Leaderboard

Character/rendering are entirely separate issues from photographic basics like DOF and perspective. Certainly, if you like the character then there's nothing wrong with that. Heck, if you find that using an 80mm lens with both a 1.4x teleconverter and 0.7x focal reducer (in series!) to get back to 80mm but with some funky aberrations gives you the results you want then you should certainly do it. My only real objection is with pseudo-explanations - basically "fake physics" - that cross the line into mysticism. Mini correction: techically, aberrations can and do influence DOF.

You are expecting a level of precision in this comparison that is entirely unreasonable. Little things like changes in distortion and entrance pupil position during zooming make it impractical to make a blink comparator test completely perfect. What the comparison does show - with more than sufficient precision - is that you can optically reproduce all aspects of an image shot on a large format with one shot on a smaller format - or vice versa. The notion that, say, an 80mm medium format lens has some inherent "80mm-ness" or "medium formatishness" that somehow stays with that lens after you attach a focal reducer is just silliness. The combination of a 0.7x focal reducer and an 80mm lens is a 56mm lens. Period. Put that 56mm lens on a 24x36mm format camera and it will behave just like any other 56mm lens attached to that camera, the only caveats being related to aberrations and other flaws in the lens and focal reducer.

The Oscars are rubbish. These days, anyway. I believe filmmaking is the most powerful art-form. It has the power to influence hearts and minds, and allow people to feel things - truly feel things. I really believe filmmakng can make the world a better place by means of subjective immersion, empathetic response, and telling the story of the human-condition. Hence, I think success is if your film allows viewers to feel raw emotion via empathy (even with the most questionable of characters), and allow viewers to learn/experience something new from their subjective interpretation of your film. I say this in regards to narrative fiction filmmaking. With documentary filmmaking, I have the same beliefs, but the responsibility of remaining objective on the filmmakers behalf is very important. With documentaries, I believe filmmakers have an obligation to remain objective - to strictly document - like a James Nachtwey photo - for the sake of the truth. However, even then, no matter how objective a documentary maker remains, the viewer will ultimately determine their own truth by means of their own subjective interpretation/research - well, I hope they do, anyway.

Of course results are what count. My 2 cents: just don't get caught up in a possibly expensive quest for medium format glass assuming there is a super different, unique, mythical look to be achieved. (Not to say that hunting down and using vintage glass is a blast!). Understanding equivalence can help one understand what results can be expected from any combination of sensor size and lens. Yes, there are unique combo's at the extremes of the range (no m43 equivalent lens for a 50mm f1.0 on full frame). But in general: for the most frequently used focal lengths, you can find equivalent lenses for the current different sensor sizes, thus yielding (close to) identical optical results.

Thanks for creating the animated gif which clearly shows equivalence, even when the settings aren't exact (which mostly effects shadows- bokeh matches pretty nicely). If you want to see perfection, dig up the computer graphics renderings from one of the "FF/MF look" threads on this forum: the results are pixel perfect (probably (photon) ray-traced optics). I think what people are liking about the MF lenses is their character, and even what some might call artifacts (including artifacts from the focal reducer).

It is an AgaScope lens. It was built by a Swedish industrial firm during the widescreen craze of the late 50s/early 60s. It was mainly used in Sweden, although some sets made it to Eastern Europe. The set was fairly sparse and included a 46mm and a 75mm. There weren't any zooms or wide focal lengths available, so the modern day appeal of these lenses is limited. Quality should be on par with other early anamorphic systems of continental Europe like Dyaliscope or Totalvision.

Well I know I will be burned at the stake here, but shooting real film in this day and age I think is, well a waste of good money, if you ask me. With so many high end and low end cameras that have raw I see no need to go that route anymore. Most people alive don't care about film anyways. The film look maybe, film nah. And heck a BMPCC can get that look. I am sure as hell not buying a film movie camera, or film photo camera if they give me one. Those days are done. Give me a 8k Red Weapon, not a Bolex!

You should be aware that this is a religious discussion. Comparisons, and discussions about comparisons, should be avoided and only discussed in private!

This discussion reminds me of similar ones for analog vs. digital audio, vinyl/tape vs. digital, tubes vs. MOSFETs, one preamp vs. another preamp, one mic vs. another, crisp and clinical vs. warm and creamy, etc. Head on over to GearSlutz for a taste of audio drama for those inclined: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/ (around 10 million posts!). It's a great resource for audio related questions for filmmaking too. In agreement with what @Brian Caldwell just said- these lens combos are creating interesting character, analog optical filters (transfer functions), which is art, and that is cool. It has nothing to do with sensor size per se, only the combination of optics to get the desired (or discovered!) look. Here's an example of Shane Hurlbut comparing Leica Summicron-C to Cooke S4, same sensor size (Super35), and getting vastly different results (his perception, some of you may even disagree with his results): http://www.thehurlblog.com/lens-tests-leica-summicron-c-vs-cooke-s4-film-education/ To wrap it all up: Leica Summicron-C Lenses: Flatter image Makes Monette look more sophisticated and older Makes her look wider than the Cooke S4 More of a white out with lens flares; doesn’t do as well as the Cooke S4 with lens flares. Bokeh less stop signing, more round Neutral lens Less detail in her face Doesn’t hold highlights as well as Cooke S4 Less contrast Cooke S4 Lenses: More three dimensional quality Makes Monette look younger Makes her look skinnier Better with lens flares than the Summicron-C lenses Slightly more yellow than the Summicron-C Bokeh has more of a stop signing effect More detail in her face Holds highlights more than the Summicron lenses More contrast Thanks @bunk for creating these excellent computer renderings, which physically simulate perfect lenses and sensors via ray tracing photon paths for different sensor sizes and using perfect mathematical equivalence with pixel perfect results: http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/20975-full-frame-aesthetic/?do=findComment&comment=167154 @Mattias Burling offered $100 if the images matched perfectly (if I read the thread correctly, see link above). Mattias did you pay bunk? The time and effort to set up and render those examples was worth way more than $100, and should end any further arguments regarding sensor size for anyone interested in a scientific and rational discussion (bunk also included the Cinema 4D project files for anyone to replicate as per the Scientific Method). @gatopardo replicated the results with VRay (another photon ray tracer) and 3DSMax. Mattias' comments on medium format lenses being very cheap and 'free' in some cases is very useful information for those admiring the kinds of looks possible with a focal reducer and old medium format lenses, which create interesting analog filters which a lot of people love. As noted by Hurlbut and others, the Cooke S4 causes distortion and has other artifacts which make people look thinner, more 3D, better highlights, etc. Imperfection is the spice of art- makes the flavor interesting which will be loved by many where different forms of spice will be loved by others (or for some uses, no spice at all- clinically accurate (Sony/Zeiss for example)). Like comparing Neve/Avalon preamps (warm/colored) to Grace (clinically clean). Neither better than the other, chocolate vs. vanilla...

So was the NX1 Not saying they are going to close shop or go under just yet. But getting awards doesn't always help.

I would say: Give me any camera with BlackMagic specs, a tilting LCD, Nikon Flat in prores and maybe some 5-axis IBIS for $1500 or less and I will sell off everything but my Fuji

To me success in filmmaking is when I actually finish it and get my expression out. My skill will continue to grow over time but success shouldn't be measured by an award. I believe it's a personal thing really. In 20 years YouTubers will be recognized by the Academy though. The Emmys will be first.

Sounds to me like you might be one of those that couldn't tell the difference and is a bit upset about it... Open question to all, If film was so bad why do many of the best film makers still use it? And no no no, don't give me the old "they don't know better" or "they are idiots", "just nostalgic" Anyone wanting to make such a claim must first present us with evidence to the multiple Oscar statues they have won. I sometimes cant believe that there have been people from this very forum stating that a guy like Stephen Spielberg would have used the Samsung NX1 because of its technical superiority instead of film, but choose not to because he is a "hack" or because he doesn't know the NX1 exist... Give me a fu..ing break!

THANK GOD SOMEBODY SAID IT! I have been using my GH4 commercially since it came out - it is one of the pillars of my business. I can tell you for a fact that paying clients notice (in approximateorder of importance) - engaging content, good sound , lighting,dynamic range , saturation and contrast pop, resolution/ definition (often they want less if its a more mature female talking head) and then waaaay down the list is accurate skin tones I actually SLIGHTLY prefer the Canon look over panasonic but have been more than happy with Panasonic's colors. You can waste a lot of productive time grading - my advice to being productive is to get a nice look in camera and get on with the process of refining your story - do a basic cut and paste grade at the end if you REALLY think its necessary. Deliver the project to your client and get on with your next project. I am not as strict on color accuracy and don't mind a look - mostly because it is part of our job to take viewers on a journey.

OK...let me create a shitstorm...all this crap about color science is fucking exhausting...so I'll say....in a camera choice, for me, I prefer Panasonic as more color accurate...I don't want a camera or a computer or a fucking iPhone to create colors that are NOT in front of me and make me think what an incredible photographer I am...it's an easy cheat IMO...I prefer to start with an accurate WB and have a colorist do what I need....in post....to suit the storyline or the mood I'm attempting to create...that's all I want from a camera...an unvarnished image of what is in front of me...for me, the rest comes from post....very little is really ever created by zooming in 400% on still image on a desktop and finding flaws in images.... on the other hand a lot of beautiful work is created by people with imagination on deeply flawed cameras...and reading between the lines, I love this camera....warts and all....

I think your right. It will be pretty much like the GH4. A great camera that some love and others feel disappointed. We will then make a little list of features that would turn it into the perfect camera. By the time a new camera with those features arrive we have made a new little list of the next couple of must haves. And so we dance.

Stumbled upon a pair of lenses at a local fleemarket today that will be good for comparing to an 80mm with a x0.7 crop (56mm FF). My GF wanted to buy a chair and the seller was asking $20 bucks. I said $25 if she threw in the two Helios 44 - 58mm f2 lenses she had. One silver and one black. Turns out the silver was the 13 bladed version I will of course compare to modern glass as well using the Nikkor 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8. And the modern Zeiss prime from earlier. But I thought against other vintage options could be interesting as well.

Hey, I visited NYC in winter last year for a week and I brought my A7S ii, and made this small travel video, made the edit a bit more narrative allthough it was unscripted footage. Also used a DJI ronin-m, and pp was mostly pp4(which is kind off a hassle, as I like colors from slog2 way more, but the noise at night from slog2 is even worse, however I could have used a stop more as the DR at night is high when you have these building lights, but general rule of A7S is to ETTR 2 stops , so maybe in the end I should have used slog2 and denoised it). Cheers

hahaha true.

Hey, just sharing some images I took with my adapter and camera. These are shot with my A7s or A7rii + Pentax 645 Kipon Speed Booster + Contax 80mm f/2 (Modified) A7s A7rii A7rii A7rii

I hear you i have kowa B&H i did a test with wide angle lens and kowa kowa just has this cinematic fell and look right out of camera

They're absolutely still worth it, as cropping just sucks! It's not the same thing at all, as you'll never be able to replicate the creamy out of focus qualities of an anamorphic. Also, the great thing about them is that they really do/can minimise the video feel of some cameras. What i really like about adaptors is that you're not beholden to one look, you can change the taking lens & by doing so alter the look/feel of the image. So, if you want different scenes in your piece to have a distinct & different feel to them, you can. However, if you're a modern clinical sharpness enthusiast, who doesn't appreciate/understand the various different types of flares or image distortions then stay away from them - as they'll drive you crazy!

Paying rent.

Success is when you can post a still on instagram and get hundreds of likes without having inserted any hashtags.

If anything, I'd expect some Super! Exciting! New! 1-inch sensor! mirrorless cam announcements from Nikon that nobody wants and nobody will buy. Then again, Nikon has revealed time and time again that they only really care about what Canon is doing, so maybe they go all out and try to rival the marvelous *cough* EOS M, since Canon is doing so well with those, right? I'm afraid they're not going to make it, which, sadly, will let Canon become even more dinosaur with their pricing and innovation without a direct DSLR competitor on the market. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see an awesome video-centric mirrorless Nikon just like the rest of you would, but I just don't think the video enthousiast market is big enough for these companies to bother with--or turn much of a profit on. We would all buy it, yes, but us camera/video/hybrid/mirrorless nerds are definitely not the most common demographic. Look at Canon, who happily ignores our pleas and survives and thrives with the intro-DSLR market, soccer moms and high school kids who go into Sam's Club or Best Buy and want to buy a "real camera". Most of the time the 18-55mm kit lens is the only one they ever use, and eventually it collects dust. Canon doesn't care, because that's their bread and butter! If Nikon is really planning to axe their lower-end camera lines, I just don't see that being a good move business-wise. Sure, there is higher mark-up and higher return on prosumer bodies, but also way less sales. Too little, too late, I'm afraid.

Enough of the false modesty, raw emotions and shit, I wanna cruise in a purple Lamborghini Diablo after preaching about global warming. Oscars suck? Maybe but I'll have to get one, my Mum would be so proud.

No need to add to that. Saved me a heap of time.

True. No I only recorded internally. All the reviewers I found who had used a Nika or similar said it wasnt much of a difference.

No. People just love that little Frenchie! Also, for those who cant see the difference between 16mm film and video in his "guess the camera" comparison from a couple years ago, just know that even his dog can tell the difference, but unlike Mattias seems to prefer video.

At least where I live shooting on film is way cheaper than a Red Weapon. And looks better as well imo. Same with stills. I have to shoot alot of film before I reach the cost of a top end DSLR. And for street shooting with for example a Ricoh GR its only APS-C despite being larger than the smaller full frame film model.

Thanks very much - just reserved a used Sony a6500 for £878. Picking it up tomorrow. I compared the image quality and the Sony does look better than the Panasonic. I also liked how wide open I could get the ISO before it started to introduce noise. Gonna pick up an m42 to e-mount adapter, so I can use my existing Yashica lens... and then I'm gonna go vintage lens shopping to expand my collection.

I will be spending $10 (Australian) on an old super 16 (I think) movie camera tomorrow just because it has a roil of (long expired) film with it. After that I guess it will sit in a large box with all the other old toys.

Unity engine? I have no idea (except that many people I know getting started in the industry are jumping ship and learning Unity instead). To me, it's a completely separate medium. But Marvel movies are already full of CGI action and ads are loaded with invisible vfx. Contemporary films already feel a lot like video games, my hope is that Unity and VR (which are their own thing, and incredibly awesome) allow film to get back to what it does well, which is record an event in a more physical and emotional way. I think film feels too much like video games already, and I see the two media diverging in the future (with VR becoming the dominant medium eventually).

Here's an amazingly detailed and informative video of a presentation given by David Mullen ASC on (mainly) simulating daylight.

Yes, Linux has been around for a very long time - but I mean to simplify it, make it as easy as OS X - if Adobe could release it. If they could see the void that is left in the creative professional world that OS X and Windows do not fulfill. Maybe if they teamed up with HP or Dell, like Avid teamed up with HP.

I don't want to rain on the GH5 parade, but I would assume that the camera will not be as good as hyped... it will be good... great even... just not the end all be all a lot of folks are making it out to be... or hoping it will be.

This. Very much this. For bread-and-butter I've been pigeon-holed into filming and cutting speaker events, and the mundane nature of it has been draining to say the least. These days I don't look forward to editing anymore. Hopefully, given a stable income and some space I can re-cultivate creative projects again. Yep. 1080 will do just fine, though I wouldn't really want less than 60fps overcrank! The GH4 became tempting to me this last week due to the 96fps. We'll see how it goes, can't move to another cam if this one doesn't sell, making it a moot point.

True, and I use a combination of Hawaiki Analyzer (http://hawaiki.co/hawaiki.analyzer.html which allows you to select a skin tone from your shot and convert it into a swatch), Color Finale, and the vectorscope/skin tone line in FCPX. It is a bit time consuming but that way I can try to avoid green/magenta faces since I cannot trust my eyes. Yep, and even colour-blind me can see the improvement when I tested GX80, G7, LX100 and E-M5II against my son's face and colour charts. All cameras were colour balanced with the expo-disk and used the same lens (except for the LX100 which is fixed). The LX100 still has some weird lips/skin colours going on.

AFC Tests: B

Sorry, my sarcasm obviously isn't too obvious.

I was reflecting to hyalinejim's comparison. Not sure if you understood my (previous) posts, I was not defending panny colors, I said that you'll open the lumetri panel anyway, so there are plenty of ways of fixing the panny colors. This whole conversation about colors and specs does not lead anywhere and I am getting sick of it. Light a scene and setting the camera properly improves the final image (and colors). Why not choose a camera based on the needs? If you need a REC709 look, buy a broadcast cameras. If you want a camera with various specs you have to live with compromises, like fixing a colour channel in post.

Well I'll be! I destroyed the filter. The edge was soft aluminium so was simple enough to file the edge off and have the glass just fine. This is going to be fun. The filter fits right in. It might be a little loose but once you put a lens on it seems ok. An EF-S lens doesn't seem to fit (probably for the same reason Canon FF cameras can not mount them). That means my 18-55 APSC kit lens is out but my EF 100 f2 is ok (for fit at least). Sticky tape would work well to hold the filter in too I think. Amazing. With my A7s and Fotga adapter I am getting auto focus indoors with a 750nm IR filter and can see easily in the EVF! OP, This will easily take two filters (one inside, one on the lens front though if it is any good or not is another story. Two snaps. The filter glass sitting loose in the adapter and one taken with the lens and filter in place auto focused. This calls for more 43mm filters for me! Thanks for the thread, this will be fun (though add to more cost I can not afford). As for the IR image, remember it is just a first snap in the excitement and is with AF at ISO 51200 and 1/15 with a 100mm lens at f2. Have to check it with my 17 TS-E too!

I use vasile's hack and In 1080 especially 120 fps I can't go over 100mbs without getting dropped frames. Makes the slo mo all choppy.

The medium format look was all about proportionally finer grain, allowing faster films, better in low light, and relatively shallow DOF. Faster full frame primes take the speed advantage away from a lot of medium format lenses. I know this is a relatively slow macro lens, but your reducer is giving you 56mm f2.8 equivalence, with a fairly bulky set up. Do you perceive any advantages?

I 2nd this! @Mattias Burling Also, could you do a DOF "equivalence" test between this set-up and your Digi-Bolex with a prime lens? Thanks for showing these photos. They look spectacular!

They sell versions for both Leica and Sony. The lens mounts so far if Im not mistaken is Hasselblad, Pentax 645, Pentax 67 and Mamiya 645.

I'm finding the same thing, and all the shooting I do under exposing minus 2/3 or thereabouts the color is much fuller and richer. Over exposure makes the colors look washed out, and it's hard to recoup it in post.

Testing Cinema EOS Std. in a place full of dead animals. ISO from 500 to 1600 in HD. Some shots are mush at anything over 2000, some shots are still usable, like the 2 girls with the spooky skellingtons at ISO 5000.

I remember Northrup being ridiculed here on this forum. JCS was the one who came to his “defense” and made the article he linked to in his post one page back. It’s simple math, it’s how things work. It’s not a coincident that Houdini, Max, Maya, SoftImage, Modo, Lightwave, Blender, you name them all will give the same outcome when you set up a camera test. They all use the same math from the beginning of 3D time. Hollywood uses it to produces blockbusters. The test I made was completely clean but you can add distortion to mimic specific lenses and maybe even sensors (wouldn’t surprise me). I’m not a lens specialist but I don’t think a 25mm F0.7 exists in the real world, yet I used it in the example above. But that is not the issue here. The question was what are the full frame aesthetics compared to the others. And they answer should be the technical limitations we have to deal with in every day live. But those will be solved and when that happens, the answer is none. Then the believers will start to point out the differences in characteristics of lenses and or sensors but like Gatopardo said they are there between FF lenses and sensors as well …and since there will be more computer generated lenses within time than vintage lenses, those differences will fade as they will all give the same dull characteristics and you won't be able to tell what camera or lens was used ...and I'm talking about consumer cameras as this is a consumer forum.

Same findings here in VrayCam in 3DsMax. In real world images would always be somewhat different because we can't use the same lens in both bodies. So, the differences will be on the same level as the ones comparing a Canon 50mm 1.4 to the Nikon 50mm 1.4 one. It's each lens distortions and character making the difference rather than equivalence. But this is important because we may not be able to find a specific character of a full frame lens on a "equivalent" crop sensor lens.