Some stills from a recent project

alpi69 said:
looks better than res-charts show ;-)
Click to expand...
That's because, since using the res charts, I knew what to expect and what would cause problems. We had her change her shirt. I still did get burned a little; the newspaper has colorful distortion, and the wicker of the table looks awful in a moving shot; fortunately this was a lock-down. We had a shot with some motion in it but the wicker went alias-tastic on it...

I don't know why people want to dismiss charts -- they tell you things you need to know. But, no worries, as long as you know how to get the best results out of the products, they really are capable of some amazing results.
 
Looks great! Thanks for the stills and the helpful info.

Could someone link me to the chart? I'd love to see that as well. Thanks!!
 
dantewaters said:
Screw that... The colors, contrast, and clarity in those stills do it for me...
the DOF is just the icing on the cake.
Click to expand...

The shallow DOF was far more important to the purpose of the shots than the color, contrast, or clarity, so in this case, those things were definitely the icing.
 
Barry_Green said:
HD Fury II. Takes the HDMI output and converts it to analog component.


Agreed. Didn't have the monitor or any way to judge exposure other than just looking at the LCD, and they did turn out a bit hot. David's grading them for the final product, but these are raw images.
Click to expand...

Barry how did you come to find the fury, I mean these things don't just fall into ya lap or do they?!!?
 
David Jimerson said:
The shallow DOF was far more important to the purpose of the shots than the color, contrast, or clarity, so in this case, those things were definitely the icing.
Click to expand...
David that's good to know, I was just saying a lot of newbies look only for the dof and forget everything else.
 
That is true, but in this case, it's the optics which made the camera the right choice.

I should clarify what I meant, though . . . I don't mean to say that the color itself is unimportant; indeed, one of the whole purposes of the shot was that we made a great-looking scene where the colors pop and mesh well. But we did it so that it would be a great-looking scene, period. In that sense, the color rendering of the camera itself isn't nearly as important as the shallow DOF, because the scene was designed to be rich, and it was going to look great on any halfway-decent camera. Far more important what was in front of the lens, not what was behind it.

In other words, the scene made the camera shine, much more than the other way around. The shallow DOF helped take it up another level stylistically, so it was a good choice. My comments were only about choosing the camera to use, and why we did. :)
 
dantewaters said:
Barry how did you come to find the fury, I mean these things don't just fall into ya lap or do they?!!?
Click to expand...
I'd been looking for an HDMI to component adapter for a while. There's HDMI to HD-SDI, that would work too, but at $500 it just wasn't what I wanted to go with. The HD Fury works fine and it's small enough you could velcro it to the back of the monitor...
 
Mine is a complete amateurs opinion but the lighting is a tad bit too much, could be just my personal tastes though.
 
Great shots. I love the lighting on the female talent. Fabulous smooth bokeh too.

I use faithful and -3 on contrast and -1 on sharpness most times on the 7d.
 
That newspaper looks to have some slight optical fringing, expected with the combo of harsh contrast of white on black and wide aperture. So that isn't caused by the 7d but the glass. Not much you can do about that though, and I bet L glass would have same results @ 1.4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top