Newsmeldung von slashCAM:Test: test: Lowlight: Canon EOS 5D MKII with Kit-Optics of rob - 13 Jun 2009 11:34:00 > How many of readers here, we wanted to deliver the test results of our tests Lowlight of the Canon EOS 5D MKII manual update after inc. Both in the laboratory test as synonymous in the real-life test was Canon's Full-camera with the Kit-Optics tested.
full article
Antwort von camworks:
always makes her all the photos with auto-wb? which should be good?
Antwort von Zizi:
Well a Comparison with other lenses than the kid would have been very cool 1.4 50mm ZBS. !
I think the kid is with Lens Aperture 4 No really suitable for a Mk2!
Most I know have at least 2.8 and are thus quite different Lowlight pictures possible.
Also I find the default preset is extremely bad and what color noise is concerned .. a fine tuning with less color / contrast / sharpness could be a lot more show what the cam can be!
Very Nice But otherwise the öffters here what you get to see on the video mode!
Antwort von camworks:
du bist echt ne nuisance ... :-) And it is called KIT, not kid.
Antwort von deti:
du bist echt ne nuisance ... :-) And it is called KIT, not kid. ... and while you have the most spelling errors sympathetic overlooked:
Standard Preset -> Default preset
Bad -> bad
Fine -> fine
Very Nice this one -> very nice, that one
Also -> Also
1.4 -> 1.4
2.8 -> 2,8
öffters -> more
... and then still missing a handful of Komata.
@ Zizi: This is nothing against you personally. Bothers me only the contempt of the German Language in the forums increasingly. It could be the example for Firefox
Austrian-German dictionary as an add-on
Deti
Antwort von B.DeKid:
Deti @
With lenses, you may quietly tap 1.4. A comma is not usually used pages of the Manufacturer
;-)
MfG
B. DeKid
PS: In the photo, the Forum had encouraged me because I always coma've written - my standard answer was - "Yes, we knew garnicht Here are http://www.korrekturen.de/forum/" ;-) p
Antwort von Zizi:
Bothers me only the contempt of the German Language in the forums increasingly Contempt? So please .. If someone disturbs it must be read and None at all is this not a spelling forum!
Everything is my understanding .. I fabricate many spelling mistakes, I know this is because I have no time / desire've corrupted necessary. in the forum rules I can find nothing about this that this would not be allowed .. Of so, you can ask the admins so they introduce the wenns so disturbs you, then I will be here Guaranteed no more errors are celebrating!
Otherwise you probably have to live up to that .. sry
Back to the topic,
I have the kit lenses compared with other wems interested in:
KIT: http://www.zizis-blog.com/5D/5DKidlowlight.jpg
50mm 1.4: http://www.zizis-blog.com/5D/5DLowLightVideo.jpg
28-75mm 2.8 http://www.zizis-blog.com/5D/5DLowlightVideoTamron.jpg
Nikon D90 1.8: http://www.zizis-blog.com/5D/D90Nacht.jpg
XH A1 with Wolfgang presets: http://www.zizis-blog.com/ISO/XHA1ManuellLowlight.jpg
Antwort von B.DeKid:
But you've got a shot in the bathroom is even worse than the spelling errors;-P
MfG
B. DeKid
Antwort von jogol:
@ Zizi
You have a remarkable house ...
The natural mild "Bouchet None seems strange to enjoy popularity and is a tube of wasabi next to the Oxi?
Antwort von Zizi:
and is a tube of wasabi next to the Oxi?
Jep on sushi,-P .. You're the first one has guessed it correctly!
Most believe it is a tooth paste ;-)
Antwort von B.DeKid:
I have since then been so my theory formed ....
Zizi morning when up and goes into the bathroom ....
then he gargles with the brandy, then use the yarn as dental floss in connection with the toothpicks (the yellow morning the green evening), then he nonmal with spühlt Vanish after then final with wasabi to clean the teeth.
Here, he always synonymous then the Siemens star on the ground and turns around this - finally, he noted the number of laps he managed, with a ballpoint pen to label PostIt Chen. Probably the side wall decorate beautifully, which we unfortunately can not now see but the yellow tinge of the images is clearly defenieren.
,-P
MfG
B. DeKid
And when he times the morning sat on the pot, because he thought - you could SetUp doch mal für nen Lowlight take her test.
PS. That would have much more skillfully when the first picture "sharp" a full bottle of brandy would be the last picture and then "blurred" an offense bottle density.
Antwort von camworks:
... and while you have the most spelling errors sympathetic overlooked:
not overlooked, just not mentioned. I had a good mood today and also wanted synonymous not too very last across. next to me then that would be my consistent lowercase been accused (as boring and especially totally unexpected!).
Antwort von Flyingdutchman:
I have the kit lenses compared with other wems interested in: of course;)
So apart from what fürn magnificent setting it is: the 50-lens he sees it as the day off - but the depth is so low that I wonder if it's not distracting, rather cinematically beautiful?
If you have the performers always ne "fuzzy nose gets to the eyes can focus on, is not that the hammer - sometimes refrained from that one s.Set usually has more light and then turn off the Aperture can ...
But it seems to me in Lowlight sometimes impractical ... There's still workarounds how to solve the problem if you shoot without artificial wants / needs?
Gruß, FD
Antwort von handiro:
Exactly: blurred eyes sharp nose. At best, a NOCTILUX fully performed and after the word "focuspuller" gegoogelt ;-)
I think because there are no alternatives, that's physics / laws of nature.
There are extreme wide angle lenses that do not focus rings have more, because everything is sharp, which would perhaps have ne idea, but I've forgotten what ne had the Aperture, I think it was not 1:1. irgendwas area.
I test at the time c-mounts on the GH1 and enroll me because what if I find which one night in the dark with a reasonable depth rotate.
Antwort von RocknRoyal:
Thus,
First, there is in most cases "natural" light sources, which are sufficient to provide the camera and its possibilities do not need to say "Who says you have always with an open aperture" must go to work? Then you just rotate the aperture a bit to increase with ISO and the shutter goes down etc - just because of her "fuzzy nose, eyes sharpening" say - then you have more focus range .... Nobody wants a video s.Abend synonymous appropriately "taghell" signed off, but to me it is so, than the one now on the "bend and break" Lowlight each situation must use in order to create a "miracle of light" to conjure, clear it then just the small areas of sharpness ...
Gruss
Alex.
Antwort von Zizi:
Well at Aperture 1.4, you already ~ still focus range of 15cm so you can still have some situations with actors shoot!
Becomes difficult when only 2 people and wants to film both the sharpness should be .. Sogut like this is impossible because the little stand on the same line!
So ne s.Rande ask:
Schutter What should you use with the 5D for the best film look to get?
I suppose s.1/60?
In Hollywood you always use 1 / 48 (which is in the 5D flat nciht possible) or IRR because I?
Antwort von pilskopf:
Forget the movie times but look who has not really synonymous with what the shutter to be done. The main characteristic of film look is the first of 2.35:1 format. Most try it with colors and what I know to achieve the look and then use their little Anglein Wide shots and a 16:9 format. That is already the biggest mistake. There is no film in the 16:9 has a film look. But basically it is the camera work makes the look. So no wobbling, no tripod but Dolly and steadicam, until you get close to this look. Also superimposed on areas not make the look of everything that has nothing to do with shutter. 'in the film, everything is soft, from the Picture to the movements to the cuts. Then you can synonymous in B / W shoot and have your film look.
Antwort von Zizi:
Forget the movie times but look who has not really synonymous with what the shutter to be done. The main characteristic of film look is the first of 2.35:1 format. Most try it with colors and what I know to achieve the look and then use their little Anglein Wide shots and a 16:9 format. That is already the biggest mistake. There is no film in the 16:9 has a film look. But basically it is the camera work makes the look. So no wobbling, no tripod but Dolly and steadicam, until you get close to this look. Also superimposed on areas not make the look of everything that has nothing to do with shutter. 'in the film, everything is soft, from the Picture to the movements to the cuts. Then you can synonymous in B / W shoot and have your film look.
That is all clear to me!
But
1. I've never seen a film in the movies seen in 2.35:1
was broadcast but all were 16:9 .. pass at times when you sit in the movies!
2. 0 with the film look to do the same may be 4:3.
Also, there are plenty Bluerays in 16:9!
3. If the shutter at just 24p extremely important to optimize the bucking .. filming my knowledge with you since 1 / 48 for the best motion to grant representation.
with the dolly, colors, etc. but geb ich dir recht!
Antwort von pilskopf:
You wrong yourself tremendous, may be that a movie does not fully exploit the format but a movie is not 16:9. Advertising will run in this format, once the film starts, runs in all rule Kasch on the Page The format provides. It may be that Kasch disappears off the top of or Kasch goes down. I have been working 10 years in the movies and I've still not seen movie in 16:9. Advertising so that only in this format.
And you know but what a shutter effect of your movie if you want to have soft, shutter at 1 / 50 or 1 / 60.
And even if a film comes in 16:9, using the Lens is possibly a focal of 18mm have had, so a lot of information in the Picture. At 16:9, the picture just left and right truncated. The image was taken but with a bomb and the Focal makes synonymous with a 16:9 Picture noticeable.
If you want a film look, it is not at 24p and shutter setting. And I still wonder why so 24p or 25p a big difference to make. I experienced directors, with a premiere not have noticed that their film is running in the wrong format.
Antwort von Zizi:
Film look is 70% lighting .. the rest is depth, Camera, Color,
Sound .. the final format is not endscheident!
Or are films like "King Kong" or "American Gangster," etc. based on Blue-Ray at 16:10 amateur look burned?
I was the last movie 5x extra aufmerksahm what formats are concerned and it was always like this:
http://www.kinocapitol.ch/data/Ressources/9-kinosaal-capitol.jpg
never wider .. which can be synonymous all my escorts confirm!
21:9 I have never seen in a movie only to Bluerays and DVDs!
So I say now which is complete nonsense .. or the cinemas in Austria, unlike in your home country?
Whether it's in 2.35:1 on the roll film lands is another question ..
synonymous and may vary depending on the production!
Antwort von pilskopf:
Changing times, the movies. And look at the disc of the projection screen, which will have covered with s.den edges. Reserves indicate. Also, not every film CinemaScope, that's true of course.
But as OT and does not belong here.
Antwort von kalle70:
I think film look for art to create a mood for the film "Life" einzuhauchen.
Not the way we achieve this look is the art
but the idea of how it should look like afterward.
One thing is to master the technology necessary, but that is just the tool in order to get what one has previously invented.
Were it otherwise would Filmmakers craftsmen and artists do not.
There is therefore not synonymous THE film look but different ideas Art
Antwort von Zizi:
I think film look for art to create a mood for the film "Life" einzuhauchen.
Not the way we achieve this look is the art
but the idea of how it should look like afterward.
One thing is to master the technology necessary, but that is just the tool in order to get what one has previously invented.
Were it otherwise would Filmmakers craftsmen and artists do not.
There is therefore not synonymous THE film look but different ideas Art Beautifully worded!
Nevertheless, there is a certain kind of look of the film you are always talking!
There are movies like Jimmy & Judy ZBS. only with a miniDV cam and made exactly this makes the film so well and makes spannent ..
But here we are talking of the typical blockbusters like Matrix, Ocean11 and even the 1000 other schedule s.dem of Lichtgestalltung and depth of hold of them and we go from here but .. ?
Antwort von pilskopf:
The films have not so often like a DOF here is white made. The film looks primarily consists of the magnificent paintings, beautiful homes, beautiful actors and beautiful architecture. It is not DOF. It is basically everything together what was already listed.
Just today I talked with a student of the Canon just tested it and said that she is just too sharp for them to use film, this focus is not in the film, I feel so synonymous that when I look at the movies with the so-Cam look, this is what film is not enough. To at least a little bit to stay on topic, at least for the Cam.
Antwort von Zizi:
The 5D does not synonymous made from film! it comes very close to more than anything else to 20,000 ¬ and that is something at the price!
With an Arri is hardly much better shots ..
The picture has nothing to do with it .. which selects only the Regieseur and his camera team .. the actor and the + Light on roll film is a good choice is logical for the prices. but it has absolutely nothing with the movie but just look to do with the image composition when MARK2 is not as easy to come gältung because no big films with actors and crew so far have been made!
But I am excited by the first great movie with the rotated is.
Whether it be with its RED or MARK2 are rarely made at its seher what DVD can ;-) Guaranteed!
Antwort von B.DeKid:
Of course, the wa to do Zizi!
Film is an art not free product.
pilskopf has been well formuliet.
The "film look" which is often here after trying to run so there is not.
There is only quality and scrap.
Nothing more and the 5D Mark II is probably better quality in services sector. What does not mean that each of you will "film look" creates.
Whether Kubrick used the 5D would have - certainly, but you would never have been his real tool which would tell his story can be. Still only THEY crucial for would have been that he would tell his story as he did.
The camera is actually worth NEN Scheiss film - which is the guys to want to tell your story absolutely no preference. It only helps your pictures in the head movie to show other people ..
Creativity has never been the tools with which to do so. If I only coal available hab ich mal in my stories s.Wände halt.
They have ne idea of your Equitment, no question, but they will never throw this.
So according to the motto "Och, I would have just had the latest camera, one that still s.besten garnicht was invented, then everything would become better and more beautiful"
Complete nonsense.
Conclusion
The EOS remains a forward-looking camera technology which we in the next step next year will bring, what to tell our stories are.
Whether youtube style, wedding videos, anniversary celebrations, music videos, or movies right ..... comes.
And Lowligt moderately offers the Canon and the Nikon synonymous or all the other D SLR cams with video function solely as a result of your design even with the advantages of super, compared to much of the small lenses such as a cell phone with Cam brings.
MfG
B. DeKid
Antwort von JonasB:
@ B. DeKid
Treff-looking! A topic in this forum very often misunderstood.
A camera does not make pretty pictures and certainly not beautiful film.
Hence, out of the Forum, the financially "poor" to accept reality and get to make films.
Who agrees with me? ^ ^
MFG
Jonas
PS I know your customers do not like to see if with a HV30 worked;) I think this is exactly the point why this seemingly more EX3 and Canon 5D
MII-owners than MiniDV - rumgeistern
filmmakers.
Antwort von kalle70:
[quote = "Zizi
Nevertheless, there is a certain kind of look of the film you are always talking!
There are movies like Jimmy & Judy ZBS. only with a miniDV cam and made exactly this makes the film so well and makes spannent ..
But here we are talking of the typical blockbusters like Matrix, Ocean11 and even the 1000 other schedule s.dem of Lichtgestalltung and depth of hold of them and we go from here but .. ? [/ quote]
That is what you mean exactly the opposite of artistic works.
It is called Komerz.
This is what produces s.meisten Money brings.
How it works is known and proven. You can see that already s.der looking equally large number of films.
Antwort von Zizi:
@ B. DeKid:
The dispute I do not synonymous .. but a Kubrick film with a cellphone camera filmed, would not a man synonymous with the watch because no film look, too much noise, too little depth blur,
zuwenig details, etc. etc. would have been synonymous and thus distract from the main!
The Camera has serwohl much with the film look to do!
no they just see pictures amateur prison boring or beautiful porfessionell out .. and depending on the story is usually just passent!
The film is much more about storytelling goes is clear .. synonymous but they should typically be kept and which includes a CameraLink nunmal the large reception area, the film gives the typical face so he knows how / if you expect the film by it.
Antwort von Zizi:
That is what you mean exactly the opposite of artistic works.
It is called Komerz.
This is what produces s.meisten Money brings.
How it works is known and proven. You can see that already s.der looking equally large number of films.
I speak here not of Komerz but of 35mm roll film such as its optical property is you and the film look as synonymous to understand .. regardless of the story / film even made!
And for good pictures is a good camera with a large receptive area .. everything else is inferior quality and may also be targeted but it will not synonymous Film Look!
Antwort von kalle70:
I think we are talking of two different things.
For me, the look of a film the look and the impact of the overall work.
You mean look with a video film which looks like a 35mm recording. ?
Antwort von Zizi:
I think the optical properties of celluloid 35mm +!
This is synonymous with film look mean!
Actually, it should roll film look so hot so you do not confuse.
You can look but synonymous movie dan would say I give you right .. including the synonymous light the animal, actor, etc., etc..
But film-look is definitely for me what a ARRI rauskommt and that has little depth nunmal much more contrast, detail, color, etc. "!
In short: It is more human like any other viewing habits with the sensors Popel .. and the 5D is just the pretty good "Faken"!
Antwort von Zizi:
Oh yes because we sometimes are,
hatt anyone use / interest for an old Arriflex 35mm Cam + O `Connor Tripod. they would for ~ 7000 ¬ vhb. sell.
Antwort von domain:
But film-look is definitely for me what a ARRI rauskommt and that has little depth nunmal much more contrast, detail, color, etc. "!
In short: It is more human viewing .. Exactly the opposite is the case.
The innate physiologhischen viewing habits, the "film look" never met. The focal of the eye is approximately 22mm with very small size and correspondingly the depth synonymous. But the film look has something with the human eye-brain combination and their ability to do so. And forget the many: an estimated 80% of a visual impression of the prepared miserable and distorted retinal image through the brain again rectified and software that comes one of the most fundamental properties of the brain at all: the selective interpretation of the Hinlenkung and viewed synonymous if it is only a very small area on the retina is concerned.
The Fähihkeit the human visual brain software can be classic film look somewhat supported, but basically are already 1 / 3 "video sensor, the reality far from true, as a kind and is therefore synonymous to many inquiries about the film look, it simply does not exist except from a purely artistic perspective view associated with a lot of knowledge about how our brain to the retina Primitivbilder individually interpreted.
Normally one sees always what you want to see the hunter, the only solutions of the deer and the angeknabberten branches.
The film look, however, is a leading artistic and easily imposed vision of the director and is no longer so much freedom in interpretation.
Antwort von Zizi:
The film look, however, is a leading artistic and easily imposed vision of the director and is no longer so much freedom in the interpretation of But I see no other!
I felt with the human eye only the depth of field.
Antwort von domain:
The human eye has happier way a fairly large depth of field.
You confuse the physical properties of the eye with the performance of the brain, which focuses on very specific details can concentrate, but the film usnur through targeted focus and blur can be simulated, so you know what is important.
Especially the possibilities of large sensors do not have the slightest with the inherent optical properties of the human eye to be done, but rather with the interpretation of brain mechanisms that we tried to simulate optical.
Antwort von Zizi:
Yes because you have quite well .. - /
Antwort von Bernd E.:
Actually ... yes, it should roll film look so hot you do not confuse ... If you are after the letters and punctuation marks now synonymous nor the usual want to use different terminology than the rest of mankind, it's completely confusing ;-) "roll film" is a clearly defined type of Still Image (!)-Film, with the 35mm format, such as found in your Arri used, absolutely nothing to do.
Antwort von Zizi:
If you are after the letters and punctuation marks now synonymous nor the usual want to use different terminology than the rest of mankind, it's completely confusing ;-) "roll film" is a clearly defined type of Still Image (!)-Film, with the 35mm format, such as found in your Arri used, absolutely nothing to do. Well then stop small film or 35mm film to know no other name? .. Whether small or roll film the end result remains the same!
Antwort von B.DeKid:
* Grins *
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollfilm
sowas used eg. with the 645er Mamiya
MfG
B. DeKid
Antwort von Valentino:
Well then stop small film or 35mm film to know no other name? .. Whether small or roll film the end result remains the same! The correct term is kinefilm, he is at least of Kodak and Fuji means.
Even if the shape of 35mm kinefilm the same as for 35mm film is small, there are very large differences. The kinefilm is a coal layer is much thicker, more robust and resistance to tearing. Just to kinefilm in a small Leerdose grabs a camera and insert it can happen the next small film is blurred because of the pressure plate kinefilm (the SLR) a few Mü has pushed backwards.
On the subject of shutter speed and image layout, with very short exposure as 1 / 100 second, it is as synonymous with video film to a strobe effect. This is a good use for impressions as hectic or speed to clarify. This can be synonymous explosions, shootings and similar better without you like a slow motion back of the operating system. For this reason, this stroboscopic effect like in war movies.
In effect this film will be synonymous with the most number of degrees of Hellsektors means and not with the shutter speed, the number of degrees of change in the picture remains similar species.
Antwort von jogol:
Celluloid as the basis for movies are there since the 40ger years. Very dangerous because nitrite on base and thus explosive. Then there were movies on it Acetatbasis called safety film and about 30-40 years since the polyester film. I have 1991 s.einer production on 16mm Kodak Farbnegativmaterial participated. 1m film cost was approximately 1.40 DM, the development of approximately 1.00 DM, which are not light-certain job editing copy for the ca.1, 20 The bottom line therefore DM 3.60 DM for 5.4 sec film. There are not yet the cost of light-and farbbestimmte Endkopien included. The cost of the Perfoband for the Sound and the rent for the Steenbeck editing table I have no more in the head. This was all so expensive that you are a great deal of trouble with the planning of the pictures and the circumstances in order to minimize wastage to produce. I think one of the main reasons for "film look." It looks expensive. It looks like trouble. It looks like reflection and planning. Then we continued with Betacam. Erstmal were all excited, the tapes did not cost the world and trial and error so make fun. This specific way of working with such film is expensive but flutes gone. The belief there is a camera or technology, per se, a cinema image is incorrect.
 |
Antwort von pilskopf:
That's what I call it out to the point.
