Davies-Patrick Trustee Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Worldwide Posts: 1,589	Ron - it is strange that you say the Canon FD-ED and 'L' lenses fall well below the 20X lens in image quality when bayoneted to the XL cameras. Any 35mm SLR lenses more than 135mm are going to be much longer than the 16X, 20X SD and 20X HD lenses, so therefore cannot be compared. All the XL lenses provide equivalent to about 800mm or less in equivalent SLR lens terms, so you'd need to match the 20X with something like the Canon FD 100mm f/2, EF 100 f2/0 USM or EF 135mm f/2 L USM in 16X9 format or the Canon 85mm f/1.2 L in 4:3 format. Even going up a notch longer to something like the superb Canon FDN 200mm f/1.8 L would place it in a much longer telephoto range than the XL 20X lens so they cannot be compared because, as mentioned, atmospheric and other factors come into play at extreme ranges over 1000mm (although I’d doubt that even the previously mentioned 200mm or equivalent Nikkor 200mm f/2 lenses would slouch behind the 20x lens in image quality when bayoneted to the XL body). http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...nses/200mm.htm http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...nses/index.htm I've seen superb results with Nikkor lenses on the XL bodies, but would say that lenses such as the 105mm f/1.8s would match the 20x lens in telephoto reach and would match image quality of the 20x lens. http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...or/105mm18.htm To compare shorter ranges in the 20X lens zoom we would need to compare lenses such as the 85mm f/1.4, 58mm f/1.2, 28mm f/1.4, 15mm etc or zooms in those ranges such as the 17-35mm f/2.8 or 50-135mm. Even incredible quality zoom lenses like the Nikkor 50-300mm f/4.5 ED or 200-400mm f/4 ED would far exceed the telephoto range of the 20X lenses, yet I’m sure that these lenses can produce outstanding results on both the XL2 and H1 bodies. http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...F/200400mm.htm When we use SLR super telephotos like the 600mm on the XL cameras we are reaching into moon crater images (around 4,800mm)…so are way beyond the 800mm reach of the 20X lens. Even so, I absolutely love the quality of images given by lenses such as the 200mm f/2 ED, 300mm ED and 600mm ED lenses on the XL bodies (although of course the 200mm f/2 is always going to achieve slightly better image footage than the 600mm due to problems with stability and extreme-range waving air affects etc). __________________ www.WILDCARP.com www.NIKON.me.uk

October 31st, 2006, 09:55 AM	#16
Chris Fritsche Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Houston, TX (Cypress to be exact) Posts: 169	so which would be pushed more if you were in a field that was like wheat? would the general rule be to push red more for open feilds, blue for skys and green for trees?

October 31st, 2006, 10:08 AM	#17
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	i don't usually push blue for skies, because it also inflects the wildlife color. the answer to your question depends on what you are shooting. for example, i experience the redness of canyons when i'm in them as more extreme than it appears in the footage. in footage, they generally look washed out, so i'll push the reds to saturate the landscape, and the animals in that landscape (lizards, snakes...) can usually "hold" that color without disturbing what looks natural to them. keep in mind as you play with the colors that your first priority is how the wildlife will be impacted. the polarizer is a must for skies...and probably a better choice than enhancing the blues, because it won't affect the animals...

October 31st, 2006, 10:48 AM	#18
Chris Fritsche Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Houston, TX (Cypress to be exact) Posts: 169	The point has been taken on the polorizer, will a 7" monitor help as well? I have been looking at getting one of those.

October 31st, 2006, 10:49 AM	#19
Ron Armstrong Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Kent, Washington, USA Posts: 113	Chris; Start with the normal factory settings, which are pretty good, although a little flat, at least in the XL H1, and increase the CGN one step at a time until you get the color setting you like. The EF lens will require more gain than the standard lens. Reduce the blue gain for overcast, early morning and shadow shots. This will bring out more yellow and reduce the blue haze. I sent you an e-mail with some contacts in Jackson who may be able to help. Ron

October 31st, 2006, 01:12 PM	#23
Chris Fritsche Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Houston, TX (Cypress to be exact) Posts: 169	yeah I figured, I'm a physics guy, so I know that their is no way to "avoid" it, I actually like the haze someof the time, it does add a nice affect. although I haven't noticed it much when using the XL2 lens, only when I am zoomed out all the way, again, the haze isn't bothering me, it the under exposer I am doing and the lack of color, curse 4:1:1 cameras, why can't we all have a RED camera, problem solved, you'll have to carry a Terabyte of HD in a backpack, but the picture would look great!

October 31st, 2006, 01:33 PM	#24
Chris Fritsche Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Houston, TX (Cypress to be exact) Posts: 169	what would you guys reccomend for a polorizer (brand name and model) for a canon 100-400 tele, 70-200 tele, and the XL2 lens,

October 31st, 2006, 07:02 PM	#25
Ron Armstrong Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Kent, Washington, USA Posts: 113	Thought you might be interested in seeing where Chris shot his sow and cubs. This photo is of OXBOW BEND. The bears were evidently around the bend to the left near the now defunct Cattlemans Bridge. Up until the last few years it has been uncommon to see grizzly bears or wolves in Grand Teton Nat. Park. They are on the comeback and will no doubt be more in evidence in the coming years. See photo at; www.ronsrail.com/gallery.html Ron

October 31st, 2006, 10:52 PM	#26
Duane Burleson Regular Crew Join Date: May 2006 Location: Sterling Heights, Michigan Posts: 105	Ron, Not to hijack the thread, but after looking at the ronsrail.com web site, which I assume is yours. How do the older canon 600mm and 150-600mm lenses hold up, image quality wise, in HD with the XL H1?? Duane

October 31st, 2006, 11:46 PM	#27
Ron Armstrong Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Kent, Washington, USA Posts: 113	Hi Duane; The 600mm is not an "L" lens and doesn't compare to the 150 600 mm L lens. Both lenses are FD lenses and the technology is about 20 years old. Though both are good lenses, the 150 600 resolves better and will give clearer images than the 600mm. I have a 50 300 mm FD L lens that does very well with SD, I've used it several years as my standard lens on the XL1, as does the150 600. Both of these lenses are used on cinema cams and the SD XL cameras and they serve very well. None of them stand up to the Canon 20XHD. The two are close to being usable with HD, but the difference does show. The Canon EF L lenses are much better;But in my estimation, not as good as the 20X either. Ron

November 1st, 2006, 08:28 AM	#29
Chris Fritsche Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Houston, TX (Cypress to be exact) Posts: 169	any reason why I can't seem to get good video when I use my 2X extender on my XL2 with either of my tele lens? I can never seem to get it to focus and the video is always just out off focus, watch the birds of prey video: www.adventurefilms.net Is there anything I could buy that would increase my 20X lens and allow me to keep the auto focus? and auto zoom? (sorry Ron but I have to ask), who else has a Ronsrail, and do you like it, is it worth saving for?

November 1st, 2006, 08:55 AM	#30
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	Tele-x-tenders are basically a magnifying glass of the image coming from the prime lens. As such, no matter what the quality of the glass in the x-tender, they magnify all the lens imperfections, as well as the basic image. There will always be a loss of resolution and a general loss of contrast when an x-tender is used. Sometmes an x-tender will show better contrast when the prime lens is stopped down because the light baffling is more effective (internal reflections are minimized). So finding the best f-stp for the best performance is a trade with the optimum f-stop for the prime alone.