Wishes for 10 years on from the birth of mirrorless

[jonpais]

Why do I feel like stabbing myself in the ear with a pencil now?

[IronFilm]

11 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

The drive on the right thing was a by product of Paris having a keep right rule for horse traffic and then Napoleon spreading this custom through his conquests, hence why the resistants to being conquered (i.e. us and a few others) didn't adopt it. Of course we then passed that defiance on to our colonies and it stuck.

 

So it is all Napoleon's fault?

11 hours ago, anonim said:

Yes, and it is strange to me that seriously video oriented shooters so rarely consider that fact "from the field". This fact and personal experiences drove me even to conclusion that m43 sensor (with high end rendition capable lens) is actually some sort of sweet spot for shooting guerilla art-movies that very rarely, from narrative reasons,  need DoF more shallow than provide by aperture value of 4 (in FF terms)!

Exactly! If S35 is the sweet spot for big big budget films with trained actors, good 2nd ACs to lay down markets, time for rehearsals, and skilled 1st ACs, then it is reasonably logical that for indie shooters like ourselves that the slightly smaller MFT sensor is out sweet spot size!

 

2 hours ago, kye said:

The problem with people changing sensor sizes is that they don't change everything else in their camera.  I suspect this is what happened with the vista vision sensor - they probably didn't buy all new lenses.

If two people go out to buy a camera setup, one buys a FF camera and 50mm F4.0 lens and the other buys a m43 camera and a 25mm F2.0 lens and they then meet and point their cameras at the same object with the cameras right next to each other, then with the same settings (ISO, SS, aperture) and their lenses wide open they will get the same exposure, and they will get identical angle of view and depth of field.  When we're talking about the camera industry this is the comparison we're talking about, not changing from one setup to another.

Does that make sense or did I mess something up?

Nope, I feel like you're still missing my point. 

Think specifically about DoF and how you'd light a scene once you've picked that DoF, and how that changes as change sensor size. 
(you've almost figured that out... you realize you'll use a four times slower f stop: f2 to f4 as you move from MFT to FF to maintain the same working DoF in practice. What impact does this now have on your lighting team and your production? If as you suggest, you want to keep shutter angle and ISO  the same, what needs to be done by you and your gaffer to keep the same exposure?)

[kye]

30 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Nope, I feel like you're still missing my point. 

Think specifically about DoF and how you'd light a scene once you've picked that DoF, and how that changes as change sensor size. 
(you've almost figured that out... you realize you'll use a four times slower f stop: f2 to f4 as you move from MFT to FF to maintain the same working DoF in practice. What impact does this now have on your lighting team and your production? If as you suggest, you want to keep shutter angle and ISO  the same, what needs to be done by you and your gaffer to keep the same exposure?)

Ok, got it.  Thanks

The part that I did understand was that to maintain identical DoF you have to adjust aperture with crop factor.. (m43 F2 = FF F4 = given DoF). The part that I didn't understand is that exposure doesn't behave in the same way.

This would then be another advantage for m43, no?  Get the same look with less lighting?

[anonim]

1 hour ago, kye said:

Get the same look with less lighting?

Yes... Some time ago it was true that m43 sensors, being not enough mature in development, had less photon-sensitivity than their more mature bigger sensor counterparts, but now gathering ability is approximately the same... f2 is f2 in terms of pure usable light efficiency, i. e. with equal noise quantity and level of image purity or no-degradation.

From the other side, it is also true that FF cameras can use higher ISO values to compensate light (although in high iso there are always and everywhere degradation and color shifting  ) - so, again, I'm talking about narrow field of usage around not above ISO 1600 as limit... 

But, for this "guerilla-sweet-spot" theory you have to  have (or you wish to have) m43 lenses that achieve their best performance at sweet-spot around T2  for nice balance of bokeh-vs-narrative clearness.. and they are much much rare - besides that they no exist in zoom realm - especially in comparison with so many affordable ff lenses.

That's the reason why there are several tests that show that, say, Veydras lenses on top m43 cameras achieve even better results than Zeiss Super Primes on bigger sensor cameras, being significantly cheaper. Or Voigtlanders that are so brilliantly constructed (highest hokus-pokus know-how) in balancing flaws/powers - being again better and cheaper than Cosina's Zeiss lenses.

So again, strictly for low budget narrative film making, I found from personal practice that combination of these factors (including mature and always more advanced IBIS system) makes m43 (by of course very little margin) best suited for that narrow (without need for really appreciate AF capability) sort of task, i. e. one-man visual story telling.

That's also reason, I'd say, why, besides people more technically and novelty-wise interested, creative-job DoP's pay so much attention to little BM cameras, and especially new 4k pocket version or why Oliver Daniel could achieve so nice and quick results in pretty complex and demanding shooting tasks with GH5...

[IronFilm]

1 hour ago, kye said:

Ok, got it.  Thanks

The part that I did understand was that to maintain identical DoF you have to adjust aperture with crop factor.. (m43 F2 = FF F4 = given DoF). The part that I didn't understand is that exposure doesn't behave in the same way.

This would then be another advantage for m43, no?  Get the same look with less lighting?

EXACTLY!

When your restriction is your DoF that you must work with, and not your lens (and indeed in a practical aspect, for many people it is this way round. Although sure... some might reply back with how they're exception in that it is the MFT lenses which confine them....) then as your sensor size goes up you must either boost up your lighting levels (which means more time and costs! Thus the complaints from the vistavision shooters on reduser when they discovered this obvious fact)  or boost up your ISO levels (which either means you lose an lowlight advantage the large sensor maybe possibly had, or even worse... you are left with worse image quality!). 

 

[Robert Collins]

4 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

EXACTLY!

When your restriction is your DoF that you must work with, and not your lens (and indeed in a practical aspect, for many people it is this way round. Although sure... some might reply back with how they're exception in that it is the MFT lenses which confine them....) then as your sensor size goes up you must either boost up your lighting levels (which means more time and costs! Thus the complaints from the vistavision shooters on reduser when they discovered this obvious fact)  or boost up your ISO levels (which either means you lose an lowlight advantage the large sensor maybe possibly had, or even worse... you are left with worse image quality!). 

 

You do know what you have typed here is complete nonsense?!

[jonpais]

Complete and utter foolishness!!!

[Shirozina]

The problem with fast lenses on M43 that achieve similar DOF characteristics to S35 and FF is the amount of ND filtering you need in anything other than low light conditions. If you are a Vari ND user you will easily run out of density and need to add a fixed ND on top. You are then stacking 3 layers of glass so they better be high quality with good multi coatings so that 6 air to glass surfaces are not going to degrade your image. Internal ND filtering would be nice but not sure how this could be achieved in a small body like the GH5s where they already have had to ditch the stabilizer. 

[IronFilm]

11 minutes ago, Robert Collins said:

You do know what you have typed here is complete nonsense?!

Prove it. 

I'm basing this on logic/science/experience. 

So please write a rebuttal point by point for everything you're disagreeing with. 

1 minute ago, Shirozina said:

The problem with fast lenses on M43 that achieve similar DOF characteristics to S35 and FF is the amount of ND filtering you need in anything other than low light conditions. If you are a Vari ND user you will easily run out of density and need to add a fixed ND on top. You are then stacking 3 layers of glass so they better be high quality with good multi coatings so that 6 air to glass surfaces are not going to degrade your image. Internal ND filtering would be nice but not sure how this could be achieved in a small body like the GH5s where they already have had to ditch the stabilizer. 

Two minutes ago people were complaining about how MFT sensors are not as good in lowlight.... now people are saying they're too good and it needs tonnes of ND? (reminds me of people with the a7S when it came out with its high base ISO in slog)

You just can never win with some people! :-P 
 

[Shirozina]

16 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

EXACTLY!

When your restriction is your DoF that you must work with, and not your lens (and indeed in a practical aspect, for many people it is this way round. Although sure... some might reply back with how they're exception in that it is the MFT lenses which confine them....) then as your sensor size goes up you must either boost up your lighting levels (which means more time and costs! Thus the complaints from the vistavision shooters on reduser when they discovered this obvious fact)  or boost up your ISO levels (which either means you lose an lowlight advantage the large sensor maybe possibly had, or even worse... you are left with worse image quality!). 

 

Very true. 

[anonim]

2 minutes ago, Shirozina said:

The problem with fast lenses on M43 that achieve similar DOF characteristics to S35 and FF is the amount of ND filtering you need in anything other than low light conditions. If you are a Vari ND user you will easily run out of density and need to add a fixed ND on top. You are then stacking 3 layers of glass so they better be high quality with good multi coatings so that 6 air to glass surfaces are not going to degrade your image. Internal ND filtering would be nice but not sure how this could be achieved in a small body like the GH5s where they already have had to ditch the stabilizer. 

Obviously true in general. Just, limiting task for narrative sweet spot around T2, there's no need for so hard nd filtering.. Wishing to achieve very shallow DoF in sunny situation, of course... but comparatively, such shallow DoF is more special effect  in movie making, or rare accentuated choice as in, say, Anderson's Master... Besides, to get comfort shallow DoF in a value of FF T2, we are exclusively restricted to Voigtlanders...

[Shirozina]

6 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

(reminds me of people with the a7S when it came out with its high base ISO in slog)


 

Esp when they don't understand the concept of ISO as it applies to LOG capture profiles.

[jonpais]

2 minutes ago, anonim said:

Obviously true in general. Just, limiting task for narrative sweet spot around T2, there's no need for so hard nd filtering.. Wishing to achieve very shallow DoF in sunny situation, of course... but comparatively, such shallow DoF is more special effect  in movie making, or rare accentuated choice as in, say, Anderson's Master... Besides, to get comfort shallow DoF in a value of FF T2, we are exclusively restricted to Voigtlanders...

hahaha

The Veydras and Oly Pros, hello?

[anonim]

18 minutes ago, Robert Collins said:

You do know what you have typed here is complete nonsense?!

Sorry, but it sounds (at least for my non native English ear, so probably I'm wrong) pretty rude and unpolite, why so at this place?

Beside, it seems to me that quotation is not at all nonsense in one narrow field of implementation... Maybe presented with not the utmost precise words.

[Robert Collins]

Just now, IronFilm said:

Prove it. 

I'm basing this on logic/science/experience. 

So please write a rebuttal point by point for everything you're disagreeing with. 

Ok.

Let's start with agreeing 2 points....

1) A FF sensor is 4x larger than an M43 sensor which = 2 stops

2) That if you are 'DOF restricted' (ie both must have the same DOF) then the M43 will shoot 2 stops wider than FF. (IE M43@F2 and FF@F4)

Under those circumstance (M43@F2 and FF@F4) the M43 will gather 4x as much light per sqm of sensor size (or 2 stops) but the FF sensor has 4x as many sqm of sensor (or 2 stops).

In other words, in practical terms given the same exposure, FF will be 2 stops cleaner at any given iso (which is what we see in practice.)

So if you are DOF restricted, you dont 'need to boost your lighting levels as the sensor size goes up' - the image quality between the 2 should be the same. Of course if you are not DOF restricted so you shot F2.0 in both, the image quality of FF would be 2 stops better at any given iso.

[Shirozina]

2 minutes ago, anonim said:

Obviously true in general. Just, limiting task for narrative sweet spot around T2, there's no need for so hard nd filtering.. Wishing to achieve very shallow DoF in sunny situation, of course... but comparatively, such shallow DoF is more special effect  in movie making, or rare accentuated choice as in, say, Anderson's Master... Besides, to get comfort shallow DoF in a value of FF T2, we are exclusively restricted to Voigtlanders...

In the world of 'videography' as opposed to actual commercial film making in order for you shots to be concidered as 'cinematic' you have to have shallow DOF  no matter what......

[anonim]

1 minute ago, jonpais said:

hahaha

The Veydras and Oly Pros, hello?

Well, no... I mean about circumstances that Shirozina mention for absolute necessity for hard ND filtering - that means DoF of, say, T2 in FF terms in bright weather... Veydras can't go there, Oly Pros, although being better suite, neither so ... Again, of course, it is extreme situation, and I restrict my claim about  just for very narrow field of usage...

[IronFilm]

9 minutes ago, anonim said:

Maybe presented with not the utmost precise words.

I've tried! Explained it so many times already in this thread! And many other threads too over the years. Sigh. 
 

7 minutes ago, Robert Collins said:

Ok.

Let's start with agreeing 2 points....

1) A FF sensor is 4x larger than an M43 sensor which = 2 stops

2) That if you are 'DOF restricted' (ie both must have the same DOF) then the M43 will shoot 2 stops wider than FF. (IE M43@F2 and FF@F4)

Under those circumstance (M43@F2 and FF@F4) the M43 will gather 4x as much light per sqm of sensor size (or 2 stops) but the FF sensor has 4x as many sqm of sensor (or 2 stops).

In other words, in practical terms given the same exposure, FF will be 2 stops cleaner at any given iso (which is what we see in practice.)

So if you are DOF restricted, you dont 'need to boost your lighting levels as the sensor size goes up' - the image quality between the 2 should be the same. Of course if you are not DOF restricted so you shot F2.0 in both, the image quality of FF would be 2 stops better at any given iso.

The number of photons which hit the sensor are irrelevant compared to the core question of what is done with them. 

Or in other words, how does each level of ISO perform? 

Or in other words, if two cameras look the same at 1600 ISO, then how many photons hit their sensor to achieve that result doesn't really matter as much as the fact that they both are looking the same at 1600 ISO. 

Edit: how weird I got those "email protected" notes in the quote! That wasn't me, the software forum did it. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, anonim said:

Well, no... I mean about circumstances that Shirozina mention for absolute necessity for hard ND filtering - that means DoF of, say, T2 in FF terms in bright weather... Veydras can't go there, Oly Pros, although being better suite, neither so ... Again, of course, it is extreme situation, and I restrict my claim about  just for very narrow field of usage...

Sooooooo..........  full frame is better for outdoors, and MFT is better for indoors? ? :-P ? ?

7 minutes ago, Shirozina said:

In the world of 'videography' as opposed to actual commercial film making in order for you shots to be concidered as 'cinematic' you have to have shallow DOF  no matter what......

Sure, there are those who value extreme shallow depth of field above all else, this was especially popular in the early days after the 5Dmk2 as it was such an extremely unique look for many indies back then. But I'd hope we've moved on since those olden days. And are not simply striving to shoot with the most extremist minimalistic depth of field that we can physically achieve! 

Rather we are thoughtfully choosing the right depth of field for the shoot/story/crew/production. 

[IronFilm]

 

Just realised that DPR put out a dedicated video just for the 10 year anniversary of the G1:
 

 

 

Happy Birthday Panasonic G1, the world's 1st mirrorless! I never used you, but the Panasonic GH1 was my first ever camera I purchased for filmmaking. (after borrowing Sarah's Canon T2i or Tintin's Nikon D90 for a while to be able to do my film school assignments)

 

Then later on got the GX1, a G3, a GF3, and another GH1, and a G6. I certainly loved my Panasonics!

[Robert Collins]

35 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Or in other words, how does each level of ISO perform? 

Or in other words, if two cameras look the same at 1600 ISO, then how many photons hit their sensor to achieve that result doesn't really matter as much as the fact that they both are looking the same at 1600 ISO. 

Yes, of course if M43 looks as good as FF at any given iso it doesnt matter at all. The problem 'is', it 'doesnt'.

At any given iso M43 is 2 stops worse off than FF.

I am not really sure what you are arguing here when you say the 'number of photons hitting the sensor doesnt really matter, it is what you do with them'. Are you suggesting that M43 is defying the laws of physics and has conquered silicon QE?