Personal View site logo
Driftwood - Experimental Series 2: Low Rider, Cluster v8, V9, Intravenus II, GH3onaGH2, AN, Boom
  • 1008 Replies sorted by
  • @vicharris Would def be interested in seeing the Boom grabs from wide shots where you saw problems. I recently tested some wide shots with Boom but didn't notice any issues, so wondering if I'm missing something (I only briefly reviewed though). If you can, maybe post the wide, med, and CU grabs from shots done on the same scene so we can see quality difference. Thanks.

  • @vicharris @matt_gh2 I second that, please post some grabs. The superwideshots @driftwood posted a while back from his trip with Boomv2 looked pretty spectacular.

  • Will do guys. The wides just look a soft to me and a bit washed out. I could have overexposed a bit but I matched exposure with the Med and MC shots. Also on the wides I used two diff lenses. Nikon 105mm 2.8 and Rokinon 85mm 1.4 so I don't think it was the glass. Anyways, I just got two new lenses in so I'll stop playing with them and throw up the grabs after the kids go to bed.

  • Ok, here's a few grabs. The wide was shot with the Rokinon 85mm. The one shots were all with the Rokinon 24mm 1.5 and the closer two shot is with the Tokina 11-16. All on Boom V1. @matt_gh2 and @Monsterbox

    Screen shot 2012-11-26 at 8.24.04 PM.png
    1595 x 932 - 2M
    Screen shot 2012-11-26 at 8.24.25 PM.png
    1614 x 934 - 2M
    Screen shot 2012-11-26 at 8.25.22 PM.png
    1624 x 962 - 2M
    Screen shot 2012-11-26 at 8.24.58 PM.png
    1538 x 862 - 2M
    Screen shot 2012-11-26 at 8.27.22 PM.png
    1597 x 904 - 2M
  • @vicharris I have a question on the wide. I'm not an expert so this is more of question, than a comment. I saw you used a 24 for the one shot, and a 11-16 for the two shot, and those look like the camera was probably positioned about the same distance from the subject. But for the wide shot, if you were using a 85 or 105, I guess you would have to be really far away from the subject to get that wide a shot. So maybe the softness is a result of the distance from lens to subject? (I don't really know all the stuff about distance, focal length, and all the math, so I'm really just guessing the cause.)

    Thanks for posting. Guy with vacuum cleaner is a funny setup. Would love to see final product.

  • @matt_gh2 You're right. For the wide with the 85mm in the first grab, I was across a 4 lane road with a median and turn lanes, so it was about 6 lanes. Wait, no, that first one was with the Nikon 105mm but it's just as soft as the 85mm. I guess that could be and I'm prob asking alot from a $650 camera but I have seen better detail on wide shots from other hacks. I'm sure there's a reason Driftwood told us that this is better for Med and CU shots :)

    And yeah, he's one of my buddies, runs his own agency and is one of my producing partners. He did some funny ass improve for this scene and once the whole thing is shot, I'll post it on this site as well. It's a Drinking and Driving PSA so I need to haul ass to get it done in tome for the holidays.

  • @vicharris Very cool re improv. I'll be playing with Boom some more soon, so will check the wides. Maybe an alternative for you will be one of the bkmcwd settings (I think he did a "flat" setting that was inspired by and designed to be a GOP3 version of Boom). Perhaps that will give you imaging characteristics/style/look of Boom, but perhaps the wides also work better for you.

    Thanks for posting grabs. Rock on.

  • @vicharris Just curious what aperture you used on the wide shot? I always find my zooms are very very prone to diffraction problems above f/11 or so- these are older MF zooms (tamron SP and a non-sp from the 80's). As well, I find them incredibly soft when wide open on distant detail.

    I also find that they just do not resolve detail well at long distances- that wide grab just reminds me of stills I've taken with a zoom of distant subjects that were very less than impressive.

    But if you're talking about a good quality prime at 85mm, then not sure what's going on!

  • @virgilr The wide was taken with a Nikon 105 2.8 AI lens at 5.6. So, not a bad piece of glass. I also have the same shot with a Rokinon 85mm 1.4 and it looks the same. I was on sticks and pulled critical focus on the girl. I also used a LCW Fader but it was used on the Med and CU shots too and they look fine. I'll prob go out and try to recreate it with my Pany 14-140 and see what that looks like. Also maybe play around with exposure or use a MB and Tiffen 4x4 ND's instead of the fader ND. I'm sure I can tweak it in post a bit but it's bothering me that they are so different and if I did something wrong, I'd love to learn what it was and fix it!

  • @vicharris Well seems like you were in a fairly controlled situation to me in terms of your setup- just wondering, though- you said you used a fader ND, wondering if that had anything to do with the problem? I'd try a few test stills in similar lighting/focal distance conditions w/o a fader, stopping down the lens to proper exposure or near and see what you get?

    I do know that 105mm-f/5.6 would make critical focus VERY touchy- I have a great tamron adaptall 90mm sp2 that is very sensitive at mid-long distant shots in terms of focus, esp. when it's not stopped down much. A millimeter of focus throw and you've gone from sharp to crap.

  • @virgilr I used the Fader ND on all the shots but I'll go out and try it with the lens stopped all the way down and see if that helps.

  • I wouldn't stop all the way down- there is a point of diminishing returns with lenses, esp. long lenses when stopped down too much. I did a quick look-up of specs on that lens: f/16 and greater and diffraction starts to inhibit lens performance.

  • Got it. Well it goes 16, 22 so I'll just stop at 16. That should be good enough. Thanks for the help. I have to go do a camera test at a location tomorrow so hopefully I'll remember to know this out then too.

  • @vicharris I'd try shooting some stills as well with the exact same focus and aperture, so you can compare to your footage. I would say f/8-f/11 would be an ideal range (that's quite often a sweet spot in terms of sharpness for many lenses, but it can differ). By comparing a still to a frame of footage, you'll get an idea if the patch is influencing image quality. Just a thought.

  • Messing around today and shot this using the GH3 matrix. Really liking this setting.

  • Christmas season question 1 :what setting is gonna get released for gh2 in christmas???

  • @fredfred27 Thank you! Wow, isn't the Adagio so touching?

    @driftwood Thank you for your hard effort into all the GH2 projects. Your work is highly appreciated :-)

  • @jebsly: is your GH3 matrix video straight from the camera, i.e. not post edited or graded?

  • @producer The first half is only adjusted for contrast. Once the rock music kicks in there was also a tint of blue and unsharp mask.

  • I'm quite confused here, I could be wrong but how was it possible to know of the GH3 Matrix during October when the camera wasnt even released yet???

    Also either way, how does GH3onaGH2 compare to previous patches like 444Sharp etc.?

  • Nick, Thanks so much for your great hack. I used it tonight for an interview. It was such a breeze to use with my GH2. This is the first hack in a long time that didn't have any spanning issues. The longest segment I recorded was about 12 minutes long. I used it with a sigma lens on one GH2 and the pancake 20 mm on the other. 24H, 1080P/24. *** NEW *** Quantum GH3 Matrix Test Setting for the GH2 ! Keep up the good work.

  • GH2= Lumix 14mmm AN v6Nebula, HBR 30p 40Mbs- extreme low light

  • Shot with the BOOM! Patch. Thanks @Driftwood

  • This is another one i filmed in the club. i use cluster 6 drew because driftwood said cluster 7 is just experimental. lens: magic slr 12mm f1.6 @ max 1250 iso. profile smooth all -2

  • Sweet video examples guys. Great work. :-)