My 2010 DP Reel

PaPa said:
I believe it's that small level of difference that makes the result that much better. Hey, i noticed the level of detail coming from a compressed HD website..

and i disagree about it being 5% ( i know you weren't giving accurate numbers ) but according to still posted in another thread comparing both the stock lenses and L series ( or USM - can't remember ) the difference is dramatic.
Click to expand...

Not true. See for yourself. Tested it myself.

 
PaPa said:
I believe it's that small level of difference that makes the result that much better. Hey, i noticed the level of detail coming from a compressed HD website..

and i disagree about it being 5% ( i know you weren't giving accurate numbers ) but according to still posted in another thread comparing both the stock lenses and L series ( or USM - can't remember ) the difference is dramatic.
Click to expand...
For sure. You should have noticed my LOL. It is coming from here:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?p=1908515#post1908515
 
marlontorres said:
Not true. See for yourself. Tested it myself.

Click to expand...
Interesting finding. Thanks for your test and care to report.

Shame you have no the 16-35mm f2.8 L for compare it as well. As matter of fact, we're used to see the "L" class level as a whole. It isn't. There are different quality glass among the several models.

Bryan Carnathan @ http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx:

«I find the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens to be at least slightly sharper in the center at all apertures (including f/2.8 vs. f/4) and focal lengths. At 35mm, they are very similar. Because the 17-40 corners are darker at comparison apertures wider than f/5.6, care must be taken to differentiate between differences in corner sharpness vs differences in vignetting. At 16/17mm, the corner sharpness results were mixed with both lenses showing better results at various areas of the frame in various comparisons - the 16-35 is slightly better for a generalization. At 24mm, the 16-35 II wins the corner matchups and at 35mm they are mostly similar with the 17-40 having an slight edge - especially with close subjects (such as the ISO 12233 Chart).»

The CA performance is also different between both lenses.
 
I can't seem to find the thread that compares the two types of lenses. I remember one of the images showed a parking lot, grass and a building, and on the right side of the image there was a truck. The detail to me was substantial.
 
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1908462&postcount=16









As already posted through several posts, there are a lot of variables which you can control or not in order to open the doors to the differences or minimize them. Playing with the DOF will be one of the techniques you can handle in order to enhance the strengths of an inferior lens.

Again, the cinema is just a matter of balance. In another topic but related to the same principle, that's why the GH1 codec can rival or mimic 35mm film. Yes, you read it.

Once more, nice test Marlon.
 
Yes, wide shots @ deep DOF with distinct sharpness and multiple aperture settings would be a different test indeed. Don't you have access to the 16-35mm f/2.8 as well?
 
xqzt said:
Beautiful footage. I would cut the length of this in half. Cut out the dog shots, definitely the variable speed shot of the dog, its kind of jarring. Think of it as making a new movie out of all those movies. Right now it's kind of like watchin a few shorts back to back. Shorten each small montage. Maximize it by cutting redundant styles of shots... we dont need to see so many different versions of closeups for one. No offense, I am just trying to help... it becomes a bit indulgent. I love the explosions and the warships in the bay, Cut some of those horizon shots from the beginning... Leave one out of the three and cut it in half, or shorter. Don't get me wrong the volume of quality to your work is very impressive, but if anyone wants the volume have them watch those individual pieces separately. Peace... and good luck!
Click to expand...

I also agree with this-- GREAT- footy, but too long/slow- All of the 'eyes' here on DVXuser (as you know I'm sure) are able to capture the message your sending, (in this case your footy reel), in a fraction of the time.

Less is more--makes you want to watch again, crave for more.

**Also- I think varying aspect ratios/dimensions causes disruption for the viewer.
Example: if you have a couple clips at a 2.35 aspect and others at 1.78, I would say make them uniform even if you have to re-cut/crop all to 2.35.

Just some thoughts-- really impressive work though! :thumbsup:

Z
 
alignment1 said:
I also agree with this-- GREAT- footy, but too long/slow- All of the 'eyes' here on DVXuser (as you know I'm sure) are able to capture the message your sending, (in this case your footy reel), in a fraction of the time.

Less is more--makes you want to watch again, crave for more.

**Also- I think varying aspect ratios/dimensions causes disruption for the viewer.
Example: if you have a couple clips at a 2.35 aspect and others at 1.78, I would say make them uniform even if you have to re-cut/crop all to 2.35.

Just some thoughts-- really impressive work though! :thumbsup:

Z
Click to expand...

As for the aspect ratio, some shots were composed for certain ratios so if i cropped shots that were meant to be 1.85... id be ruining the original composition in mind. As a DP, i'd like to showcase my work as they were originally framed and composed. i dont like cropping things out that arent supposed to be cropped out :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top