Subforums
17,133 topics in this forum
-
- 534 replies
- 210.8k views
-
- 27 replies
- 19k views
-
- 5.8k replies
- 1.5m views
-
- 2 replies
- 14.8k views
-
- 75 replies
- 36.8k views
-
- 172 replies
- 17.9k views
-
- 221 replies
- 33k views
-
- 57 replies
- 16.8k views
-
- 15 replies
- 1.2k views
-
- 236 replies
- 108.2k views
-
- 89 replies
- 48.2k views
-
- 123 replies
- 55k views
-
- 66 replies
- 27.3k views
-
Grant Petty on the future of DaVinci Resolve Studio pricing: "We'll probably eventually charge some kind of upgrade for this." 1 2
- 26 replies
- 16k views
-
- 36 replies
- 8.1k views
-
- 44 replies
- 26k views
-
- 26 replies
- 8.3k views
-
- 33 replies
- 8.4k views
-
- 3 replies
- 3.8k views
-
- 12 replies
- 4.6k views
-
- 26 replies
- 7.7k views
-
- 56 replies
- 12.4k views
-
- 26 replies
- 21.1k views
-
- 0 replies
- 3.1k views
-
- 5 replies
- 3.8k views
-
- 680 replies
- 229k views
-
- 58 replies
- 23.4k views
-
- 5 replies
- 3.6k views
-
- 26 replies
- 13.4k views
-
- 11 replies
- 5.4k views
-
- 9 replies
- 4.4k views
-
- 4 replies
- 4k views
-
- 74 replies
- 38k views
-
- 45 replies
- 23.3k views
-
- 2 replies
- 4.3k views
-
- 1 reply
- 4.4k views
-
- 1 reply
- 4.3k views
-
- 4 replies
- 5k views
-
- 12 replies
- 9.2k views
-
- 2 replies
- 5.3k views
-
Popular Contributors
-
Forum Statistics
-
Total Topics17.1k
-
Total Posts349.3k
-
-
Member Statistics
-
Posts
-
By eatstoomuchjam · Posted
Sure, but you can accomplish a similar thing by using S35 lenses on FF. Or S16 lenses on M43. You pointed to a bunch of other incorrect things too like DOF equivalence as well. And again, 16/17:9 is "true" open gate on many cinema cameras. But it's also not true that every lens made for FF has extra character when you use it on 44x33mm. The Canon EF 85mm f/1.4L covers the entire GFX sensor and has minimal character all the way to the edges. The tiny Canon 40/2.8 pancake similarly has minimal character while covering 44x33 pretty well. Fraser wanted to use specific vintage lenses that had more character near the edges of the image circle. Certain FF lenses, yes. And the eterna 55 doesn't use the high MP of the 44x33 sensor for anything. Just like the GFX 100 II, your options to use the full sensor width are 4K with decent RS and mediocre DR (up to 60fps), 4K with strong RS and good DR (up to 30fps? Not sure of the max, but less than 60), 4K open gate with decent RS and mediocre DR (this differs from GFX 100 II), and 5.8k 2.35:1 with strong RS and mediocre DR. 8K goes to a crop really similar to full frame on a 24x36mm sensor and also has strong RS and mediocre DR. I haven't, at any point, said that the Eterna isn't a completely invalid camera with no uses. What I am saying is: 1) There is no intrinsic "medium format look" 2) For a vast majority of use cases, the less expensive V-Raptor XE with a 41mm wide sensor, good DR, and a global shutter will likely be chosen over this one by higher-end owner-operators (those who don't just buy an FX9 (cheaper yet) or C400 (even cheaper) - which, realistically, is most of them). If you prefer the Eterna, you're not wrong. You're welcome to use any tool that you like. I might rent it myself if a project came along where it made sense. I just think that the number of sales that aren't to rental shops will be really low. -
Somehow I missed this promo short film, its kinda brilliant in how it showcases a lot of the features in a pretty creative narrative, really liking the overall image from this new sensor: -
@eatstoomuchjam Funny enough, the Greg Fraser quote you referenced actually underlines my point. He’s saying outright that moving to a larger format opens up creative possibilities precisely because you’re seeing parts of the lens you wouldn’t on a smaller sensor. The lens itself hasn’t changed, but the relationship between the sensor size and the lens’ image circle absolutely changes what’s captured. That’s all I was getting at: bigger formats don’t alter lens physics, but they alter what part of the lens’ projection you get to play with, which translates to a different look/feel on screen. This is similar to when you have open-gate (true 3:2 or 4:3, not just 17:9), you’re also opening up different aspect ratios and lens visibility. Whether you see the extra image area as flaws or character is subjective, but the distinction Fraser is making is exactly the one I was trying to point to. I know many GFX users like to put certain FF lenses for identical reasons, and the GFXRF & Eterna 55 use that high MP large sensor to open up multi aspect ratios which is why I don't think its irrelevant to the discussion.
-
By eatstoomuchjam · Posted
Sorry, but this sentence makes no sense. A bigger sensor doesn't change how a lens behaves. The lens always behaves the same and projects the exact same image circle. And "cinematic" is a meaningless term so "cinematic signature" is equally meaningless. This is untrue. Assuming that you mean compared with S35, to be more specific, FF gives shallower depth of field for equivalent framing at the same focal range and aperture. You can get an identical image by using a wider S35 lens with a bigger aperture. This is exactly what focal reducers do when they focus the image circle of a FF lens down onto an S35 sensor. In fact, when using a focal reducer, a Komdoo or Komodo-X has slightly less DOF at equivalent framing than a natively FF camera (the equivalent crop factor at that point is something like 1.05x). This also becomes largely an academic distinction if you don't insist on shooting fast lenses wide open 24x7. And even if you do, do you need shallower DOF than Army of the Dead, that Zack Snyder movie from 2021 that was shot entirely with the Canon 50/0.95 dream lens wide open? This is true, but irrelevant to a discussion of whether there is or isn't a medium format look. It only reveals more lens character in the sense that for some lenses, you see the worse parts of the image circle outside of the standard 35mm film size. In some cases, it also just means you can't use the lens at all - for example, my Noctilux-M 50/1 only barely covers 24x36mm and already has dark corners and edges. On a GF sensor, you just get the edge of the image circle surrounded by blackness. That lens has plenty of character already on FF. On film, yes, but this is related to the inherent resolution limits of film. On the 100 megapixel GF sensor, this is technically true vs 35mm format cameras that have 61 megapixels, but it's largely an academic distinction that is barely noticeable in practical terms. But when you're using line skipped/binned 4K off of that sensor, you have less smooth falloff than off of a 35mm sensor recording 8K. This is also academic and can barely be seen. At the same focal length, sure. Luckily, we can change lenses. It would be true to say that you can capture a different image with the same lens as a smaller format. So if your goal is to get a different look out of your vintage Nikkor 200mm lens and if that lens has an image circle big enough to nominally cover a sensor that's 44mm wide. If you're shooting 16/17:9, will that difference be substantially different than the image from a V-Raptor XE with a 41mm wide VV sensor (that costs $1,500 less)? No. That or if 3:2 capture isn't a concern, go rent the Ursa Cine 17K 65 with a 51x24mm sensor. Yeah, footage from the GFX 100 II looks nice too. But so does footage from the GH7, a camera with a much smaller sensor. For video, I prefer footage from my UC12K LF to what I get from the GFX 100 II. -
Really funny indeed, it seems with long takes the only way to trim and save only important parts of footage is through Resolve’s Media management. Tried to rename clips to R3D first in CFExpress, but exporting trimmed parts from Resolve did not work. Compared one old clip and other than R3D’s chroma NR there was not much difference to NEV. Have to test this more with clips that are saved straight from card as NEV.
-
