CA for monkeys

[Liam Hall]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

It might not be chromatic aberration.

For my money, this is CA. This lens is shocking at both ends of the zoom.

In my experience this type of CA in the highlights always looks worse on Fujinon lenses than Canon, I think it's something down to the lens coating.

Nice work Karl, you really should post more.

Eric, you didn't see it in the viewfinder because the viewfinder is low rez. I guess we must remember just how much this camera costs. It delivers a lot of bang for the buck, but it ain't never going to be an F900. BTW, love the writing style, I like to see a bit of passion.

[Eric Gulbransen]

Thanks for the help, guys. I really learned a lot by posting this here. I guess I kind of sacrificed my pride in doing so, but that's a small price to pay for an education.

And holy mother, Karl, did you do a great job affecting the "CA(?)" in that image. After Effects is still just an icon staring me down from the bottom corner of my desktop so far. I'll have to wait till my saturation level gets down below my eyebrows again before I open up that challenge.

To Jeffery's credit, in the end I don't really mind the CA either -

please excuse the stumbling. I'm not even new at this yet..
http://tracyfit.com/QuicktimeVids/Mu...H2OmarkWEB.mov

[Jeffrey Butler]

Originally Posted by Eric Gulbransen

To Jeffery's credit, in the end I don't really mind the CA either

I do think the stills look hideous - but re: what Karl did - bad stuff happens in the production part and while we want to avoid as much post as possible, there are fixes out there to make things look better. But if you have no story, you have either gorgeous scenery or nothing worth watching...

Now, to your quicktime. I think I see a lot of what you're talking about. I do wonder, though, about the high shutter and ND2 (that I'm assuming you had on?) combined with the high reflection of the mud and water in that one section. Could that have caused some of that, and would a slower shutter with a deeper ND (screw on) have yielded better results? But only in that case - the wide stuff looks much better, and the sky and colors show good exposure. I thought there for a bit that you didn't have any ND on...

But seriously - while there was plenty I was just looking at regardless of the technical merits, I think you've got something going on. Your settings weren't right...for that situation....

[Eric Gulbransen]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Butler

But seriously - while there was plenty I was just looking at regardless of the technical merits, I think you've got something going on. Your settings weren't right...for that situation....

Jeffrey, it took me two years to figure out how to use my 20D well enough to even print a picture. I can't even imagine how long it'll take me to figure this camera out. But, then, I went at the 20D all on my own. I'm trying to learn this camera/world in a more effective way (thankfully, because it seems this world is about nineteen times more complicated). That's why the post, the frame grabs, the video, and now finally the settings that produced them.

I've only really been able to shoot with this camera about four times so far. And even then, just about two hours each time. No, the rest of the time I was NOT out shooting with another camera. I was out swinging a framing hammer while dreaming about swinging this JVC.

I'm finding it real hard to keep all the necessary priority points considered at all times while shooting. I always seem to forget things - sometimes I even forget things in small groups. That's why I set the aperture on auto - so I could intentionally forget one thing. Also, I didn't want my adjustments to look clunky as I panned around the mud pit. I made a big mistake with the polarizing filter too I think. Maybe it was too cheap. Maybe it introduced some color where there shouldn't have been any. And you are right on the ND filter as well. As this thread has developed I have learned, and as I've learned I have also begun to cringe with the thought that I didn't have any ND filters on. I think the new polarizer and auto aperture kept the overexposure ND flags from waving at me - which would have reminded to activate them. Maybe the ND filters would have cut down on the glare, which might have helped reduce the "CA"? Finally (at least I THINK, finally), I have no idea how in the hell all my settings went on walkabout this day. When I checked the settings to list them on the frame grab, not one of them looked familiar. Can't wait to find out which button I inadvertently hit THIS time. Man do I have a lot to learn.

Oddly enough, there does exist a world where I am not such a chump - and I do help every single person who asks (and even some who don't). Maybe you guys helping me here is about good Karma. Either way, I thank you all.

[Karl Larsson]

Thanks guys! Always nice to share knowledge and to gain some from you.

While I totally agree with Jeffrey about content and story, this was an easy 2 min fix. It doesn't help the story per se, but it improves the shot by not distracting the viewers attention from what's important. E.g. no "What's that green and purple stuff...?"
Granted, this would not be the first thing I looked for in a video like this :)

It is also nice to know that when unexpected problems are discovered after the fact, there might be a way to solve them. Sometimes shots are thrown away just because of "problems" with the image. We can only hope that spreading a little more knowledge leads to a few more saved shots or, if used anyway, not so horrible looking images :)

And when looking at the quicktime it looks more like sensor overload than just chromatic aberration.