Long day.... but the results are awesome.
No focus puller, mosquitoes, alone in the woods with two cases and the damn flip monitor works at home, and does not when it should have for no reason. However, the "pros" loved the contraption. Some 20’ of takes with briefings bellow. 35,50,85,105,135,200mm tested all as planned. (25 called sick)
My Nikkors @work:
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album05

dan,

what kind of codec you used here? i have problems viewing it...

thanks,


filip

Looks interesting :)

What camera was the footage shot with?

The sword fighting could use some improvement but I can't complain too much ;)

This is my second time using Premiere Pro (used it some moths ago and did not like some of the improvements)
The codec and all export features are new to me as well.
I was trying to save frames from the clips for easy viewing but without success. The stills ARE stills (well.... more or less...;-)<
Footage from the good'ol' GS200. (GS 400 is very tempting though)

dan great work!

i think i see some vigneting, is it possible for you to just shoot a grey paper of something like that so we can see it better..

and is it just me or is there more blur in one clip than the other.?

Thanks,
blur is "on the house". I had to frame up side down while pulling focus. Not easy and usually not for the same guy (especially on 135 and 200mm!) and get out of the way while doing so.... Looks is all I was interested in, and I am happy with the test.
I am sorry but I have done enough testing, tests I knew the results already by the time I did them. How is this:
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album04/IMGA0375
instead of a gey card ?"Access" 28-200 zoom lens 200mm@5.6 (a firecracker of a lens, but hey... does the job)
Nikon converter was "in front" not behind camera at that time.

In all of the high res images I see the pattern of the GG. Was the GG not moving?

The GG was not there in the pic 412:
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album05
The visible pattern in all pics is from the CCD's resolution.
Any digital camera retail store has 8/10 samples taken with 2, 3, 4, 5, aso M pixel cameras. Smaller resolution (like 2Mpixel) HAVE the same pattern.(but I swear I did not do it)

You don't learn ol dog new tricks and yet, I managed to burn a DVD and watch it on a 27" flat. I am happy with the results. Sharpness, looks, 'n-ol-that....

I have up loaded some stills from footage and some clips from yesterday eve/night. I understand you will be tempted to look at anything but a cup of coffee and still........... watch that clip. The rest are also relevant on “look” but.....
focus without a focus puller is just hobby …I think…
http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/Real-life-tests

Dan,

Have you got any sample clips you have done with the Z1?.

No Maheel.
Last time I only did some basic tests but I did not actually shoot any footage. I do not have the HD plug to edit that footage anyway. I guess I am also getting tired of just "testing" and getting anxious for REAL footage: that (to me) means a real production value (crane, dolly, lights, the whole deal) which leads to the question: OK but what is the story? to be worth the trouble. That is how I ended up on YB and glad I got a few clean shots (without crew, cables, dolly, etc)
I know you are anxious. Sorry I can not move any faster.
But....working on it.

Here's your story Dan:

INT. COMPUTER ROOM - NIGHT

DAN DIACONU, a crazy and crafty camera genius sits alone. He picks up a 9mm which sits next to his dismantled DVX-100a. He points it at the computer screen.

DAN
(menacingly)
No more damn questions...

perhaps shaking the lens doesn't look so good at resolution?
With a "normal" lens, if you move it laterally (i.e., orbiting motion) you also moved the image. To what degree I'm not sure, but the net result may be a loss of resolution(bad), as well as the grain reduction(good).
Dan, did your initial tests look a little soft? This could be the fly in the ointment of focusing screen usage.
-Les

Damn Franky, I forget my web cam ON and you take advantage..... tz, tz, tz, .....what a shame.....
(was that 9mm as in focal length or diameter, anyway?)
.......
no more damn answers......

>>>Les: perhaps shaking the lens doesn't look so good at resolution?<<<<<

nope.

>>>>........you also moved the image<<<<<

yep. It is only common knowledge that light gets stuck on a screen like a fly in a spider web.

>>>>>To what degree I'm not sure,<<<<<<

ohhh.... to a very high degree. The degree is so high that pictures taken during day time keep shining all night of the screen.... it's fascinating (almost magic)

>>>>>but the net result may be a loss of resolution(bad)<<<<

arghhhh.... the resolution..... is soooooo..... bad, that I will..... I will take all the 1760X1320 pictures down of my site...... (and feel ashamed to the end of my days that I had them up to begin with.........)

>>>>did your initial tests look a little soft?<<<<<

Initial? Nope. They are all soft! But you did not notice!

>>>>>This could be the fly in the.......<<<<<

....or the spider?.... who knows?......

why do he clips look so bad Dan? what is causing that?