Search results for:

It's nice, still haven't got round to putting good parts on it! Still got an alex rim on the front!!!

35mm movie film at 1.33:1 is the equivelant of 4800 lines high, on it's shortest side, 6700 on it's longest (this is calculated with exposable silver halide as apposed to pixels) - thus A 35mm frame is equiv to 30.7megapixels.

When scanning negatives for what is called a Digital Intermidiate (DI) for computer effects and colour grading a 4K scanner is used to scan the negative at as close to native 4000 lines high on the shortest side - work is then done on the digital frames. Then, using RGB lasers, a new roll of print stock is exposed frame by frame replicating as close to the original as possible.

HD at it's best quality is only 1920x1080 (2.1 megapixels)

kowalski If still photogs had to work to cinematography standards most of them would be screwed.

totally... I know this and I don't even work in the camera department! It's a little world all to itself with great gothic laboratories working through the night running reams of plastic with pictures on it through baths of chemicals.... it's like burning money, but yet it still goes on and everyone loves it, like a little private club!

Well have the film/digital debate if you fancy, but not without beer backup ;-)

I'll see you debate and raise you a Christopher Doyle.[/quote]

I'll buy us a beer, see your Christopher Doyle and raise you a can of Vision3!

Soweto888 .... track ends or no track ends. :-)

That bike's about as Track as a Tractor!

kowalski

Your "three stops under to one stop over" rule cannot be applied in general terms. Generally speaking, a neg material will offer a latitude of -1 to +2, this being either side of the true ISO rating of the material, not necessarily of that which is stated.

The latitude of modern motion picture stock is 12 stops - 7 stops over, 5 stops under. That's the norm - Kodak Vision3. This shit, bulk loaded into you 35mm camera and you'll be taking sweet pictures.... How about a film vs. digital debate??? How about I be quiet? ;-) x

We got an email at BLB today marked CONFIDENTIAL claiming it had an attachment that was TOP SECRET..... on opening the attachment it was noted that it was from Charge with ULTRA TOP SECRET images of the new Plug!! Big disappointment.... and now it's all over the forum. Top Secret my arse!!

miro_o Love that Bianchi.
Restored you have a bike far cooler than a Pista with deep v's or all that bollocks. Great colours.

agreed - it's my ultimate dream to own one of the 80s Celeste Pistas - this is a step in that direction.... all I want is a plain Bianchi coloured frame with the name on the seat and down tube in dark blue and track geometry! Dream!

However, I was thinking of the silver, un-coloured deep-v as it's a nice cheap deep section wheel

MrSmith well exposure for stills is all about keeping the histogram to the right with out clipping, what amateurs (and some professionals) don't realise is that if you have say 5 stops of dynamic range and for arguments sake 2000 levels from black to white (or rgb channels) you do not get 400 levels in each stop, it would be 62.5, 125, 250, 500, 1000 levels for each stop from black to white so to get the maximum amount of colour information even if you were photographing a dark brown cat in a coal hole it would be better to overexpose by 2 or more stops (as long as the whites of his eyes were not clipping) and then darken the image afterwards. otherwise it's noise and posterisation and no margins for colour balance correction.

enough of this techno shit it's to much like work.

Agreed..... :-) The histogram stuff has never been my forté

runcible rakan Either way if you decide you dont want it Jon i'll come have a look at it ;)

you got it!

MrSmith a 1.4 lens will be sharper at 1.8 than a 1.8 lens shot wide open

I agree, but if you are in the center of the confusion circle, then you'll always be sharp, that's what the measurements are for on the lens. If the artists eyes are in the center of the confusion circle at 1.4 then there eyes would be as sharp as if they were in the center of the circle at 1.8 - the only thing that will differ is how much is in focus surrounding that point.

MrSmith i don't see how it(1.4) will contain "more information"
a 1.4, 1.8 or 2.8 lens will be no more "colour gradable" or controllable than each other if exposed properly.

I see what you mean. All I was reffering to was that say if you shoot at 50th of a sec (equiv to movie camera shutter angle, which is my field rather than stills, so I only ever shoot stills with 50th of sec) With a static shutter speed, a wider aperture within the shooting range of the stock or the chip (eg. 3 stops under, 1 stop over) will contain more info as there is more light and so more chemicals/pixels exposed and thus more available colour depth, exposure etc for post production work, whether that be chemical processes at Lab, or digital changes

focus and depth of field are one of the coolest, fascinating bits of photography - I've been working as a focus-puller on motion picture recently - I've learnt things that have helped me with still photography in a big way!

MrSmith you would want an 85mm i wouldn't be too hung up on getting the 1.4 if it's out of your price range, most people can't focus them critically wide open and the AF in your D80 is unlikely to be 100% either, you get better image quality stopped down to 2.8 or 3.5 and you will still get the same feel to the image but the eyes are more likely to be in focus. so a 1.8 will be just as good for you. (i presume nikon do a 1.8?)

(i just brought a canon TSE 90 with the tilt you can get the 1.4 effect even though it's only 2.8)

F**k the AF!! keep it real :-) chunk of glass, box, and a piece of film/digital chip. The more you work with light the better the pics, and the more you learn.

T1.4 is approx f1.8, but relative focal length will change if you are using 35mm lenses on a digi with a smaller chip. The stop does not effect physical image quality - in theory T1.4 will contain more information on film or digital and so is more colour gradable, and controlable afterwards.

Well, my problem came when I first got my Mercian, I built it up and thrashed it for a few days, after that i was in a lot of pain on the outside of my knee. It was all because of the way I had set it up. The change from a road conversion to a Track geometry and then skidding on that! I sat on the bike, clipped in and then put presseure on the knee with a loosned saddle - I then pushed back on the saddle whilst keeping the pressure on my pedal - the pain stopped when the seat was pushed back to the correct position. Never hurt since.

I'm currently using a Zeiss-Contax manual lens on my Canon20D - It Is SUPERB!!!! 85mm (35mm ref, so effective 125mm on 20D) prime, open to T1.4 (uses T stops rather than f-stops). I really do reccomend using manual lenses on digital backs - especially if u have a back with a nice big chip.

I got given a whole set of these Contax lenses - 70s, first time Japanese builders used Swiss glass!! I am weeping with delight at the thought of how shallow the focus is on that 85mm - weeping!

Check out some of my portraits on my FLICKR. It's all in the glass!!

I find it hard to believe that it's alu - although it looks lugless to me - which would make it an expensive frame originally - actually it might be lugged on a second look. It's also a bit wierd to see a TT frame with two shifters and a front Deralliuer - I thought they only use 1 front ring.

Saddle backwards - an outside of the knee pain is often due to the seat being too far forwards. Happened to me, was in agony - Hippy suggested pushing seat back and it worked almost instantly!!

1bhp go on then what've you got to get rid of then jon?

It's not that cool really - a 6 month old 49cm Langster07, a Peugeot frame (my old beater), and another little 50cm bright red peaugeot

I rode one of Roberto's once, it wasn't that nice, but it was a more severe angle than this - what's interesting is that the Auction said that it's an aluminium frame.... I'll believe it when I see it.

Well, I've just kind of by accident bought this for £30 on ebay

didn't really mean to get it but it was so cheap..... there must be a catch! It's not arrived yet, so I don't know what it's like in the flesh. Anyone got any good ideas.... fixed? build it up as a shiny Campag equipped TT bike? Anyone have any experience of these Trek TT frames, I can't seem to find any info online.

I also bought this last week for £50, I've always wanted a Celeste bianchi, nice and plain - this is definitely going fixed, to become my wet weather shiz.

So, all in all, a good ebay week - this now means I've got three frames to sell/give away!!

I'll take the grips - what are you looking for in exchange, or how much money do you want?

Is it a small scale company, that does bespoke hosting for small businesses???? If so whisper me, if not, then no bother.

Clefty, what company is this?

That seems like the right price - They aren't really very good frames!

Dreamhost - We host the Brick Lane Bikes site on their.... It's sometimes slow, but overall very stable and reasonable. Also, if you buy your domain from 123-reg.co.uk (good) or prime hosting (good), you can get pretty decent deals with their own hosting for simple beginner stuff.

The sound of rubbing hands in Hollywood as they prepare for the three-fold increase on the revenue of 'The Black Knight', being released this summer!