Hasselblad mirrorless camera

[jax_rox]

In terms of the medium format look for video...

It can be beautiful. But it can also be weird and distracting.

I like the idea of using it in conjunction with S35mm... or I guess as a tool for the right shots/films. Anyone else notice the jump between S35 and 65mm on Captain America? You get this incredible separation... but that means some of it looks like it was shot on a green screen (when it wasn't). In addition, it makes focus more tricky. Anyone see Interstellar on a big screen? Focus issues galore on the IMAX stuff. Obviously that's partly due to the fact that it was film as well (no monitor to check focus), but even still, the splits become impossible in many cases - two shots for example can be a case of one person in focus, and the other not.

I think it's beautiful imagery, but for medium format shooting, I think it's important to really consider your shots on the format, and if you do you'll get significantly better results.

I really hope that if medium format video comes to an affordable camera, we don't see another 'full frame DSLR' style shooting explosion, where nothing's in focus except the person's nose, as if that's somehow more 'cinematic'.

[ND64]

16 hours ago, Nikkor said:

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

Nope. some optical designs, correct the perspective or any distortion better than others. in case of your mentioned lens, distortion at close distances is apparently better corrected than longer distances (maybe because it was used for 1:1 reproduction). You can make a lens with similar design for any format, even m4/3. 

[Nikkor]

12 minutes ago, Eric Calabros said:

Nope. some optical designs, correct the perspective or any distortion better than others. in case of your mentioned lens, distortion at close distances is apparently better corrected than longer distances (maybe because it was used for 1:1 reproduction). You can make a lens with similar design for any format, even m4/3. 

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

[Geoff CB]

2 hours ago, jax_rox said:

In terms of the medium format look for video...

It can be beautiful. But it can also be weird and distracting.

I like the idea of using it in conjunction with S35mm... or I guess as a tool for the right shots/films. Anyone else notice the jump between S35 and 65mm on Captain America? You get this incredible separation... but that means some of it looks like it was shot on a green screen (when it wasn't). In addition, it makes focus more tricky. Anyone see Interstellar on a big screen? Focus issues galore on the IMAX stuff. Obviously that's partly due to the fact that it was film as well (no monitor to check focus), but even still, the splits become impossible in many cases - two shots for example can be a case of one person in focus, and the other not.

I think it's beautiful imagery, but for medium format shooting, I think it's important to really consider your shots on the format, and if you do you'll get significantly better results.

I really hope that if medium format video comes to an affordable camera, we don't see another 'full frame DSLR' style shooting explosion, where nothing's in focus except the person's nose, as if that's somehow more 'cinematic'.

I have no idea why they shot Interstellar in anamorphic alongside the IMAX footage. Made the difference in clarity even more significant and jarring. It would have worked far better if they shot it in flat then the IMAX footage would not have needed to be cropped as much as it was for the regular theatrical release.

[UHDjohn]

The reason why MF digital is 'better' has nothing to do with DOF or out of focus rendering and everything to do with CMOS vs CCD and the strength of the CFA's over the sensors. SONYCANONIKON etc put in the weakest CFA they can 'get away with' to maximise high ISO performance. MF digi back makers put in the CFA's which create the best colour fidelity and are not too bothered if this limits the high ISO ability. CCD vs COMS  - again CCD can't give you high ISO sensitivity but when it comes to reproducing 'sophisticated' colour it's a different animal.

[richg101]

1 hour ago, UHDjohn said:

The reason why MF digital is 'better' has nothing to do with DOF or out of focus rendering and everything to do with CMOS vs CCD and the strength of the CFA's over the sensors. SONYCANONIKON etc put in the weakest CFA they can 'get away with' to maximise high ISO performance. MF digi back makers put in the CFA's which create the best colour fidelity and are not too bothered if this limits the high ISO ability. CCD vs COMS  - again CCD can't give you high ISO sensitivity but when it comes to reproducing 'sophisticated' colour it's a different animal.

I agree with this to a point.  my 9year old leaf aptus ii 10 at 80iso (56mpx ccd, 16 bit) destroys my sony a7rii for colour in situations where there is good light.  Still I think you are wrong to disregard the effects of a large sensor on dof rolloff.  the new Phase 100mpx back is a sony cmos sensor.  being 16bit and developed to mimmic the desired look you get from a ccd in its comfort zone has created the best mf sensor ever apparently.  in good light I expect my ccd will deliver just as beautiful images, but in bad light the phase 100mpx cmos makes me wanna cry at how good it performs.

[jax_rox]

5 hours ago, UHDjohn said:

The reason why MF digital is 'better' has nothing to do with DOF or out of focus rendering and everything to do with CMOS vs CCD and the strength of the CFA's over the sensors. SONYCANONIKON etc put in the weakest CFA they can 'get away with' to maximise high ISO performance. MF digi back makers put in the CFA's which create the best colour fidelity and are not too bothered if this limits the high ISO ability. CCD vs COMS  - again CCD can't give you high ISO sensitivity but when it comes to reproducing 'sophisticated' colour it's a different animal.

Eh. Maybe

Medium format is just another way to 'tell your story' so to speak. There were people shooting both 35mm and medium format back when it was film only. Similarly, there are people shooting CMOS medium format and 35mm. The new Panavision DXL is a CMOS sensor, as is the Alexa 65mm. 

[tupp]

12 hours ago, UHDjohn said:

The reason why MF digital is 'better' has nothing to do with DOF or out of focus rendering and everything to do with CMOS vs CCD and the strength of the CFA's over the sensors.

I disagree for two reasons:

1.  The difference was apparent in the analog days on both 35mm and large format cameras when using film stocks that gave comparable resolution (color depth) from each format;

2.  Gonzalo Ezcurra generally uses CMOS/Bayer cameras with his eCyclops and MiniCyclops ultra-large format DOF adapters.  As is apparent from this demo shot with the MiniCyclops and a 5D mkII, such a drastically large format (combined with an appropriate large format lens) yields a uniquely rich  DOF roll-off and an extraordinarily clean, flat focal plane, regardless of the type of camera sensor.

 

So, a larger format with the appropriate optics does seem to make a difference that has nothing to do with the sensor type.

 

If you can find a Super 16 lens and camera that gives the same performance as shown with the MiniCyclops, I would love to see it.  You can even use DigiBolex CCD camera and shoot in Super 16 mode.

 

[UHDjohn]

19 minutes ago, tupp said:

I disagree for two reasons:

1.  The difference was apparent in the analog days on both 35mm and large format cameras when using film stocks that gave comparable resolution (color depth) from each format;

 

 

Nope -  difference in colour and tonal 'sophistication' was apparent between different formats in film days as well - not the range of colours and tones but the subtle differentiation between them using identical emulsions. I stick by my opinion of CFA density (or lack thereof) on modern small sensor cameras and it's effect on colour reproduction compared to MF sensors. CCD vs CMOS - we can argue all day.....

[ND64]

20 hours ago, Nikkor said:

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

seems you think with changing optical formula you can change gemoetry laws :-)

Never mind 

[tupp]

58 minutes ago, UHDjohn said:

Nope -  difference in colour and tonal 'sophistication' was apparent between different formats in film days as well - not the range of colours and tones but the subtle differentiation between them using identical emulsions.

Nope.  I did not say to compare differing formats using identical emulsions.  In fact, I specifically stated "when using film stocks that gave comparable resolution (color depth) from each format," which means using a coarser-grained stock on the larger format.  Doing so makes larger and smaller formats more similar in color depth (or more similar "in colour and tonal 'sophistication,'" as you put it).

 

If you shot a 35mm image with Kodachrome 25 and compared it to a 6x4.5 image shot with Kodacolor 400, you would probably find that the smaller 35mm format has more color depth.  However, you might notice a slight "improvement" in the DOF roll-off and in focal plane solidity on the larger format, given the same quality of optics on both formats and with DOFs of matching mathematical "equivalence," .

 

To me, that optical advantage transcends a difference in color depth, which in a similar digital scenario is also dependent on the resolution (assuming that bit depth and DR is the same on both the larger and smaller sensors).

 

 

58 minutes ago, UHDjohn said:

I stick by my opinion of CFA density (or lack thereof) on modern small sensor cameras and it's effect on colour reproduction compared to MF sensors. CCD vs CMOS - we can argue all day.....

Certainly, everyone has a right to their opinion, but the overriding difference in look between larger and smaller formats seems to be of an optical quality, as exemplified by the Kodachrome/Kodacolor scenario above and as demonstrated in the many eCyclops/MiniCyclops images captured with HD, CMOS cameras.

[UHDjohn]

24 minutes ago, tupp said:

Nope.  I did not say to compare differing formats using identical emulsions.  In fact, I specifically stated "when using film stocks that gave comparable resolution (color depth) from each format," which means using a coarser-grained stock on the larger format.  Doing so makes larger and smaller formats more similar in color depth (or more similar "in colour and tonal 'sophistication,'" as you put it).

 

If you shot a 35mm image with Kodachrome 25 and compared it to a 6x4.5 image shot with Kodacolor 400, you would probably find that the smaller 35mm format has more color depth.  However, you might notice a slight "improvement" in the DOF roll-off and in focal plane solidity on the larger format, given the same quality of optics on both formats and with DOFs of matching mathematical "equivalence," .

 

To me, that optical advantage transcends a difference in color depth, which in a similar digital scenario is also dependent on the resolution (assuming that bit depth and DR is the same on both the larger and smaller sensors).

 

 

Certainly, everyone has a right to their opinion, but the overriding difference in look between larger and smaller formats seems to be of an optical quality, as exemplified by the Kodachrome/Kodacolor scenario above and as demonstrated in the many eCyclops/MiniCyclops images captured with HD, CMOS cameras.

Don't disagree on the optical quality differences but so far in this debate which started out as MF digital vs smaller formats the issue of colour and tonality had not been included. Moreover not everyone shoots in either cinema or stills wide open to create planes of focus with out of focus areas ( bokeh) to drool over. In situations where you are ( and want) maximising DOF there are still qualitative advantages to using medium format backs in stills applications for their ( rather obvious to my eyes) superior colour and tonal reproduction which I would also expect to translate to cinema if the chips could be used in this way.

[ND64]

19 hours ago, richg101 said:

I agree with this to a point.  my 9year old leaf aptus ii 10 at 80iso (56mpx ccd, 16 bit) destroys my sony a7rii for colour in situations where there is good light.  Still I think you are wrong to disregard the effects of a large sensor on dof rolloff.  the new Phase 100mpx back is a sony cmos sensor.  being 16bit and developed to mimmic the desired look you get from a ccd in its comfort zone has created the best mf sensor ever apparently.  in good light I expect my ccd will deliver just as beautiful images, but in bad light the phase 100mpx cmos makes me wanna cry at how good it performs.

not-good-as-ccd-color mindset is made because usually something is wrong with raw processing. 

here is CCD IQ180 vs. your A7RII tonal range according to DXO

[UHDjohn]

7 minutes ago, Eric Calabros said:

not-good-as-ccd-color mindset is made because usually something is wrong with raw processing. 

here is CCD IQ180 vs. your A7RII tonal range according to DXO

Nothing to do with tonal 'range' - it's the ability to differentiate between tones and colours which is not something that gets measured (or is easily measured).

[ND64]

13 minutes ago, UHDjohn said:

Nothing to do with tonal 'range' - it's the ability to differentiate between tones and colours which is not something that gets measured (or is easily measured).

Nikon used a thinner CFA in D5 for achieving higher S/N, yet I haven't seen users noticing its color be inferior to D4 or D3. if there was meaningful difference between A7RII and IQ180, assuming both use same optics (same formula, same coating,..), I'm sure it would be presentable. its not aesthetic, its about numbers. 

[UHDjohn]

8 minutes ago, Eric Calabros said:

Nikon used a thinner CFA in D5 for achieving higher S/N, yet I haven't seen users noticing its color be inferior to D4 or D3. if there was meaningful difference between A7RII and IQ180, assuming both use same optics (same formula, same coating,..), I'm sure it would be presentable. its not aesthetic, its about numbers. 

What numbers? 

[fuzzynormal]

Medium format cameras are neat-o.

[Brian Caldwell]

On 6/18/2016 at 0:44 PM, jcs said:

.....If it's a real effect, the results could be presented to optical designers such as Caldwell to show a possible market for a MF to FF focal reducer. If not by Caldwell, perhaps someone else in HK or CN.

 

Perhaps I could call such a product "The Naked Emperor Focal Reducer"?  At least then I could sleep at night.  I thought Kipon announced one of these, but it still seems to be vaporware.

To be clear, adding a focal reducer to a medium format lens to convert it to a 24x36 format lens will only result in a slowish FF lens.  That's because medium format lenses tend to have very conservative designs and are very slow to begin with.  I can't think of a single MF lens + focal reducer combination that would be a compelling new addition to the FF optical repertoire.  As you have correctly implied, there is no magic to be found here.

 

[jcs]

2 hours ago, Brian Caldwell said:

Perhaps I could call such a product "The Naked Emperor Focal Reducer"?  At least then I could sleep at night.  I thought Kipon announced one of these, but it still seems to be vaporware.

To be clear, adding a focal reducer to a medium format lens to convert it to a 24x36 format lens will only result in a slowish FF lens.  That's because medium format lenses tend to have very conservative designs and are very slow to begin with.  I can't think of a single MF lens + focal reducer combination that would be a compelling new addition to the FF optical repertoire.  As you have correctly implied, there is no magic to be found here.

 

Are you saying that any effect such as 'DOF falloff' are not real effects or are related to a particular MF lens design, and not the physics of light imaging a subject on a larger sensor size? (xCyclops uses a 5D2/A7S to capture a projected image on a plane). 

[richg101]

3 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:

its not aesthetic, its about numbers. 

Wrong.