Jump to content

richg101

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,828

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by richg101

  1. richg101
    I thought I'd throw another spanner in the works regarding sensor size. What I wanted to discuss is the ramifications of needing to open your lens up wide in order to obtain shallow dof. Something that few seem to consider - me included until I started doing tests, is the fact that though we have lots of fast lenses for smaller sensors, are they actually capable of resolving as much sharp 'in focus' detail as a longer lens closed down a bit. This vid shows the difference between a Noritar medium format 80mm f2 (at f2) on full frame versus a hasselblad 150mm f2.8 (at f4), shooting medium format (60mm x 34mm). It clearly shows how much of a difference having a lens working away from its limits can deliver a sharper in focus subject and as such deliver overall a greater overall in and out of focus separation or what we like to call 3d pop.
  2. richg101
    But for every one 42mm f1.2 lumix lens that gets sold, canon sells about fifty of their 50mm L lenses. The development costs of both lenses will be very much the same. The L lens maybe costs twice the manufacturing cost if both lenses were made in equal numbers but since Canon probably sell one 50mm f1.2 lens to just about every professional photographer the world over - or just about every 5d or 1d owner in the world, they can manufacture in incredible numbers and thus deal in very large, easy to organise manufacture and material supply and run very efficiently. Also, the 50mm L lens is a normal focal length. the 42mm lumix is a telephoto - again dictating numbers sold.
  3. richg101
    I have a 180mm f2.8 Schneider Xenar I want to fit but need to fabricate a 6000 mount for forbes. long lenses are lovely on the system. MP? what you mean? Noritar is a lovely lens (for character). it's not crazy sharp, but not soft wide open either. The main reason for this lens is for the swirly bokeh on medium format - nothing can match it. Since I am using it here on a crop sensor, the best portion of the lens is being used. yet still ,wide open it shows its weakness. A true challenge would be an 85mm f1.2 canon L on full frame against the 150 at f2.8. I still think the hassy would have the edge in terms of overall zingyness of the in focus areas. Anyone wanna give me their 85mm L lens? Andrew? :)
  4. richg101
    first shot is A7R full frame (36mmx20mm(16:9)) with Noritar 80mm f2 (@ f2) second shot is Forbes 70 (*Boring Mode) (60mmx34mm(16:9)) with Hasselblad 150mm f2.8 (@ f4) being able to use a longer lens with a smaller aperture allows a lot greater fidelity on the in focus portion of the image due to the lens performance being so much better.
  5. richg101
    I think this is where his arguments are stemming from. He is saying that the iso number is not tangible since manufacturers can use exactly the same sensor, yet gain them differently for the same iso level they display on the lcd screen. - the fuji example - their iso levels are gained differently yielding cleaner high iso's - even though you need to pull them up by 1/3rd of a stop in order to obtain the same exposure as on a canon at the same iso.
  6. richg101
    well done Nick. I'm glad you put this into motion. Awesome job of modding the focus throw to a single turn. I grabbed a couple of these and had a play and its only drawback was the multiple turns in the helicoid. The best thing with this lens is that it forces you to go longer focal length and as a result the anamorphic aesthetic is boosted. And damn, that guy is taking the piss with his pricing. Looks like he decided to turn his over pricing skills onto the little b+h rather than his usual ridiculous prices on huge and unusable gold schneiders. I wonder how many more sleazy chancers will come out of the woodwork and start listing these for $1000+...
  7. richg101
    I think the only way his point can stand up about multiplying iso by the crop factor would be if each sensor had the same resolution (same number of pixels) and that each sensor also had the same base iso and technology, in combination with using just full frame glass. He disregards the fact that a lens designed for m4/3 used on m4/3 sensor actually has a t-stop that matches that of a similar lens designed for full frame when used on a full frame sensor. If we didnt have lenses designed specifically for smaller sensors, or speed boosters the points he makes would be valid. Unfortunately for his theories we don't live in that world.
  8. richg101
    I quickly shot a test to show the difference between aps-c (sorry I don't own a m43 camera) and full frame. first is an aps-c shot was taken with an 85mm sonnar f2.8 (at f2.8) second is the full frame shot was taken with a 135mm sonnar f2.8 (at f4.8) I used a tokina +0.4 diopter on both shots it enhance the effects so they are clearer What I see from these shots is that though the actual dof is very very similar indeed, it is the full frame with longer lens closed down slightly that has the edge due to being stopped down and thus obtaining way greater image quality. The smaller sensor needs the lens to be opened wider in order to get as shallow dof and thus is closer to its theoretical limit. I see this difference as rather a minimal factor in videography terms, however as resolutions increase and when a subject taking up less space on the frame is captured in shallow dof this is where the resolution might create more of a 3d pop. On medium format we'd need a 200mm lens set at f8 to match this fov and dof combination and thus the lens performance goes up another notch due to being that much closer to the optimal f11 point. Opinions?
  9. richg101
    I'm not saying I agree completely with his points - and feel he goes about delivery of his points incorrectly, but some of the theories make some sense if the term ISO is used less rigidly than normal.
  10. richg101
    You've misunderstood his point. He is saying that the iso you're seeing displayed on the lcd screen is no longer a tangible figure due to the fact that inside the camera the sensor may be being ragged harder to obtain the same exposure (assuming photosites are similar size). This is something I had never considered. The fact that on ex tele mode on the gh2 or on aps-c crop mode on my A7R the noise levels are greater would go some way towards backing up his statements
  11. richg101
    I quite liked this video i have to say. A lot of it I found a bit pointless, but it prompted me to reconsider and re evaluate how I consider some of the factors he discusses. His point about having to factor the sensor crop into the lens equivs is valid, but I think he disregards the fact that most of us know a 12-35mm f2.8 lumix will never create the same image as a huge 24-70 2.8 on full frame.
  12. richg101
    A focal reducer / speed booster does 2 things:- 1. changes the focal length of the lens into a shorter one (from 50mm to 35mm or similar). 2. changes the lens format into one for a smaller imaging area. a 50mm full frame lens on speed booster + aps-c is no longer a 50mm lens. it is a 35mm lens with an image circle for a smaller imaging area. the field of view and depth of field ratio may be the same on paper, but the results are being delivered by two completely different factors. I like to compare it to wheels on a car. smaller wheels will allow quicker initial start, but bigger wheels will allow a greater top speed. assuming you worked out the point where the bigger wheeled car caught up with the car with the smaller wheels you could say both are equal, however in order to get to the same point on the track the actual duration from the beginning to the point of stopping the race would have been spent at different speeds for each car. - the smaller wheels reaching top speed quickly- having the initial advantage, while the bigger wheels take a longer time but due to the slightly faster top speed it eventually catches up. The bigger wheels will dictate a more linear and smoother speed increase. The smaller wheels will dictate a more logarithmic and curved speed increase hitting top speed earlier. Some drivers prefer a fast start, and some prefer a greater top speed. Same with cameras/lenses
  13. richg101
    If I can find the time I will shoot some tests with my medium format dof adaptor vs full frame vs aps-c later today. There is a difference. Neither one nor the other is better or worse. They're just different.
  14. richg101
    Your assumption is a little flippant and appears to be lacking comprehension of the subjects being discussed here. If you are to attempt conclusion of the subject rather than contribute to it please back your conclusion up with some something to fortify your conclusive quotes.
  15. richg101
    I think the main issue is that it has to be a specific type of shot to really highlight the differences. For instance there will be a certain distance where that 'POP' from a longer focal length in combination with the field of view and size of in-focus subject benefits from the subtle differences in in-focus fall off. I also think that it is to do with the actual lens performance too. for example most 80mm f2.8 medium format lenses will deliver better overall performance/sharpness/contrast than the 50mm f1.2 you'll need to use wide open to match the fov and shallowness of the dof. Sure a Canon 50mm f1.2L is great wide open, but its not as sharp as a 80mm planar f2.8 wide open. I definitely dont think it is a placebo effect. I think the differences between the way a longer focal length and slower aperture separates the in and out of focus areas in a different way to a wider lens and bigger aperture is a lot more quantifiable than the differences between certain 'copper cable technology' and other such hi-fi placebos. ( I have some history designing within the esoteric hi-fi market as it happens, and am very aware of some of the crap the marketing teams come up with) I think it's more accurate to compare the format/lens combination to the intricate differences between vinyl and cd. Neither one is better than the other, but to a certain group of people, vinyl sounds better than a cd and vice versa.
  16. richg101
    Are you are referring to the differences between how a larger sensor/longer/slower lens renders in and out of focus areas differently to a smaller sensor/wider/faster lens? If so, I too wish there were published tests and explanations on this interesting subject. I notice the difference - and I know a lot of people don't realise the difference. To me an 80mm f2.8 on medium format looks nicer than a 50mm f1.2 on full frame even though the fov and dof are matched on paper, the look is completely different
  17. richg101
    i don't think it looks like 'video'. but it certainly doesnt look like film either. The look pretty much gave me a feeling of moving still images, stylised in a fashion suitable for the current sportswear marketing style. This look will be coming from the lenses, in combination with the full frame image area - both of which are the stable diet of still photographers working on this type of material for big brands the world over. Set the same equipment up for video work and when done superbly like this, with a really nice lighting style i think it works really nice for this type of promo. The fact that this looks as technically good as if it had been shot on Alexa (thanks to the amazing raw hack), but using a non cinema camera and lenses other than cookes or zeiss cinema lenses the obviousness of the repurposed still photography equipment will be boosted due to the rest of the production value being of a level which normally would include an alexa and cookes.
  18. richg101
    Olympus zuiko primes. 24f2, 35f2, 50f1.8 and 85f2. all single coated. they'll give a lot more of a 'cine' look to a visual piece than a set of Samyang. They'll cost less, last longer and hold their value for eternity. removing the hard stops and adding a focus gear and using T1.5 instead of f1.4 onto a set of modern chinese lenses aimed at the current dslr movie making consumer (the red line to make them look like L lenses says it all) does not equal a cine lens IMO. Samyangs don't seem to create a look like Cooke's or Master Primes to me. either a full set of oly's or blow the lot on a zeiss 85mm f1.4 (contax) and shoot with only that. one thing for sure, the zeiss 85 will be the best single lens to acquire if a cinema feel is required. :)
  19. richg101
    Sony don't think that way:( They will impart the same old consumer way of thinking to this -leaving the good stuff out and save 10bit for the next model, or the next model, or the next model.. Wish they'd just slow down and release products that last 2-3 years instead of releasing a new model every year with only marginal improvements. here is how the A7S should be released and aimed at the pro market:- Marketed as a specialist low light camera as well as a 'c cam' / 'stills + movie' camera for those using F65, F55 and F5 X-AVC 10 Bit 1080p up to 50p internal X-AVCs 4k internal body shape bigger and bulkier (as the A7 + battery grip) to fit proper connectors, better processing and space for one of their bigger batteries architecture to accommodate updated firmware over a 3 year period £3500 price tag Instead they're releasing a camera perfect for consumers which will be ooo'd and ahh'd over by the dumb sony alpha rumours readers for the first month then forgotten by them and the support team in 8 months time.
  20. richg101
    I wonder how many repeat bookings that man gets for jobs? It's like he's a caricature of himself after a whole box of pro plus. I wanted to reach into the computer screen and shove a big ball of cotton wool in his mouth
  21. richg101
    Superb. Only 35mm film and a better score would have made this any more authentically cinema for me. I wish I had your skills
  22. richg101
    what his videos scream out is that the camera and the lens he is using are the least important aspect in the whole production. His resources are likely spent elsewhere; socialising with fellow creatives, travelling and subconsciously scouting locations, living a cultured French lifestyle - he probably has parents who are also artistic or creative. Writing, reading, watching independent cinema. I imagine he's a guy who would decline an alexa 4:3 and a set of round fronts because it would hinder his apparent efficiency and holistic working process to film making. I'd also hazard a guess Kendy won't even have realised he had a staff pick award or the notice a boost in vimeo plays thanks to this topic on eoshd. On the complete opposite end of the spectrum we have the forum culture who are driven by the technology side of things. Resources spent on things like:- electricity, regularly upgraded computers and camera gadgets, socialising with other tech driven people in an artificial social environment, sitting at a computer desk rather than viewing the world, writing (forum posts), reading (forum posts), watching camera test videos rather than real films. Obviously there are half way housers who are interested in both creativity and technology but ultimately having the technology and consuming taking up valuable time is going to impact on the pure creative aspect.
  23. richg101
    I've always been of the opinion that hd, then 4k, then 8k etc have been quantifiable numbers which happen to be marketing friendly and that it didn't really matter. I'm not getting a gh4 since I want full frame, but this test really does show how really great that extra resolution is. If you want it lower res, mis focus slightly or whack a gaussian blur of 2pixels over the image and you have good old 1080p. the issue is that a lot of users won't consider or implement all of the factors that make up a true cinema experience and the added resolution will only serve to multiply the obviousness of the failings and the pointlessness of the users decision to shoot 4k (who will likely be a consumer under the impression they are a professional, rather than a professional moving with the current trend). It'll be when Andrew does a creative piece with the camera and his cookes or someone like Hugo Goudsward takes the camera and makes it work for him that we'll see the jump where the resolution really takes it up a notch. just to clarify I completely disregarded the term 4k within a consumer camera, and the term gh4 (due to my dislike of anything smaller than full frame:)- until this test. 8 months ago the 5d3 raw hack turned everything on its head and now there is the little gh4 which doesnt need 10gb/min worth of cards to shoot with it. superb IMO
  24. richg101
    I'm referring to good quality lenses of all purposes. My point was to put in an argument against the previous point which seemed to touch upon the theory that extra camera resolution is not required when older lenses are used. When in reality these older lenses are yet to be stretched in their capabilities even at 4k. degradation of sharpness by means of using less contrasty lenses once helped in lowering moire and other digital artefacts but nowadays with these types of cameras with such clean capabilities the use of older lenses which were designed and tested by eye tends to impart a analogue signature onto the digitally acquired image. Granted, my set of 1960's Zeiss glass doesnt have much of an analogue character of its own due to being not that far away from modern zeiss in terms of optical design and coating technology, but the difference is there. I also think the fact that the gh4 still doesnt offer that film dynamic range / Log picture profile a lot of people hanker for, the ability of a lens like the helios 44 to take the edge off those slammed blacks is one that it very pleasing.
  25. richg101
    You're making the mistake of thinking that older lenses are not sharp, when infact they are usually more than capable of outresolving 4k. lenses made 50years may not be as contrasty (giving a perceived lower resolution, but they were designed for 35mm film - which surpasses 4k in resolution terms when we start talking about low ASA films. the difference between using a high resolution camera and an old lens (which appears less sharp due to being less contrasty) vs a low resolution camera + modern 'sharp' contrasty lens is that the lack of resolution from the low res camera is happening in the digital domain due to a technological hurdle. In comparison the lower perceived resolution/ sharpness of the older lens on the high res camera is attributed within the physical domain, created in the glass and as a result is tangible and more appealing - particularly when the camera is capable of resolving these subtleties the glass creates. a helios 44 from 1965 stopped down to f2.8 is more than adequate right to the edges for 36mpx shots on the nikon d800 and sony a7r - these have imaging areas 3 times that of the gh4 and still photo resolutions almost double what 4k is.
×
×
  • Create New...