Leaderboard

No they really shouldn't. A lens does not "resolve 6MP". A lens renders a certain spatial frequency at a certain contrast ratio. It might take detail at 20 line pairs per millimeter and produce 70% contrast, detail at 50 line pairs per millimeter results in 30% contrast etc. This relationship is captured by the modulation transfer function (MTF), a quantity which varies according to the distance from the image centre, and the direction you measure in (sagital vs tangential). Manufacturers already publish MTF charts for their lenses, which is the equivalent of what you're suggesting, only much more meaningful. There are some differences in how these charts are computed (e.g. whether diffraction is included or not) so they're not always directly comparable, but they aren't anywhere near as misleading as trying to attach a single "megapixel" rating to lenses. The other reason stating "this lens resolves 6MP" is meaningless is that the important thing in determining how you images will look is not the lens MTF itself, but the system MTF. The system MTF is the product of MTFs of each part, the lens the filter stack and the sensor (and image processing to an extent). Because it's a mathematical product (a lens delivering 80% contrast combined with an AA filter that delivers 95% contrast results in 76% contrast (0.8 x 0.95 x 100)) you can improve the system MTF by improving the MTF of any component in the system. Hence you "6MP" lens will give you more resolution on a 24MP body than on a 6MP body. It's exactly this thinking that leads people to declare that there's no reason to have a 50MP sensor as there are no 50MP lenses in existence. Even the kit lens in your example produces some contrast in the centre of the image at 50MP.

I agree, in the years and years which a person might spend to produce just one "high quality"​ film (it might even never happen...), another person could've in the same length of time produced half a dozen or more quick films that gradually escalated in complexity and budget. Who do you think at the end of this period has gained greater knowledge and more contacts, and is better prepared for his next film? I'd say obviously the latter person. ​You're making some huge assumptions here. Take another example: running. Does everybody who takes up jogging aims or even want to go to the Olympics? Nope! Some runners just enjoy the process of running, and who cares about how far back they finish?? They don't. Others enjoy running for all the other benefits they reap from running (which is many many!), other than the elusive Olympus Gold Medal. Yet another group of runners are happy if simply their PB drops each year to be faster than the year before, even if they never ever get close to breaking 30 minutes for 10km (let alone a 26 minute something 10km for top Olympic standards!). Now, why should filmmaking have to be any different? There are a very very diverse range of reasons and motivations as to why people are filmmakers.

I'm sorry to say, but i think it's a terrible idea. We know how the consumer operates, people would then only look at the this megapixel count, as they already do with cameras. It's already not a good thing with cameras but it can make sense i guess sometimes, because it can be important. A lens is sooooo much more than its megapixel resolving power. Besides, most people actually don't care enough to really mind if it has a high resolving power or not. Like you said, a lot use the kit lens and they're very happy with it, it's good enough for them and the may not want to spend any more money on it. The few others who know enough about lenses, optic, and photography in general to really be interested in this matter, also know enough to go look for reviews, test, advice, photos on flickr etc... Plus, people would always ask "how many megapixels does that lens resolve" without know anything else about the lens, only focalizing on this, when everything else about a lens is so interesting and important. And to conclude, i guess MTF charts are there solely for that purpose.

​MTF charts published by lens producers are already greatly reduced in complexity, in that in general they only show contrast for two spatial frequencies (usually 10 and 40 lp/mm) and two aperture values (usually wide open and f/8) and two image plane orientations (sagital and tangential). The "full" MTF is a four dimensional quantity which is difficult to represent in 2 dimensions. I put "full" in quotes because it also depends on focal length for a zoom lens, and, to an extent, on the focus distance thus it can be a six-dimensional object. I hope you can appreciate why it's impossible to boil a six-dimensional function down to a single number. You could simplify it further and measure the MTF at a few distances from the image centre (centre, top/bottom edge, left/right edge and extreme corner), but it's been heavily simplified already and that would cut a lot out. You could try averaging the figures but the range you average over would be fairly arbitrary and subject to differences between manufacturers. And the idea that manufacturers attach a resolution figure to the lens in order to sell them would just open the flood gates to clever ways to inflate the score by carefully choosing what to include/exclude.

As the megapixel race continues, there's something the average consumer doesn't realise. Most of them are walking around with 6MP lenses on their 24MP DSLRs. Read the full article

Video by InVisage.

Not sure if the megapixel label on the lens is necessary, but 100% agree on the T-Stop. I used to wonder why the Samyang cine versions are slightly darker, but they have the accurate T-Stop instead of F-Stop listed, of course the cine versions let in the same light as the standard versions. T-Stop for videography is absolutely crucial. I'd be furious if i had bought the Canon F2.8 L for video work and later found out that the T-Stop is actually close to 4!!! Wonder how my Zuiko OM 35-80 F2.8 compares.

the resolving power of a lens condensed down into a simple number is a great idea. industrial cameras are sold in this way, why not high end lenses. If a manufacturer is going to sell a camera based on its sensor resolution they should also provide lenses capable of delivering this. Ie. Canon will use thier 50+ mpx count of the new 5d as a selling point. they won;t show the camera fitted with an otus or a schneider/rodenstock digitar + helical. they'll show it with a Canon L lens, which most are incapable of delivering resolutions that actually warrant the huge file sizes and the premium price Canon will command for the high mega pixel count. People use medium format backs of 80mpx for a reason - there are lenses that deliver this resolution onto 56x56mm. there are few 135mm format lenses that will be marketed alongside the 5dmk4 (50mpx), but the canon consumer will be told their lenses designed and capable for 35mm film will still meet the demands of pixels sizes smaller than 100iso film grain. Everyone knows that there is more to a lens than resolution. but if a consumer is buying a camera sold with its megapixel count used as a selling point then they should be made aware of their options. It's like selling a Ferrari based on its ability to go 300mph using a new type of fuel, a fuel not yet developed.

i had a shoot with the original 2.5k bmcc, great cinematic image.. love it... if i had the money i would buy the mini in a second... But remember the real cost for the ursa mini upgrade: 5k for the body minimum 1k for fast cf cards if you dont allready own them 100$ V mount plate 500$ Batteries 1.5k shoulderkit so youre in total around 8k... for a nebie thats an overkill Do you feel limited with your gh4? and if yes what is the limit.

The Log Profile is one of the major additions the nx1 needs !

I would skip on such a device for the GH4... The price vs performance is not there.

i´ve send a mail to BM and asked whether its only uhd monitoring or 4k downscale recording too, that was the answer: Hi Christoph, Thanks for getting in touch. The information that is available about the video Assist at the moment indicates that it will only offer UHD monitoring, not recording. this may change between now and when the product gets released, however information is limited about this at the moment. Many thanks. Regards, Paul Wilson Technical Sales Assistant Blackmagic Design EMEA

​Good point. Do you remember how Peter Jackson gave his 48 Epics for The Hobbit nicknames, a method for him to keep track of their individual tasks? This was covered in a 'production diary', and though those making of teasers often were mockumentaries (i.e. the production designers who painted 3D drafts, one in red, one in green), I do believe this detail. You should read a Peter Jackson biography, on how he started as a filmmaker. His early attempts could hardly have been called professional. He filmed with a 16mm Bolex, spring mechanism, see the crank in this image: The tricks were shirt-sleeved, if not outright crude, but he could do them all alone. The unauthorized biography by Ian Pryor also shows his somewhat darker side. Of course he couldn't make Bad Taste alone, he had a talent to get people work for him like slaves, even unpaid, sometimes with vague promises to share any possible profit. His early experiences as a one-man-band, controlling every aspect of the process, just having 'helping hands' around him, made him the best producer and VFX/SFX supervisor in the world. Without such knowledge and giant self-esteem the LOTR trilogy could not have been made. People tend to forget the roots. So imo there is nothing wrong with a hands-on approach, if you haven't money to do it professionally. One should just be able to scale down expectations. ​All lectures on writing (novels or screenwriting) stress the importance of not simultaneously inventing and editing. If you doubt that what you write down is any good, don't stop writing. Keep the flow. And then, instead of script doctoring weak parts (made easy by Word or the like), you dismiss the whole and start over again. Every new version is a better one. Wash, rinse, repeat. This could also be a good advise for us indie filmmakers. So we've got a plan. Why not make a very amateurish first version? Built-in mic (could as well be a smartphone version), no lights, no tripod. Location scouting as you go. Some friends to play the characters. Like children re-enacting The Avengers. Improvisations welcomed. Temporary score. Makeshift, deliberately crude tricks. After editing this shit, you know better. You can kill your babies, you know where you need to invest more time and/or money to enhance story and production value. You could do a second, a better version, and so forth. What think?

Just to help you in your choice (To get the 15mm or not) here you are video I shoot at ISO800 and Shutter speed at either 30 or 60 at night. I am personally satisfied with the output, then again, I am not a pro https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeWsBXrrhGM Personally I am only using this lens for low light... for other shots I am going with the 12-35mm. Good luck

I've been following Mirrorless Rumors and that lead me to EOSHD... I heard about the upcoming firmware and how it hasn't happened. Seems now that there are talks of an entirely new firmware. Myself, I own a couple GH4s and am just about ready to jump ship. I've known about V-Log since November and I'm frustrated after waiting nearly 6 months... In the meantime, I have called Samsung and asked them to take a request to make a Log picture profile. I feel that the GH4 and the A7S are going to have a serious advantage and therefore, I can't buy the camera of choice, the NX1 (with Adobe H265 decoding). I got to admit, Samsung was happy to take my suggestion about adding a Log picture profile. They were genuinely excited to hear customer / potential customer feedback. It's easy to say that I respect that and that I appreciate their business. Meanwhile, I've called Panasonic twice. The first time took me 45 minutes to explain to Tech Support that I am interested in testing V-Log L. After 45 minutes, they told me that their engineers would contact me within 24 - 48 hours. 96 hours later, I called them back. Next, they told me they would call me back in 24 hours. It's now over 36 hours later. The first conversation was a waist of time. The second conversation was a waist of time. In my opinion, they could care less. So, for fun, I started searching for a new camera that's less than $1500 and has a high megapixel count. I called Nikon to talk to them about their D5500. The camera has 14 stops DR, crazy-low rolling shutter, and has a clean 1080P image with a Flat Profile. However, if you're like me, you know that Nikon's Flat Profile is basically what the GH4 has had for the past year and the NX1 has had in the last couple of firmware updates. It's no Log profile. So, I asked Nikon's tech support group if they would take a suggestion to allow the shooter to create their own picture profile settings using an adjustable Gamma Curve. Nikon's answer was, "We already have it. It's called Picture Control Utility. You can create your own Picture Profiles based on current Picture Profiles and then apply your own gamma curve. Next, you'll save them them and add them to the camera." WHAT? On Friday, I'll give it a test and make my own Log profile for the D5500 based on the Flat Picture Profile. Why wait around for these 4K DSLR companies to release firmware updates when they don't even tell you when they are coming? Hypothetically, if 30 out of a 100 people can't tell the difference between Full-HD or 4K, but 50 out of a 100 people can see the difference between 14 stops and 12 stops latitude, then maybe the latitude of the image is where I need to be? And for what it's worth, the D5500's "theoretical 14 stops" may only cost 60% of the $1500 consumer 4K DSLR. Why not shoot with a Log profile to an external BM 5" display or an Atomos? Currently, there is not much quality control in the business. It seems like one product is totally awesome in one respect or another, but then totally fails in another respect. It's about time we came together. These cameras are awesome tools in need of some serious upgrades / suggestions from their users. For sure. Where's the 2.5K? Where' the 48 FPS? Where's the Log? Where's the Raw? Why are we reminded every time we switch to 4k that it requires this? Why can't we chose which areas of the sensor we want to record and see how that affects frame rates? Long story short, thanks for making this NX1 list. It's awesome to read how the NX1 actually performs from individuals who use the camera and understand how it works. I think I am a lot like you in the fact that I am looking to invest my time, energy, and money with a tool that continues to evolve and push limits.

Totally agree. $2.5k "drone" camera with a a zoom lens and no lock button... Meanwhile, BM micro camera will have a PWM & S.Bus port !!! With a Lumix 7-14 or the new Zuiko 7-14 2.8 the BM micro should be less expensive than the XC10 crapmera. Don't get me wrong, I own a 6D with a ton of glass and I love it for photo work. I'm not anti-canon but this camera is a joke. I'm keeping my GH4 for video and I'll buy A7sII and GH5 when they'll come out. Never going to buy C100 or Xc10 stuff. The first one is too expensive, the last one is an insult.

​Perhaps you're right - but aren't those who are doing this, doing so because they are not in a position at this current point in time to be able to make bigger budget films? Isn't the end goal to be able to work with budgets that allow you to do what you want and need to be able to effectively tell the stories you want to? If so, shouldn't you at least be attempting to make your film in a similar way, and to at least attempt to get to the same kind of standard - that is, if someone one day sees enough potential in you to give you a bigger budget, don't you want to be educated enough, and understand why exactly you're going to have to spend time micing up actors and hiring sound guys, rather than suggesting that you 'mount a mic on the camera and get close enough - I've done it heaps of times before and the audio is perfectly usable'? Sure - if you only ever want to make small films, then fine. I was simply under the impression that people were making tiny budget films out of necessity, rather than because that's what they want to do.

​I don't really understand why - these cameras are still first and foremost photo cameras, perhaps with the exception of the A7s. Yes - in the future, when 4k has become the new 1080p - i.e. the standard (it hasn't yet) but not in the immediate future.

Here is some footage that I shot with a 16mm Bell & Howell anamorphic just like the ones on offer here:

Thx Cinegain. Oh the whole time I wrote ''just'' with a y, dam you tv for teaching me to speak English but not to write. True story. I think at the start i will go with the 14 to 140 and then I will expend my lens line up with some Canon FD glas, the Nikon Bourn movie lenses seem wery intriguing to me. On an other note that anamorphic footage from the Gh4 looks just amazing to me. Can't wait for the V log profile, the anamorphic-V log combo looks just amazing.

​This is my thinking, currently with my schedual, I only deliver my works in 2 months (max.) so 1 day wont make a difference.

​I should have been more specific. It should be fine for normal editing, but the minute you start using things like After Effects, more video streams, etc it will slow down. I personally feel spending $4500 odd on an iMac ridiculous for the performance one gets but its sooo pretty. Also, that thing gets hot and noisy as it has smallish fans. I don't want to turn this into a MAC vs PC debate, but in $4500 you can build a super souped up rig that will lap up all those 4K files without breaking a sweat. We focus a lot on cameras, lenses, etc but a majority of our time is spent on post production so one might as well invest well there.

Looks really great Bozzie. Please keep 'em coming. What anamorphic setup were you using?

The a5100 image is quite good for 1080p,slightly better than a6000. I think most people with video in mind would actually purchase a a6000 do to better overall functionality.I wouldn't say it's a crappy camera but a camera mostly brought by people who don't highlight its image strengths. I thought these two videos represent decent video from the cam. https://vimeo.com/109800427 https://vimeo.com/124275133

awsome

​Years ?! H265 support will probably arrive to most systems this summer. Its not just about the image quality, the Nx1 seems like a higher quality camera all around, there would be no point in getting the GH4 at this time IMO.

Yep. I got the NX1 a week back and immediately happened to cover the LA MDA Muscle Walk. Lot of footage, but it was pretty simple/easy to transcode to ProRes on my Windows machine. I used FFmpeg, which was fast (the app was Rocky Mountains, check it out especially if you want to easily do H.265->ProRes on Windows). The nice thing with this workflow is that once you're done with your edit, you can delete all the large ProRes files and archive the H.265 files, which are really small. Besides, even with H.264 you'd want to transcode to something that's more edit friendly anyway, so it isn't that different with H.265.

The downsides on the NX1 are related to the new codec, those "problems" will soon go away, leaving me with a superior camera on the long run.

​ ​I was referring to your irritation, that people on this site "look down on you" for willing to sacrifice technical perfection in order to get a film finished. Whereas I really believe this is the wrong approach, nobody is in a position to "look down on you". Back on topic, which is about the distinction of professionalism on one side and amateurs (or better ambitious indie​ filmmakers) on the other. The whole purpose of this forum, as I see it, is to discuss low-budget means for not having to sacrifice technical perfection. There hadn't been many excuses twelve years ago, when people had DV-cameras with 35mm adapters and some other things. There are less excuses today. You can buy cheap equipment with high image quality, you can even rent it. A BMPC (4k raw), for instance, costs around 50 € a day in my area, if you rent it for 10 days and you are nice, you might even get it fully rigged for that. The software is *free*. Designing sound is a whole different chapter, but recording usable sound on low budget isn't, as Jay_Rox wrote. But there should be someone in your *team* who is responsible for that.

Yes, the short vs. feature argument. I know it all to well. Back in the 70s and 80s directors made shorts to promote themselves, usually USC, or UCLA students who utilized their situation to develop a "calling card" short. In the 90s when I first became interested in filmmaking, it wasn't in fashion to make a short, or go to film school... You used that money to make a feature. Making any movie is hard work, akin to moving mountains... The thought process was why should I spend a crap load of money and time on a short, when I can spend a crap load of money and time on a feature. Remember El Mariachi was shot for 7000 bucks and that was shot on 16mm film. So, I think I am still in that mindset. But distribution channels have changed, so the short film has once again become a viable way to market yourself.