- Joined
- Jun 9, 2016
- Messages
- 113
- Reaction score
- 31
I am just waiting for people to start offering some other camera's for the H.maybe this can be adopted to Hhttps://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-Style-Camera-Smartphones-Tablets/dp/B00EU89CMK
CGO3+ Stock Camera Mod
- Thread starter Jussaguy
- Start date
Reading this "information" is one of the greatest examples I've seen yet regarding inaccurate postings on the internet...it's luminously clear a couple of the parties in this thread need to engage in more practice and less theory. Here are my favorite quotes: "A narrower FOV gives you a closer visual and a deeper focus (meaning a longer DOF)",( a lens can do one or the other not both that is what distinguishes a wide angle from a telephoto) "superior raw mode that uses metadata to increase the dynamic range of the camera" (Metadata is "data [information] that provides information about other data". Two types of metadata exist: structural metadata and descriptive metadata. Structural metadata is data about the containers of data. Descriptive metadata uses individual instances of application data or the data content).... metadata in and of itself cannot possibly increase dynamic range. Thanks so much for providing my morning with mirth.
I wrote a TON of stuff in this thread but you quoted me one time with "A narrower FOV gives you a closer visual and a deeper focus (meaning a longer DOF)"
Which is the only thing you quoted from me with the TON of stuff I posted. I don't know where the metadata quote came from (myself or someone else) but I am fully aware of what metadata is. Out of everything I posted in this thread, stuff that would fall in the digital services category is where my deepest knowledge rests as I deal with it daily.
I was writing my long posts including creating charts pretty deep into the night and the one out of all the things you did quote is indeed off but is just a typo. I wasn't discussing dept of field at all and why would I in an aerial photography setting? I would to describe basic info as it pertains to things but I was describing infinite depth of field and since I believe off hand that it was out of place and makes no sense that the typo along with the other info doesn't rise to the level of contempt towards me that you have raised. (and I'm just assuming it is). Besides, in reality the fact that it magnifies the image when you have a LONGER FOV would in fact in reality give you a deeper focus wouldn't it? Although that's not what I meant to say and also had a typo so no argument on that one.
For sure I am using theory that I use in general ways and yes, I am behind the camera, professionally daily so I know a couple things. When I say "behind the camera", I mean, the crew, not a camera op.
To correct that only quote of mine "a narrower FOV gives you less of a closer visual and a deeper FOV" and that statement is true. A narrow FOV magnifies by definition things that are farther away effectively deepens the depth of what your camera/lens can reach (in effect) but really just a point, not what I was trying to put out.
Posting all that info was something I did late into the night and now the second I opened my eyes.
All that said, I don't claim to know everything and as I've stated, hardware is hardly my strongest suit as I'm more of a VFX guy than a DP and while I stand by things I've typed, I welcome corrections if someone thinks I'm wrong about something but there is a way to speak to people, especially to people that are just trying to help others.
For sure bad information is more dangerous than no info but the purpose of this thread was to chronicle trying out a new lens and I, as I often do, start trying to explain a lot.
I'm not even sure you're talking at me or not but for that one comment but if so, I'm all ears.
Thanks
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2016
- Messages
- 113
- Reaction score
- 31
I get that. I have a number of Peau lenses myself. I want to see other camera options.
Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk
P.S. - I looked at your quote about metadata and it is dead wrong (not the info but the quote from whoever who you were lambasting). When I wiped the crust from my eyes this morning, I just assumed you were correct because you were so definite but you are not as right as you think you are.
The quote from him that "superior raw mode that increases the dynamic range" is correct actually "of the camera" part is off.
But I don't even know the context of the quote but firstly, before I say why there is nothing wrong with that statement without the "of the camera" part, I want to first say I randomly grabbed some of "your" info and plugged it into Google. If you are going to cut and paste from Wikipedia, I would at least site the source.
Back to his, or whoever's quote that got you so hot.
It is a TRUE statement that Adobe RAW DNG brings metadata that is centered around gamma which is a numerical value that defines the amounts of colors, brightness and other things related to color grading and with gamma info embedded in the metadata and brought into post, gives you more ability to create dynamic range within all the parameters of color. (brightness, saturation, gray levels, etc).
So indeed a superior raw mode of Adobe DNG or DNG cinema absolutely brings in metadata to your post grade and general info about that directly effects dynamic range of saturation, brightness, etc.
The only bit of info you offered up was yanked from Wikipedia directly.
But if you know what Adobe DNG is actually doing, you would have known not to bring that up. And Adobe DNG is hardly the only format to bring metadat from your video or image into your post environment and that metadata, especially when talking about ADNG, does in fact give your more ability to tweak dynamic range. That is not even the quote you quoted me on. I don't need to go to Wikipedia to know what metadata is. I work in a post environment daily.
And to show you what a great tool Wikipedia is, I've gone ahead and took a snapshot of what it says today.
Read your direct quote and then what it says now, because I put it there. Lol. I am God! Jk.
The quote from him that "superior raw mode that increases the dynamic range" is correct actually "of the camera" part is off.
But I don't even know the context of the quote but firstly, before I say why there is nothing wrong with that statement without the "of the camera" part, I want to first say I randomly grabbed some of "your" info and plugged it into Google. If you are going to cut and paste from Wikipedia, I would at least site the source.
Back to his, or whoever's quote that got you so hot.
It is a TRUE statement that Adobe RAW DNG brings metadata that is centered around gamma which is a numerical value that defines the amounts of colors, brightness and other things related to color grading and with gamma info embedded in the metadata and brought into post, gives you more ability to create dynamic range within all the parameters of color. (brightness, saturation, gray levels, etc).
So indeed a superior raw mode of Adobe DNG or DNG cinema absolutely brings in metadata to your post grade and general info about that directly effects dynamic range of saturation, brightness, etc.
The only bit of info you offered up was yanked from Wikipedia directly.
But if you know what Adobe DNG is actually doing, you would have known not to bring that up. And Adobe DNG is hardly the only format to bring metadat from your video or image into your post environment and that metadata, especially when talking about ADNG, does in fact give your more ability to tweak dynamic range. That is not even the quote you quoted me on. I don't need to go to Wikipedia to know what metadata is. I work in a post environment daily.
And to show you what a great tool Wikipedia is, I've gone ahead and took a snapshot of what it says today.
Read your direct quote and then what it says now, because I put it there. Lol. I am God! Jk.
Last edited:
Me too. I was just saying they appear to offer straight cameras and it appears that the stock camera with a new lens is not such a bad cam. Sure it would be nice if we could snap on something like an x5r if that what you meant which is totally possible and probable pretty soon. I know for a fact companies that are developing after market cameras for the H.
Well I will keep you abreast to my encounter with if it will help you. Once it's on my H creating similar quality to the frames I posted, I'll sign off on a reccomendation but it appears Bo agrees at this point.
Nice information here @Jussaguy. Keep us posted on your progress and outcome. BTW, some of the posts you see from those who are diplomacy challenged will get deleted when they become personal. We like to keep this place a positive learning environment. If you see anything nasty please let me know by starting a conversation. Don't feel the need to respond to every negative comment.
Thanks brother! Dooley noted and I will keep that in mind. I was about to delete the thread but won't. I do try and stay positive to the naysayers but sometimes the negative shows through.
Excellent moderating. Thanks!
Last edited:
You might want to dig an it deeper and see what GoPro, Red Panasonic and ARRI are doing with metadata. Infact if you were at IBC or Cinec ARRI gave technical talks on what they are doing and you would have learned a ton. Unfortunately it's painfully obvious you were not (I was as a Guest of ARRI again)
Do you have any relationship with any company or companies you are representing in your posts?
Lens is now fitted, scary breaking the old mount of the board, mine is the version with a fixed lens so had to fit a new lens mount. Need some daylight to focus it.
Last edited:
About the 5th or 6th sentence from the OP "*** First, I DO NOT in any capacity work for or with the company (other than getting a discount for offering up my new H as an OTB comparison). I am developing a relationship with them as I might be helping them with some of their other ventures as well. They are developing camera arrays and all kinds of other good stuff that you should definitely check out on their site but we are going to focus on the H and their contribution to the camera. I feel it's okay to post this here because as I said I don't work for them and I believe they are actually a vendor here."
My relationship with them is as follows. I found the company and knowing I had a brand new unit (H) to offer up and with my YT channel, website, etc, offered for a discounted rate to review their product and create a video showing comparisons of the stock vs. their lens. They agreed and said they would install it as well so I was going to get it either way but used the new bird as a way to get them to install it for me.
But no, I have zero relationship with them other than speaking over e-mail to their CEO and once on the phone. I have no obligations tied to anything, nor do I own stock in the company.
No relationship and do not work for them and I am also not "representing" them. I am writing on my own and anything I type, right or wrong is completely mine and without any input or response from them. I am glad you asked because you used the word "represent" and I am most certainly not representing them.
Ok, I can't get tied up in posing here all day. I have to get a ton of work done by Monday and I have already set myself up for a hard weekend by tending to this thread.
I do want to take this moment to say that I am aware of my long windedness and I was definitely (when speaking about camera optics and the like) approaching a school that I probably shouldn't be teaching from. I am at my core a VFX Supervisor and VFX artist so I work on set and with DPs several times a week and I spend WAYYYY too much of my life behind the kit working on the segments and that is the area of expertise that I should stick to teaching.
The chart post is accurate enough that it should give people that want it a better visual about what happens at various focal lengths and how it effects the final FOV. Someone many years ago showed that to me and I use it often in my mind and somebody posted something (don't remember off hand what) that lead me to want to post that and I probably peppered it with info that might have a couple inaccuracies but nothing major I wouldn't think but the visual about the focal length and the FOV chart that I made is useful but I was/am tired. I have slept for about 1 hour in the last 36 and I am not in good shape. I should step away from the mic actually but I just wanted to say that my area of expertise is in the digital world, not the hardware and certainly not the optical world. I am/was just trying to help people understand things and sometimes I can get too grandiose in my effort but it comes from a good place.
A good example would be the metadata and the FOV discussion. When it comes to metadata on various file types and what metadata is, I don't have any gaps in my knowledge and while I know plenty enough to get by on my own when it comes to cameras, I really shouldn't be teaching anything about them and for that I almost deleted this thread but I hate deleting things that I put so much time into. LOL. Just wanted to be clear that I don't think I know everything and I am after knowledge when I am trying to give it, always. If things are civil, a "actually, X is pretty correct but I think Y" is a nice conversation that all parties can benefit from. I have always said, and believe I did in this thread, I learned A LOT more as an instructor than I ever have as a student and that is because if you are going to teach something you better know it. I probably shouldn't have veered into the teaching mode when it comes to cameras. I know this has nothing to do with your post Wilson, but I wanted to get that out there.
I would like to Chime in Since the 3.97 Footage used from FPVGUY is from My Camera.. I will give my Final review on the Peau Production 3.97 lens for the H since I was the First to own it..... But first let me Lunch
You got one of these lens?
When did you order it? They are currently on back order. You have bigger costones than I if you are doing that lens replacement on your own. That sticky shiz looks difficult. I don't even like taking off the cap of the camera. I feel like I would, and probably actually would break it if I did it myself. Good luck if so.
Hi,
Yes got the pixaero, sent direct from Russia, I contacted them via email direct. To get the main original yuneec mount off took a fairly stiff twist and pull (making sure the screws are out. Taking the camera apart is not that bad, I am no expert and I had it done if 3/4hr (without focus). Leaves the original lens intact to replace should I ever want to. once the original mount was off it is very easy to put the new one on, probably a lot easier than trying to dig the glue out of the yuneec mount to release the lens.
Last edited:
