What do freelance camera professionals do when there's not enough work? They chat about kit, discuss rumours and search for the latest must have gadgets of course!!! So pull up a chair, order a mochaccino and join us at the extrashot café…..
Your problem is that you just put out a video showing that you are using the exact process and using the patent by reference - if you had came out of nowhere saying that you have created a LUT using stops for false colors and never mentioned Ed's system - he wouldn't have a case for a lawsuit for a utility Patent. The US utility patents are a cash grab and are only as good as the success of defending it. It maybe the fact that companies want to cash in on the marketing and the use of the use of the Name more than just getting the product in use. He uses cool colors below middle grey and warm colors above. But as a colorist - I did some consulting on a DCTL for Resolve and suggest that the cool colors and the warm colors swatches should use the RGB color wheel reference and go clockwise on the wheel. I have no idea why Ed Lach chose the order of his swatches. I imagine that reverse engineering and using the colors in the order just mentioned that there is no way a patent holder could make claim. He also uses 1/2 stop on each side of middle grey then back to full stops. So if you used two 1/2 stops outward from middle grey - the false color would be even better on a face to see that transition.
Sorry to hear that, I've heard of faulty monitors with dodgy power causing bad earths across the SDI cable and blowing the input circuits in susceptible cameras (mainly Sony)... but not the other way around. I've also heard people say you should always connect all SDI cables before powering on any equipment... but I must admit that's sometimes hard to do when quickly moving to multiple locations. However, I've not come across this on a Megamon before. I don't know where you bought the monitor, but is there any included warranty? Sorry I can't be more help.
@@extrashot Yes I was using sony fx6, It happened with me in 2016 with Red Epic camera, it shortcircuited each and everything connected to SDI out, terradek, tv logic monitor, Dtap splitter , cables and Red's output SDI module, So the Red team suggested always power up the camera/devices and then attach sdi cables. But I agree it's very hard for run n gun style shooting with multiple Operators, I purchased this via b&h, mailing them and Osee too that if they can ship me the SDI component, Ill get it replace locally, as I am overseas. This has never happened with my atomos Sumo though, probably something in OSEE ? Thank you
The magazine, Popular Photography, exhaustively covered this exact same issue over fifty years ago. Showing the math, replete with photographic examples. They demonstrated the exact same conclusion. People now are making the exact same assumptions and poor methodologies to lead them to the exact same incorrect conclusions. It seems to be an unavoidable process in the human learning curve.
Thank you so much for your comment Mark, I really appreciate it. I must be honest, after reading so many alternative descriptions, I was starting to doubt my own experience!
Comment nearly four years after this was posted: I'd run a single mid-roll ad on my channel for the entirety of its existence, but I started to wonder if that actually stopped them. I polled my viewers and asked if they saw mid-roll ads. Even though some of the people who responded said they had adblock, so obviously they didn't see any, over 1/4 still said they did. So, at this point, it appears that the best option for the viewing experience of your videos is to turn on mid-roll ads and place them to be as unintrusive as possible. Otherwise, YT might drop them in anywhere and defeat the entire purpose of turning them off, while also not giving you any money for those ads getting played.
Oh wow... are you saying YT puts in mid-roll ads even when you specify that you don't want them? I never realised that was happening! Some more research needed. Thank you.
I also don't get how this is even trademarked... but anyway, if you long-press on the Monitor+ app's False Color icon, you will be able to select El Zone (for SLOG3).
Go on... I'll bite... do you mean 'nonsense' as in you can't make any sense out of it or is there something in particular about this visualisation you don't agree with?
Great video. I'm more convince than ever that there is actually no such thing as "Depth of Field". If you look closely, the object that's in focus is really the only thing that' IS in focus. The rest is an illusion. We just say "Well, that's acceptably in focus."
Brilliant video and a hard one to produce, reading through the comments there is a big missunderstanding of what this was about. I don't think the age of a photographer is a problem it's the lack of open mindedness of photographers. I get so frustrated with the crop sensor syndrome where people think it is a zoom function. for me a great video....John age 71
Thank you John, to be fair, I've been pleasantly surprised at how few people have misunderstood what I was attempting to visualise. It's difficult because so many of the traditional ways of looking at this have been superseded by ever increasing tech and display resolution! Take care.
I mean, crop sensors essentially function as a zoom tool. They change the apparent angle of view and create a functionally new focal length. Doesn't matter what you THINK. The only thing that really matters here is the results.
@@OhhhhhhhBugger But the results of cropping an image don't create the functionality of a new focal length? There's no change to the perspective, no compression and no change to the depth of field... all you've done is crop an image in the same way as if you'd done it in post? Changing the angle of view is all you've done!
I write books, of the coffee table travel encyclopaedia type. DoF can ruin my books, for example: I need to add a photo to an article about Melkvlei waterhole in the Kgalagadi. If I then take a photo, displaying doves in focus, with an entire blurred out desert in the background, will my readers be able to understand what they're reading about? There is a niche for DoF, but the pixel snobs are really too excited about it. In life, I see the bigger picture, be it literal or figure of speech. I don't tell fractional tales, which is why DoF is for a niche (pron neesh) market, not for everyone. Therefore, I don't even listen when the supposed pro's discuss it. Photography is an art, the art of storytelling. Then tell the entire story. I don't need to isolate a lion from the grass to see a desert full of wildlife.
I couldn't agree more... DoF is just another tool in the story tellers box. In many ways, since the Canon 5Dm2, it's also been a victim of film makers fashion! Take care
Starting off by saying sensor size doesn't affect depth of field isn't a great start. You either know that it effectively does and are being obtuse, or don't know and shouldn't be weighing in on the topic. It's surely the former in this case. Yes, you can absolutely faff around for ages and kinda sorta get the same picture with a different sized sensor IF there is an equivalent lens for your sensor. For a shot I needed a couple of years ago, there just wasn't an equivalent lens available for aps-c or m43 sensors. It was literally not possible to get the shot with any sensor smaller than full frame. It was frustrating as a beginner to see people who had been doing this longer just talk past and correct others, and tell you why the calculators and tools you find are useless, but give you no more complete understanding to what was going on because they had nothing to add aside from smugly "correcting" others (actually being uselessly pedantic.)
@@exitar1 as he says in the video, it is part of the puzzle. It allows putting a lens on with a larger aperture relative to the sensor, which isn’t always available for a smaller sensor size. Saying it “doesn’t effect” depth of field is like saying ISO doesn’t effect exposure. Technically, it doesn’t. But it’s also a mind-numbingly stupid and useless thing to say. If sensor size doesn’t effect depth of field (it friggin does,) let’s hear you explain why webcams and phones all need to fake depth of field. Hint: it’s because their sensor size is tiny
@threepe0 A larger sensor allows you to use a larger entrance pupil with an equivalent lens. The fact that you didn't have an equivalent lens doesn't mean it's the sensor size that's changing the DoF. I wasn't trying to talk past anyone, and I made a point of saying PhotoPills was great. I'm sorry that my smug efforts to add to the collective understanding didn't work for you.
This has explained in under a minute by others with greater understanding. No offense, but much of this video doesn't explain the why and how. You just explained that what.
Rather than angle of view I've always said magnification which is really the same thing but I think is easier to visualise for most people and also helps clear the mist of sensor size.
Amazing video. Thank you for the optical explanation. I knew from using PhotoPills myself that the focal length doesn't change the depth of field, but didn't know why. Now I know :)
I never worry about the technical aspects too much in photography as long as I understand them. Just like I don’t need to worry about the gear ratio in my car with a standard transmission. I drive the car in the gear I need to be in. Same with photography. I know around what my depth of field is for a photograph for that aperture I can get the shot I want. I check the depth of field. If it’s not right. I change my aperture just like changing gears in my car.
I would love to watch a video dive into Sharpness beyond the usual fare, including Coring, frequency dependence, and what have you. I'd love to understand that better with visual examples. The three of us who would watch such a video thank you in advance!
Oh my gosh, you're going to correct the internet. I'm getting all of my friends and family in the room to watch. This could be exciting ❤ Edit: I finished the video and this was very helpful. I am a hobbyist photographer and when I first bought a DSLR a few years ago I thought I would have to do all of the math (or maths) for every shot and it was just too much. And so I didn't pay a lot of attention to the numbers and calculations, etc. Now that I've spent some time figuring out all of my controls and doing a lot of study on the artistic side of composition, etcetera, I'm going back to the basics. This was really helpful.
Great video - as someone who teaches optics to 15 year old students - it is so nice to find a video that uses physics rather than mystics to explain this. But also as some one who has played with cameras for almost 50 years now - it seems to be something that used to be understood but is now in a melange of general ignorance. I think the first time it was ever explained to me was within a book published by focal press - and probably written by Ivor Mantle - wow that was a long time ago. Now to convince the Noctilux buyers a Tessar is better :)
Wow... you've brought back some memories mentioning focal press... My bible when I was starting out was " The technique of the television cameraman" by Peter Jones. I worked with him when he'd started studio directing. Simpler times! Thanks for the comment, much appreciated!
@@extrashot yes much simpler - you may like this its my alter ego: not technical and a hope of being a bit more philosophical - ps not a plug, but think you will understand! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-zzvocJmwbr0.htmlsi=XnWMqZ_X7ydeWCWP
Totally agree there 👍 I often try to explain this to people and I often see them very confusing and distrustful 🙄 Now I have an amazing video to link them, thanks a lot !
I’m sorry you felt it a waste of time and couldn’t derive any practical value. Please accept this virtual voucher to stay up an extra 12 minutes before bedtime! 😂
You mostly put together this presentation just for the sake of wanting to be right. No matter how you present your material and thoughts, the results will always come out the same, no matter how someone represents it. While it's nice to hear different perspectives, there's always going to be someone out there who feels they have to be the one with all the answers.
Not so much a case of wanting to be right… more a case of trying to balance all the misleading info out there. If anyone would like to demonstrate how sensor size or focal length can directly change depth of field, then I’m more than happy to be corrected?
Especially if you like landscapes! Even then, I think we need to re-asses the common figures currently used for Circle of Confusion. I'm not sure 0.03mm is good enough now we're all using high resolution monitors while sitting with our eyes so close to the screen! 😂
I LOVE the circle of confusion. It just needs a 3-D animation to display it. More importantly, we miss our shots wirh auto focus because of the lack of contrast in our subjects. And thinking IBIS will let us shoot at 1/30th. Try natural view when focussing.
I was always taught that given a set circle of confusion the only two changes which affect depth of field at a given distance were the mathematical aperture of the lens (not light transmitted by the lens which can vary depending on its construction) and the reproduction ratio of the object focused upon and the actual size of its image on the sensor or film.
