Nikkor

That's just color filters on top, you can use the same sensor.

It's probably the same sensor with different color filters, so the rolling shutter will be the same.

Nice video, buy why don't you get the real thing (a 16mm camera) and do a piece on that. I mean, you are in NY, you're at the source. This is 16mm and looks really nice:

Lol, "to offer", use your brain. You can shoot with a lot of weight, you can shoot slight slowmo. The disuguise people do in the guess the camera is adding grain, the equivalent in motion would be fusing fotograms, the resulting look is something softporn like.

Why suffer when you can have fun instead;) If you need 4K you can get a used bmpc which is going very cheap, or upscale 2.5k from the old blackmagic (nobody will tell the difference).

Convince them to put some sort of compressed raw into the cameras, it would make the gh5 a little bit more relevant.

4K 30minutes now, the problem was the 4GB FAT limit (don't ask me why the d500 doesn't do that) The camera can now record movies up to 29 minutes and 59 seconds long. Movies are recorded across up to 8 files, each up to 4 GB size, which can be joined together using the ViewNX-Movie Editor option in ViewNX-i version 1.2.0 or later. *

Enjoyed the video, voted. Reminded me of this

The camera has a tiny sensor 43x32, @Brian Caldwell could make a speedbooster to turn it into a 645 sensor with electronic contacts for H series lenses. He could price it 2000$ since the system has only two boring lens options.

I think Sony lenses are gigantic for two reasons. Firstly lens designers have mainly been working with retrofocus designes for the last 60 years. Look at the otus line, even the 85mm is some sort of retrofocus design, it permits even illumination and resolution across the image, at the cost of complicated and large designs. Obviously there is leica and the rest of rangefinder stuff, but here comes the second problem, digital sensors still need telecentricity, so this leaves us with large lenses for the time being. But this will change once the mirror becomes a thing of the past (unless the focal reducer approach is so good that it becomes the norm and this needs long register distances.

No info about the specs, bye bye mirror

The mf to ff focal reducer will be better because it only has to deliver f 1.4 (vs 0.8 from the ultra, I don0t recall the exact number)), a speed booster for 6x9 to 645 will be even better limited to just f1.8-f2. It would be funny to see 100$ lenses outperform 6000$ otuses, but I guess this is reserved for panavision for the time being. But hey, the emperor is naked and stuff, still waiting for an answer.

So DOF behaves the same no matter what magnification? Imagine the same lens design, scaled 2x, same focusing distance, same pupil sizes (same, pupil relation hence the same lens design), just double the magnification (double focal length), will the DOF always behave/be the same (the resulting image will be viewed at the same size)? -All in all, an equivalent situation, just double the focal length, double magnification-

what actually changes the human face shape is Perspective Distortion. and perspective is only, and only, and only depended on your distance to object. period

That moves us away a little step from the statement that only only only only only onlyyyyy

That's only true in the Platonic world of ideas and not even there. If you don't believe me take an hasselblad view body with the biogon 38mm and shoot some portraits, they won't look like wideangle crap.

Yeah, but he will tell you that's because the test is not perfect, I picked that out the first time he posted it.

Well well, e-penis is actually something they used to describe people posting their PC-specs on gaming forums in order to brag. Maybe alexas,etc... are p-penises

I think he upscaled 1080p to something 4K with a simple method, that's why there are stairsteps. But it could even be both things at the same time.

Equivalences are true, they will give you a similar image. The only thing that gross math can't predict is why 25mm f1 on m43 is something super blurry for except one tiny little distance where it sort of looks in focus, and 100mm f4 on a 72cm wide area will look very much in focus around the focusing distance, and gently roll of into the glory of the same blurred background.

To tell you the truth, I don't think Brian really means it, I honestly believed he wanted to keep this for the panavision stuff, but after watching a video of a panavision optician making a funny explanation like one I made some time ago on this forum about why medium format is better, I have my doubts about it. And excuseme,I can make tests between formats, but I can't make them with the same lens, that's not possible, and a zoom is an even worse idea (because of the nature of the zoom, and because you will be using different apertures).

Actually medium format lenses are much easier to design and produce. A tessar 75 3.5 from 1940 probably looks as good as most recent 35mm equivalents (except for the coating part) And the dof is not equivalent, just in case anybody cares :p

By winning internet arguments :p

I was just suggesting some improvements to your test, I don't want to score e-penis points.

Why don't you try to redo your test with an object that is not pitch black and has some texture to it and interesting lighting coming from one side, you might get it.