Leaderboard

@blondini No, perspective distortion is only affected by distance from the camera to the subject. No matter what sensor/lens combination you use, if the camera and the subjects don't move, then the ratio of the size of two subjects will remain the same. I did a quick and dirty test to illustrate. It's a little imprecise (the camcorder would NOT focus on the guy in front...) For all three images the camera is in the same place. I suspect the small discrepancies in ratio (2.2% error) are mainly due to moving parts inside the camcorder when it zooms, which changes its actual distance from the subject. But this is an easy thing to test yourself. First image is a 4mm lens on a 1/4 type sensor Second image is a 55mm lens on an APS-C sensor As you can see, the ratio of the figures is the same. You could even use a wider lens and the ratio remains, because the distance has not changed: Third image is a 2mm lens on the 1/4 type sensor. Quote from Wikipedia: Yes, it would. As long as the camera is in the same place, the relative size of the plane compared to the people will remain the same regardless of the lens or sensor. If you don't believe me or my Legos, go try it yourself!

You pose that as a rhetorical question, as though the answer is self-evident. But it is a very relevant question. How do you define violence? Is it aways physical? What is the impact of witnessing extreme violence, real or depicted? Can showing a violent film be a form of violence itself? You have already alluded to how films might provoke a physiological and psychological response (nightmares), and have suggested that films like this should be kept from children and "idiots". Why do you suggest these films be censored for some people and not others? Aside from the fact that you have qualified your own argument about censorship in this way, I presume it's because you recognise that exposure to screen violence might have some deleterious effect on at least some people? A cursory examination of the published literature suggest that this is indeed likely to be the case. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29093050 This film has been made. You have linked the trailer, which itself depicts graphic and extreme violence. You suggest that this is for an "art house" audience, but here it is on the internet. It will be downloaded into people's homes, not confined to carefully chosen audiences that have weeded out the vulnerable. So children, youths, "idiots" and all manner of people will watch this trailer, and will watch this film, because in this day and age it is easily available, and because parents don't always take proper care or don't always understand the effects of such films on their children's and their own development. And who knows what effect these films have on the psyche of the general community over time. We are running that experiment now. People used to think smoking and asbestos were harmless. The real question is this: Is curtailing individual freedoms in some instances justified due to probable harmful effects on the community? I think in most rational and civic minded communities the answer would be yes. People who call themselves "Artists" are no exception. This is not sinister big government at play. This is about building civil and healthy societies. Where that line is drawn is a matter of debate. But to argue against any form of restriction is to neither accept nor care that some forms of expression might be harmful and might have harmful impacts on others. This NYT article on the current controversy provides some interesting insights. Based on the final chilling paragraphs LvT may well be sociopathic. I certainly wouldn't want him as my banner boy for freedom of expression, but then again if you argue against censorship in any form then you are arguing not only for LvT's work, but also for far worse. Good luck with that. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/movies/lars-von-trier-the-house-that-jack-built-cannes-film-festival.html

Companies would love it if everyone believed this , but unfortunately (or fortunately for our wallet) it is not the case. I have built and bought too many computers over the years. Currently I am using a MacPro from 2010 with 12 cores, 64gb ram, an M.2 NVMe boot drive and a Titan X GPU and I can tell you this is no way obsolete: That was of course when Apple made computers for professionals . But with windows, which have even more choices, you can easily update any part of the system. Even with different generation CPUs you just need to upgrade the CPU+motherboard. RAM technology does not change that fast and easily lasts for ~10years. Future-proofing is very important when building a computer. Unless someone has either too much cash to waste or no idea how to build a computer that is.

Somewhere between 0.95 and 1.4 - definitely no more stopped down than that. The EXIF says ISO 200 and 1/6400th so probably closer to 0.95. I had some video tests I shot with a model a couple of a years ago with the Voigt 17.5 vs the Pana 12-35 at 17ish, both at 2.8. The difference in 3D pop was quite remarkable but I can't find the files now.

Yes, but moreover, LvTr with film as this last one doesn't provoke anything, doesn't reveal nor explore anything, it is legitimate and welcome part of brain-and-feel-washing industry. Seen inside of global direction of modeling human mind - It just well serves in plan of step-by-step habituation to projected goal as described, say, in Huxley's dystopias. With its intention and articulation, today it is simply cheap commercial movie for so-called or so-self-esteem upper western public. There's no elaboration as inside, say, Clockwork orange, there's no intrinsic form-call to dilemma or critic dialogue, it is just big movie-spot. For me, fundamental conception of article is wrong - problem of this movie is not at all that it deserve censorship, which is senseless. Problem is, not that it is just irrelevant by its cheap-cliche idea, but that it is deeply opportunistic and easy-understandable commercial - although impudently promoted as rebellion. Deprived from subtlety, it is not achievement of rebel, but of well-established screw in industry.

Yes to a,certain degree. Ram sticks are available up to 16gb. A motherboard will typically have 4 to 8 slots. Ram is dual channel which basically means if you only want 16gb you should buy 2x 8 rather than 1x 16. You still eventually get bitten into upgrading your ram sticks when new motherboards come out that don't support your dram generation.

@OliKMIA You raise excellent points, however I still believe that "black box" testing as I've described above would still be useful. The same kind of testing would apply, but you'd have to re-test given firmware updates. It doesn't matter what the mechanisms are within the gimbal, it can be reduced to a "black box" and tested by providing a known input vibration and measuring the output vibration (which would ideally be zero above some cut-off frequency). In analog audio circuits there are two main parts of the circuit - the signal path and the power supply. The job of the signal path is to create an output signal as close as possible to the input signal but amplified (voltage and/or current amplification). The job of the power supply is to take the awful noisy mess the AC power from the power company normally is and make it a DC power source with zero AC on it, both at idle and during heavy amplifier loads. There are dozens / hundreds of designs for signal paths with varying architectures (global feedback / local feedback / zero feedback / Class-A / Class-AB / Class-D / MOSFETs / JFETS / pentodes / triodes / etc) and there are as many power supply designs (linear / regulated / passive filtering / active filtering / valve / solid-state / etc) but all of these can still be tested by looking at what they output with a given typical load. In fact, these don't even require the same testing signal to be applied for calibrated testing setups to create measurements that can be compared to each other. Everything I said above about audio applies to the analog components of video processing and broadcast as well, just at a higher bandwidth and with the video embedded on a carrier wave instead of 'raw' through the circuitry, but the principles remain. If an analog video signal path had a high-frequency rolloff or the power-supply was noisy or didn't have a low output impedance it would result in visual degradation of the picture - something that the test pattern would ruthlessly reveal, which is why it designed and used.

I go along with what Metabones says about their gear. Oh and what do you think the difference will be if you look at (say) an M43 sensor through a 35mm f2 lens VS looking at it through a speedboosted 50mm 2.8 lens? (example not relying on exact match). I will leave it there.

Actually for gimbal the software and tuning is extremely important if not more than the hardware. Essentially at the center of the gimbal you have an IMU (motion sensors) with gyroscope an accelerometer to feel the motion and send counter information to the motors. But then, you need to tune the filtering and the PIDs which is critical. Vibration filtering is only one of the parameters and you must select a cut off value so this is subjective based on the use. Handheld use won't have the same profile as drone use, and even drones have a lot of variation based on the vibration frequency induced by the propellers and the resonance of the frame which in turns depends of the frame rigidity and rpm of the motors. The loop speed is important also (refresh frequency/rate of the sensors). Having oversized motor to handle the load despite non-optimum balancing is also necessary (sometime the lack of balance is simply due to the CG shift when the camera moves up and down). So it's hard to give clear metrics. In my personal experience, the hardware is not the limiting factor nowadays. You can find plenty of powerful IMUs and processing unit on ebay for a few dollars. The difference between a bad gimbal and a good one is the hardware integration and PID tuning. @kye "I don't want to be that person, I just want that person to tell me the answers so that I can buy the right device when I'm in the market for one! This thread is kind of an open letter to that person - please go ahead!!" Unfortunately there is not simple answer, a DxO of gimbal would show the resolution, loop speed, motor force, etc. of the gimbals but without actual real life testing, such metrics wouldn't be very useful because integration and tuning is key. For instance Sony camera have "shitty" skintones but when Nikon implement Sony sensor the colors are nicer our of the box.

I would recommend not to worry too much about future-proofing. Whatever you buy will be somewhat outdated in two years, and mostly obsolete in five. You'll need to know what you need in the near future, and buy that.

@horshack If I'm not mistaken, pixel vignetting is entirely due to angle of incidence on the sensor. Smaller sensors have less oblique angles of incidence at the corners. I could be wrong, but I bet that pixel vignetting won't be a factor in this comparison. I'd love to see evidence either way, though.

It seems to me the price of getting bigger sensors into cameras is falling faster than the cost of getting bigger faster lenses to make up for the smaller sensors.

I would get a MoBo with more PCI slots. They can be used for many expansions, including GPU, I/O ports, capture cards, WiFi cards, and more. I would also get a case with lots of large fans. I've got something like 3 120mm and 2 140mm fans, which keeps it cool enough to prevent the loud GPU fans from kicking in. Lots of large fans => low RPM => less overall noise.

“What I do support is the freedom of the filmmaker to make a film of his choosing without censorship.” The danger here is that this statement is difficult to distinguish from: ”...is the freedom of the person to behave in a way of his choosing without censorship.” That is anarchy. In a JCSesque happy psycho-utopia it might work but in practice there is no evidence that it can or does or has. In a civilised society there are - and must be - certain moral standards and rules which govern the behaviour and actions of individuals. Those who break those rules are liable to sanctions. And that, in my opinion, has to apply to “filmmakers” just as much as a school teacher or any other occupation or label. Yes, “creative types” push, bend and test the rules - but that is an entirely different statement than to suggest that a filmmaker should be allowed to operate entirely out-with any moral boundary. No one individual or category of individuals deserves to be exempt from the moral control which “society” - broadly understood and interpreted and not even necessarily universal - deems appropriate. Remember Zach? I’m sure he described himself as a “filmmaker”. He wasn’t allowed to express his creativity in the way he thought appropriate because he “breached” the “rules” of a “community”. Note that, as far as I am aware, no one proposed that he should have been stopped before making the film. He had the “freedom” to make it - society retains an assumed moral authority and freedom to respond in whatever way it seems appropriate. Freedom - the key word here possibly - is never unrestrained or unqualified or independent of a given framework. ”He is here to trouble us and to prod, to get us out of our comfort zone and possibly even to give a few of us nightmares.” Would that justification also apply to a terrorist? Once the statement is qualified then it inevitably acquires an unresolved ambiguity and “dies the death of a thousand qualifications”. An interesting and thought-provoking article.

In final testing stages now, so early next week hopefully.

At the end of the day you can project the same image into a smaller space. That's physics. What Northrup was suggesting was wrong. An F2.8 aperture is always an F2.8. The optics don't physically change shape when you have a smaller sensor behind it. A lens that covers a smaller sensor at F2.8 is still a wider opening than F5.6 - with the same brightness as a full frame F2.8. So no, manufacturers should not be calling a Micro Four Thirds F2.8 lens a F5.6 lens at all. Using equivalent aperture to calculate depth of field vs full frame, is the only useful use of it. It's for us in our heads to use. It doesn't apply to other aspects. If you put the Canon 24-70mm F2.8 on the Speed Booster XL 0.64x on 1.86x GH5S, you get... A 1.19x crop sensor, practically full frame. An F1.8 effective aperture. 15-45mm focal length on a 1.86x crop sensor, so an equiv. range of 28-84mm. Not bad I'd say. You forgot the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 on a Speed Booster 0.71x as well. That is a 28-52mm F2.7 equiv. on the M43 SB and Super 35.

Voigtlander vs SLR Magic: I have the 25mm 0.95 Voigtlander and it's amazing. Only thing is it has a bit of bloom wide open but it's useable for video. The image is lovely. The SLR Magic 12mm T1.6 is nice enough and a lot cheaper. It has a natural look (not like the Lumix lenses) and is a bit warmer than the Voigt. It's a bit harder to focus as well. What I really feel is that T1.6 is not fast enough for me at times on the GH5. M43 vs APSC/FF I have the GH5, a Speedbooster Ultra and the Sigma 18-35mmm 1.8 (1.2 with the Speedbooster) and there are good things to say about the combo. What I really like is the IBIS as it means I can go handheld in run'n'gun situations. The 4K 10bit and 4K 50p are great and give a lot of flexibility in post (edited in 1080p). But....it has 4 weaknesses for me for video. Coming from a Canon C100 mk1, the GH5 really isn't great in lowlight. With the same Sigma lens I could go to 6400-8000 iso with the Canon and with the GH5 it's pushing it at 3200. Whilst the Voigtlander improves things I don't feel it's able to really compete. Another problem is focussing. The LCD and EVF are miles better in the GH5 but being able to punch in to check focus is a godsend in the C100. In the GH5 if you haven't nailed it you are punished (we won't even go into AF!). Ergonomics is another issue. The GH5 is a vast improvement over the Canon DSLRs I have used before but on a C100 everything is in the right place and works. I now find myself thinking about buying a loupe (Vary-i) or mini rig for the GH5 which is not why I bought it! I wanted to go lighter! The other thing I notice is that somehow (voodoo?) the small Canon (WDR) files seem to have far more dynamic range than the GH5 (even 10bit). The Canon is somehow able to make the image work and handles complicated lighting (colour temp or lack of light) much better. At least that's my opinion! So last night I got very little sleep as I contemplated selling the GH5 and buying a C100mk2! Why o why hasn't Canon produced a 4k 50p C100 mk3!!!

The Voigt is much better than it looks in that comparison, it's an incredible lens. One of the few I really regret selling. I posted a still from my portfolio taken with the GH4/Voigt 17.5 here: https://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/6396-lenses/?page=162&tab=comments#comment-233871 I felt like the Voigts coupled with the GH4 had the most mojo of any non medium format camera I've used for raw stills, and they made the video look a lot nicer too.

I had the 35 and 55 many moons ago and as with the 105 they'll probably be making a return if I see them at the right price. I am writing this on the bus from Narita airport into Tokyo with a small hit list of used glass to pick up over the next week. They are both on it but my priority is actually an 85 1.4 Contax Zeiss to round off my set and the 100-300 if it's the right price. The Mamiya 645 35 f3.5 that I picked up last week for dirt cheap is every bit as good as I thought it was so the 80 and the 210 will be picked up as well for the cheap prices they go for here.

Yep, perspective is only affected by the distance of the objects to the lens. The focal length & sensor size do not affect perspective in any way. A 25mm on a m4/3 sensor with an aperture of f/1.4 will have the same perspective and DoF as the 50mm on a FF sensor with an aperture of f/2.8. The other aspects of the image like distortion or busyness of the bokeh depend on the design of the lens and not the focal length/aperture/sensor size.

A couple more shots from the Canon 28mm 1.8. I got this lens for an insanely low price and it's quickly becoming one of my favorite lenses. Even without IS, I am able to go handheld on FF, which will make this lens indispensable going forward.

The left have become a bunch of whiny, pearl-clutching Victorians. They've gone completely off the deep end with the offense culture and all the divisive race-baiting and reverse sexism/racism. Hillary was the last time I vote with them. Glad we still have a few brave people like Kanye and von Trier who truly don't give a fuck, but they are few and far between.

This is quite amazing. Congrats BTM_Pix! It looks lovely and ergonomic. It also has a bit of style. Looks like a Gameboy from the 90's updated for 2018 In a good, minimalist way. I am all for stand-alone physical interface to an app. Touch screen and apps in heat of the moment can let me down. May I ask how many have you made? Would you like a guest blog post about it on front page?

The Pocket im i right?... I partially shot this mini-documentary with the bmpcc as a B cam. A cam was a Red Scarlet, it's incredible how the DNG files match perfectly with the Red footage. BTW, as many of you i'm looking anxiously to get my hands on the new 4k

This is a portrait I took with the Voigtlander 17.5mm and GH4 a couple of years ago. With all these cool M43 cameras out/on the horizon I wish I'd kept the Voigty set now. . . and added the 10.5.