This whole thread gave me a headache. 8O
Tim
Halogenuros - in HD
Moderator: Andreas Wideroe
Re: Halogenuros - in HD
hi daniel,
i've seen the theatrical 35mm print and i'm nearly 100% sure that it didnt have the same problem.
it's a pity that you dont have a normal video master file on a normal harddisk, because there's definitely a frame doubling/skipping problem in the online version(s).
i've downloaded the 24fps encoded 720p h264 file, watched it on a macpro on a normal LCD monitor (which means 60hz refresh rate). the problem is very obvious but i also stepped through the clip frame by frame to verify.
++ c.
i've seen the theatrical 35mm print and i'm nearly 100% sure that it didnt have the same problem.
it's a pity that you dont have a normal video master file on a normal harddisk, because there's definitely a frame doubling/skipping problem in the online version(s).
i've downloaded the 24fps encoded 720p h264 file, watched it on a macpro on a normal LCD monitor (which means 60hz refresh rate). the problem is very obvious but i also stepped through the clip frame by frame to verify.
++ c.
Rewake of the thread!
Another question not related to the FPS discussion;
How did it go with heavy PL mounted lenses? Did you support the little C mount, or just had it hanging?
Do anybody know a cheaper than ~500$ adapter that allows PL to C mount?
Interesting test for sure, utterly strange about the FPS though.
How did it go with heavy PL mounted lenses? Did you support the little C mount, or just had it hanging?
Do anybody know a cheaper than ~500$ adapter that allows PL to C mount?
Interesting test for sure, utterly strange about the FPS though.
Re: Halogenuros - in HD
Hello,
The complete report will be posted by the end of this week, after second revision.
The report include information and pictures about the camera with PL lens.
I found , for this project, an Op Tex adapter (PL to C mount). The adapter was quite expensive, about 400 pounds. (plus shipping, charges..)
Yes, the PL lenses were quite heavy, and even sometimes bigger than the camera itself. The dangerous part of this set-up, was that one part of the adapter is a brass ring, that is not well attached to the adapter... and so the whole adapter and lens could fall ... and only the brass ring got still attached to the camera....
So I had to glue , with strong glue ("la gotita" is the name of the glue we used) the brass ring (of the adpater) to the main piece of the adapter itself. Then for the shooting, I used the rods of the mattebox, as a support for a sponge (for sponge painting). The sponge got allocated between the rods and the heavy lens, ditributing a bit the weight of the lens on the rods... this was an experimental set-up... then I continued shooting sometimes (other project) without any rod/sponge support, but taking the camera with one hand and the lens with the other hand. Or the camera assistant was near the lens.
Other problem, was that the focusing (engraved) scale of the lens, did not correspond to the reality anymore, so the focusing was done only by eye, looking through the viewfinder. We used different PL lenses. But for a specific project, with propoer time to pilot-test evrything, I would recommend to make a new scale on each lens to be used.
bye bye
Daniel
The complete report will be posted by the end of this week, after second revision.
The report include information and pictures about the camera with PL lens.
I found , for this project, an Op Tex adapter (PL to C mount). The adapter was quite expensive, about 400 pounds. (plus shipping, charges..)
Yes, the PL lenses were quite heavy, and even sometimes bigger than the camera itself. The dangerous part of this set-up, was that one part of the adapter is a brass ring, that is not well attached to the adapter... and so the whole adapter and lens could fall ... and only the brass ring got still attached to the camera....
So I had to glue , with strong glue ("la gotita" is the name of the glue we used) the brass ring (of the adpater) to the main piece of the adapter itself. Then for the shooting, I used the rods of the mattebox, as a support for a sponge (for sponge painting). The sponge got allocated between the rods and the heavy lens, ditributing a bit the weight of the lens on the rods... this was an experimental set-up... then I continued shooting sometimes (other project) without any rod/sponge support, but taking the camera with one hand and the lens with the other hand. Or the camera assistant was near the lens.
Other problem, was that the focusing (engraved) scale of the lens, did not correspond to the reality anymore, so the focusing was done only by eye, looking through the viewfinder. We used different PL lenses. But for a specific project, with propoer time to pilot-test evrything, I would recommend to make a new scale on each lens to be used.
bye bye
Daniel