my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Upload your random pictures (part 4) (Page 38)

This topic comprises 65 pages: 1  2  3  ...  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  ...  63  64  65

Author Topic: Upload your random pictures (part 4) Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 03-29-2014 08:32 PM                         |  IP: Logged Paul Mayer Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under! Posts: 3836 From: Albuquerque, NM Registered: Feb 2000 posted 03-30-2014 12:30 PM                        Like the old joke about losing three out of four engines on a four-engined airplane - the airplane ETA gets later and later as each engine shuts down; the self-loading cargo response: "If we lose that last engine we'll be up here all day." A 777-200 proly glides pretty good for such a big aircraft, like one of my old flight examiners used to say, "Flies just like a piano..." ;  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 04-07-2014 06:22 PM                        Sometimes junk mail slips through. I don't know why I read this one but it gave me quite a laugh: I want to reply and confirm that I did in fact receive her mouth water.  |  IP: Logged Frank Cox Film God Posts: 2234 From: Melville Saskatchewan Canada Registered: Apr 2011 posted 04-10-2014 11:12 AM                        I don't think this is going to work.  |  IP: Logged Rick Raskin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1100 From: Manassas Virginia Registered: Jan 2003 posted 04-10-2014 01:00 PM                     Blind adherence to procedures?  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 04-10-2014 03:54 PM                     Man that's funny. Obviously the train, with just the locomotive on the front weighing more than 100 tons alone, would have no problem pressing its wheels right through that crap on the tracks like a hot knife through butter. But supposing those hose protectors would work, the firefighters would have a nice train derailment to clean up.  |  IP: Logged Jarod Reddig Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 513 From: Hays, Ks Registered: Jun 2011 posted 04-11-2014 12:51 AM                     That seriously pisses me off about those poor birds. I absolutley hate animal cruelty. Whoever dreemed that up should be sentenced to a mandatory year of dragging a 50ft banner attached to his junk than get pecked to death by the pigeons invloved in the ordeal. Man what idiot fire fighters. Hope they don't have to put out a fire out one of our homes yikes prolly got gas in the water tank to douse the flames lol.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 04-15-2014 12:19 PM                        The moon, as seen from our backyard at 9.16pm yesterday evening. Shot using a Nikon D3200, 300mm lens, ISO100, f28, 2 second exposure. The moon itself was only came out at 824 pixels in diameter in the original photo - what you see here is cropped in Photoshop. But the fact that any detail is visible at all with anything less than a telescope attached to the camera body is a remarkable demonstration of what a 24 megapixel sensor can pick up.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 04-15-2014 02:00 PM                     f/28 or f/2.8? I'm a little confused about that f-stop. I'm guessing you meant f/2.8 (which would also mean you would have a pretty expensive 300mm lens). The apertures of most lenses shrink down no more than f/22. Some will go down to f/32 or f/45. I'm not sure I see the point of such tiny apertures. They can increase depth of field, but it always comes at a cost of increased diffraction which softens the entire image.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 04-15-2014 02:24 PM                        It was one of these, which will go down to f32. But at f32 it will distort a lot at the extreme end of the zoom range, as you point out, and so I tend not to use anything smaller than 28. Needless to say, the moon pic was taken tripod-mounted. It came as part of a body plus two lenses (28-70 and 70-300) kit with the F75 film camera I bought in 2005. I got a real bargain on the outfit: a local high street electronics chain at the time was discontinuing sales of film cameras and fire-selling their remaining stock. I got the entire outfit for GBP250, and part of the reason it was so attractive is that the G-mount lenses will also fit Nikon D-SLR bodies. At that time a D-SLR of any reasonable quality cost an insane amount, and so I decided to buy that and carry on using film for the next few years, knowing that I could re-use the lenses if I later bought a Nikon D-SLR. I bought the 3200 in December 2012, and still shoot the odd roll on the F75.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 04-15-2014 02:56 PM                     Did you try taking any shots at bigger apertures, such f/8, f/5.6, etc.? Most camera lenses will deliver the sharpest results between f/5.6 and f/11. I personally wouldn't use a really tight aperture, like f/22 or smaller, unless I was taking some kind of photo that required reasonably sharp focus of nearby objects and stuff far away. The moon is pretty well at the infinity focus position. If there's nothing else in the frame you could get away with shooting it using your lens' biggest aperture (f/4.0). Your exposure time would be far shorter, which would reduce any softness caused by tripod vibrations due to wind or other things. That's pretty nice to have the flexibility of attaching the lens to film and digital bodies. My father has an old Canon F-1 body and some good lenses to go with it. But AFAIK the bayonet mount style of those lenses is not compatible at all with newer Canon EF bodies.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 04-15-2014 11:41 PM                        Getting reasonably sharp focus of something far away was what I was aiming for, hence f28. As mentioned earlier, f32 on that lens tends to cause slight vignetting when zoomed to 200mm ish or more, hence staying clear of it. Annoyingly, there is a bit of cloud about tonight, or I'd have re-attempted the same shot with a slightly wider aperture. quote: Bobby Henderson My father has an old Canon F-1 body and some good lenses to go with it. But AFAIK the bayonet mount style of those lenses is not compatible at all with newer Canon EF bodies. You can get converters, but needless to say the focus and aperture will have to be set manually; and because the D-SLR has no way of knowing what the aperture setting is, I'm guessing that it may refuse to set the shutter speed automatically, too. I've never tried using a totally manual/mechanical lens (i.e. no servos or electronics in it) on a modern autofocus/auto-aperture 35mm or digital SLR. My understanding from people who have is that it can be done, but the results can be variable and there can be a whole new learning curve involved in persuading the camera's software to cooperate.  |  IP: Logged Frank Cox Film God Posts: 2234 From: Melville Saskatchewan Canada Registered: Apr 2011 posted 04-16-2014 01:48 AM                         |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 04-16-2014 12:19 PM                     quote: Leo Enticknap Getting reasonably sharp focus of something far away was what I was aiming for, hence f28. The problem is the use of such a tiny aperture isn't necessary for photographing the moon unless you have something else in the frame nearby, such as a person standing nearby in the foreground. At a larger aperture, such as f/8 or even f/4, you'll likely see significantly more detailed results, not to mention improved contrast. The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II lens I bought last May delivers exceptionally tack sharp image quality wide open at f/2.8, although depth of field is very narrow and vignetting is noticeable at that f-stop setting, especially on a full frame camera body. This lens delivers maybe a tiny bit more detail in the f/4 and f/8 range, but stopping down definitely eliminates the vignetting. At f/16 the effects of diffraction start becoming noticeable. Edge details softens slightly and contrast is a little reduced. Diffraction problems are even more noticeable at f/22. Image quality on this lens isn't terrible at f/22, but it's not in the same "wow" category I see at f/2.8 through f/11. Diffraction is more pronounced on some other types of lenses. I've been looking at Canon's 100mm L-series f/2.8 macro as a possible future purchase. It can double as a great portrait lens. Canon's 100mm macro delivers some of the sharpest results available in their product line. But you have to shoot at bigger apertures to get those results. Diffraction really makes the lens soft at f/22. Diffraction is a serious issue with smaller sensor cameras, like the ones built into smart phones. Some major improvements will have to be made in both camera sensor design and lens optics technology to lift smart phone camera image quality anywhere near the level of current DSLR cameras.  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-17-2014 08:56 PM                     My rule of thumb is to shoot two stops larger than the smallest aperture for maximum sharpness. If the camera's smallest aperture is ƒ22 then ƒ11 or ƒ8 would be the setting to use for maximum sharpness with less diffraction from the aperture blades. Theoretically, you might use the largest aperture but, then, you start running into depth of field issues, especially at short distances. I've got a couple of lenses that go as wide as ƒ1.2 but, at any distance shorter than ten feet, my DoF can be only a few inches. The tip of the nose might be in sharp focus but the rest of the face will be blurry. I suppose you could set the camera for hyperfocal distance: ƒ22@635ft, if my calculation is correct, your circle of confusion would be 0.02mm. Given the amount of enlargement the picture has been given, the fact that you can still just make out the Tycho crater on the surface is still pretty remarkable. You still have to consider that, during even a 1 sec. exposure, the moon would have moved enough to blur the picture. Unless the camera was on an equatorial mount with tracking gear, you are bound to get some motion blur. So... Overall, it's a pretty damn good shot!  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 65 pages: 1  2  3  ...  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  ...  63  64  65

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.