Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Really nice, cheap, Veydra alternative

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by rze View Post
    O I see the semantics vs practicality. I guess theirs a lot of photographers here. I’ve never met a cinematographer or anyone in camera department that utilizes full frame as as a reference or refer to a 50mm s35mm as an 80mm. The advocacy here is weird.
    I'm not advocating, just explaining the theory.

    I personally don't use crop factor often, as I've become so familiar with focal length requirements of the sensors sizes I commonly use - 2/3", Super16, Super35 and 135.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by rze View Post
      Iíve never met a cinematographer or anyone in camera department that utilizes full frame as as a reference or refer to a 50mm s35mm as an 80mm. The advocacy here is weird.
      This is true. If you're brought up on set where people are shooting with gear centered around S35, you will quickly learn what the look of 20mm, 24mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm is. There is no talk about conversions or equiv. here. Why would there be?

      "Get me the 24!" "Let's move in tightóbring me the 85, won't you!"

      But this is a forum covering a wide range of topics. And people come here, not only shooting with BMD products (already varying quite a bit in sensor size and mount options), but with experience from other systems as wellóbe it FF DSLRs or much smaller sensors. Consider the following:





      There is a reason the top of the barrel is marked "35mm equiv." It's easy to understand. Compare this to the actual focal length on the front of the lens ranging from 8.9-89mm.

      If I could buy a 35mm lens for the XC10, then that lens would be 35mm in terms of what the front of the lens says. Not the "35" that is on top of the barrel. Lenses are sold under their actual focal lengths,

      So, to return to the example above with the guy brought up set that won't do conversions: if he takes one of the Alexas and puts a 35mm on there, and then brings a friend who brings his P4K with the 35mm in this threadóif they shoot from the same tripod, they will end up with different frames (not the same Angle of View).

      How can it not be reasonable to discuss this on a forum like this?

      Comment


      • #33
        Once again a lens review has devolved into a crop factor argument. Learn the normal focal length for the format you are shooting and work from there. Unless you shoot fisheye skateboard videos, the normal lens is what you will use the most. People think in terms of 50mm as that was the normal on 135, before zooms it was the one lens that all cameras had, and if you only had one lens, that was it. For MFT it is 25mm, so this lens will see a lot of use. I find it odd that it is often younger shooters that cling to this crop factor, as they have probably never shot 35mm stills. But then realize that many of them came of age at that moment in DSLR video when the 5d was king. They never had to struggle with trying to make small format video look cinematic, they got the look without even trying and 50mm is the normal on that format.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by joe12south View Post
          Maybe "amusing" wasn't the best word...it's interesting to me to see how over the last decade we've raced to "needing" faster and faster lenses even as cameras' light gathering capabilities have exponentially increased. People are filling their bags with what not long ago would have been considered "specialty" lenses. Is it really practical or advisable to shoot moving pictures with a T0.95? If I can't keep the tip of an actress' nose and the back of her head in focus at the same time, shouldn't I stop down a bit? My goal is to capture a performance, to tell a story, not to fetishize a certain look. A T4 equivalent is probably where most people should be shooting most of the time. (I'm talking about filmmaking - not live events, etc.)

          I do agree that in a perfect world, I'd have a complete set of cinema lenses that were tack sharp at the FF equivalent of T2.8. That would be the most flexible. But those lenses don't exist at a price that an indie filmmaker can afford to own. I think the closest you could get would be a Xeen at around $2,500 a piece, and they're kind of soft wide open.

          Would I rent the Meike? I doubt it. If I have a rental budget, I'll go ahead and get a big boy lens. But I know that I'm not alone in wanting a personal kit that I have at hand all the time for grabbing a day of shooting.
          You should tell this to Roger Deakins, I'm sure he'd get a kick out of it.

          Comment


          • #35
            I have one question that is all, if you have a 25mm that is FF and then put it on the BMC the equivalent field of view will be a 100mm. If you have a 25mm that only covers super35 and doesn't cover FF, what is the equivalent field of view on the BMC?

            Comment


            • #36
              1. MFT is such a small portion of the market that MFT shooters really do need to be able to think in terms of crop factors in order to communicate with the rest of the world.

              2. Traditionally, Super35/cinema shooters don't speak in terms of equivalency - they didn't need to - so why bother trying to calculate what a MFT lens "is" as a S35 lens. (With "large format" cameras becoming more practical, this is changing.)

              3. Lenses designed for crop factor sensors are compared to their FF equivalents. MFT, APC, whatever. They just are. What do you gain, other than some academic satisfaction, in swimming against the tide. Everyone knows what to expect from a Nifty 50 ... and for all intents and purposes that's what this lens is.
              Pocketluts: Purpose-built LUTs for the Blackmagic Design Pocket Cinema Camera 4K
              Pocketluts Store

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by rze View Post
                I have one question that is all, if you have a 25mm that is FF and then put it on the BMC the equivalent field of view will be a 100mm. If you have a 25mm that only covers super35 and doesn't cover FF, what is the equivalent field of view on the BMC?
                That's sort of a moot question, no? The focal length is the focal length irregardless of the size of the image circle. The former determines the FOV, the latter if there is vignetting.
                Pocketluts: Purpose-built LUTs for the Blackmagic Design Pocket Cinema Camera 4K
                Pocketluts Store

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by rze View Post
                  I have one question that is all, if you have a 25mm that is FF and then put it on the BMC the equivalent field of view will be a 100mm. If you have a 25mm that only covers super35 and doesn't cover FF, what is the equivalent field of view on the BMC?
                  It would be exactly the same.

                  If you put that lens on a 135 format (also known as full frame*) then you'll have dark corners because the image circle doesn't cover the target image size.

                  But the image magnification would be exactly the same because it's a 25mm lens. It has the same field of view (but might not cover the image circle or sensor you want) and crop factor has ZERO to do with the understanding of this but confuses everyone.

                  JB

                  *also known as fool frame...jk....not really....

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by John Brawley View Post
                    It would be exactly the same.

                    If you put that lens on a 135 format (also known as full frame*) then you'll have dark corners because the image circle doesn't cover the target image size.

                    But the image magnification would be exactly the same because it's a 25mm lens. It has the same field of view (but might not cover the image circle or sensor you want) and crop factor has ZERO to do with the understanding of this but confuses everyone.
                    Exactly. Think of it like a projector throwing an image on a wall. (Which it is. The "wall" is your camera's sensor.)
                    Pocketluts: Purpose-built LUTs for the Blackmagic Design Pocket Cinema Camera 4K
                    Pocketluts Store

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by RAWlover View Post
                      Doesn't anyone here understand basic geometry?
                      The image circle of a BM4K pocket camera is, I believe, about 10% less than that of m4/3.
                      It doesn't really matter that the BM is only 1 pixel high.
                      What matters is the image circle.
                      Duh!
                      You can call it wider field of view all day long.
                      But I really isn't until the diagonal of the sensor is larger than the m4/3 image circle.
                      1. Cameras donít have image circles.

                      2. The Pocket 4K, GH5S (and the old GH2) have a sensor wider than normal MFT. They have a wider field of view.
                      Pocketluts: Purpose-built LUTs for the Blackmagic Design Pocket Cinema Camera 4K
                      Pocketluts Store

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by joe12south View Post
                        1. MFT is such a small portion of the market that MFT shooters really do need to be able to think in terms of crop factors in order to communicate with the rest of the world.

                        2. Traditionally, Super35/cinema shooters don't speak in terms of equivalency - they didn't need to - so why bother trying to calculate what a MFT lens "is" as a S35 lens. (With "large format" cameras becoming more practical, this is changing.)

                        3. Lenses designed for crop factor sensors are compared to their FF equivalents. MFT, APC, whatever. They just are. What do you gain, other than some academic satisfaction, in swimming against the tide. Everyone knows what to expect from a Nifty 50 ... and for all intents and purposes that's what this lens is.

                        Somehow for more than 100 years in cinema we were able to understand that there are differing fields of view with different formats. "Crop factors" is a marketing explanation for stills photo shooters, essentially amatuer photographers who needed to conceptually understand why some lenses would work on some digital cameras and not others.

                        Cinematographers have been dealing with crop factor since the beginning of cinema, which by the way is older than "full frame" photography. I routinely went between Super 16, Academy, anamorphic and 3 and 2 perf 35mm.

                        The problem I have with crop factors is that it causes as much confusion as it claims to solve. Witness in this thread even after it's explained what's going people still aren't getting it BECAUSE they're hanging onto to the crutch of crop factors.

                        The very language also created this false subtext that anything that isn't "full frame" isn't as good. It's not Full frame, it's half frame ?

                        You mean the crop factor is 4X ? That's un-usable !! Now this is said about a format that some have used to shoot academy award winning films and yet, because the crop factor is so high and it's not "full" frame the impression is that it's not good or cinematic.

                        Crop factors, if you're using them, should only EVER be used in reference to a 135 format camera.

                        In a situation like this, we're talking about native mFT glass on a mFT camera. What the actual .... does crop factor have to do it ? If you think it does have something to do with it then you shouldnt be calling yourself a cinematographer.

                        135, the correct name for "full frame" was created using the OFFCUTS of motion picture film. INstead of 35mm going though a cinema camera vertically taking 4 perfs per frame they took it horizontally for 8 perf per frame to create a "lightweight" camera compared to the medium and large format cameras in use. For decades it was the best of the of the AMATUER photo formats, because any real photographer for the last 100 years has probably preferred to use medium or large format cameras. Almost all commercial photography is this way, even today. 135 format is a mostly an AMATUER format that has some cross over into pro use (and of course in places where the lighter smaller cameras are better like reportage, doco and street)

                        135 hasn't EVER been used widely for motion picture storytelling UNTIL the 5Dmk2. By the way, cinematographers call 135 "Vistavision" and aside from specialist VFX use and a small handfull of films, no one shot Vistavision for movies.

                        Yet we're all obsessed with this cinematic full frame look....

                        And it's only NOW that we're getting "real" cinema cameras that can shoot the larger vistavision format (as opposed to a shitty compressed 8 bit full frame codec)

                        Also, mirrorless FAR outsells full frame., and the inherent snobbery that goes with "full frame" is only to those that also tend to be the ones that talk in crop factors...

                        the rest of us just get on with it and stop obsessing over crop factors...

                        JB

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          All great points, but this battle was fought and lost. With sensor sizes trending upwards (cheap moving towards S35, premium moving towards 35, and luxe moving towards 65/70) the common vernacular is not likely to change.

                          When you're talking to a professional crew, don't sweat it. They can be expected to know their gear and to silently do the appropriate mental math for them to do their job. In most other scenarios, it's useful to reference the lens/camera combo's FF equivalent.
                          Pocketluts: Purpose-built LUTs for the Blackmagic Design Pocket Cinema Camera 4K
                          Pocketluts Store

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by John Brawley View Post
                            Somehow for more than 100 years in cinema we were able to understand that there are differing fields of view with different formats. "Crop factors" is a marketing explanation for stills photo shooters, essentially amatuer photographers who needed to conceptually understand why some lenses would work on some digital cameras and not others.

                            Cinematographers have been dealing with crop factor since the beginning of cinema, which by the way is older than "full frame" photography. I routinely went between Super 16, Academy, anamorphic and 3 and 2 perf 35mm.

                            The problem I have with crop factors is that it causes as much confusion as it claims to solve. Witness in this thread even after it's explained what's going people still aren't getting it BECAUSE they're hanging onto to the crutch of crop factors.

                            The very language also created this false subtext that anything that isn't "full frame" isn't as good. It's not Full frame, it's half frame ?

                            You mean the crop factor is 4X ? That's un-usable !! Now this is said about a format that some have used to shoot academy award winning films and yet, because the crop factor is so high and it's not "full" frame the impression is that it's not good or cinematic.

                            Crop factors, if you're using them, should only EVER be used in reference to a 135 format camera.

                            In a situation like this, we're talking about native mFT glass on a mFT camera. What the actual .... does crop factor have to do it ? If you think it does have something to do with it then you shouldnt be calling yourself a cinematographer.

                            135, the correct name for "full frame" was created using the OFFCUTS of motion picture film. INstead of 35mm going though a cinema camera vertically taking 4 perfs per frame they took it horizontally for 8 perf per frame to create a "lightweight" camera compared to the medium and large format cameras in use. For decades it was the best of the of the AMATUER photo formats, because any real photographer for the last 100 years has probably preferred to use medium or large format cameras. Almost all commercial photography is this way, even today. 135 format is a mostly an AMATUER format that has some cross over into pro use (and of course in places where the lighter smaller cameras are better like reportage, doco and street)

                            135 hasn't EVER been used widely for motion picture storytelling UNTIL the 5Dmk2. By the way, cinematographers call 135 "Vistavision" and aside from specialist VFX use and a small handfull of films, no one shot Vistavision for movies.

                            Yet we're all obsessed with this cinematic full frame look....

                            And it's only NOW that we're getting "real" cinema cameras that can shoot the larger vistavision format (as opposed to a shitty compressed 8 bit full frame codec)

                            Also, mirrorless FAR outsells full frame., and the inherent snobbery that goes with "full frame" is only to those that also tend to be the ones that talk in crop factors...

                            the rest of us just get on with it and stop obsessing over crop factors...

                            JB
                            +1

                            Well said.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Amen, bro.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by John Brawley View Post
                                The problem I have with crop factors is that it causes as much confusion as it claims to solve.
                                Educating the community is a constant endeavour. Every day there are people giving up photography, while others picking up a proper camera for the first time.

                                First, learning about aperture, shutter and ISO gets people going. Composition. Technique. Raw and codec formats.... Later on, maybe photo diods and read noise?

                                Somewhere in there, we find the discussion about formats. It's all a part of the bigger picture, so to speak. It has to do with understanding the system(s) as a whole and getting to grips with why a frame looks like it does. It should be a very normal discussion about facts.

                                I don't get the frustration and stigmatisation with this topic: you shoot with what??!? Ha, amateur!!!

                                -----------------------------

                                I do get forum frustration, however. Personally, I find some of the most annoying individuals on the more technical forums (NOT in any way referring to John here—whom I know from other posts to typically be measured and factual), and they are not dimwits. But I've learned to recognise some typical behaviour that's just designed to never come to an agreement or conclusion. In these cases I try to not engage.

                                Obvious from my post count, I never spent much time here. But since I got my P4K, I wanted to read and write a bit more on this particular forum. But just in the last few days here, over various threads, I've seen more name calling and frustration here than on many other photography based boards.

                                Why is that?
                                Last edited by AndreeOnline; 12-14-2018, 03:00 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X