Stab

Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin used to mention this sort of feeling whenever they saw films set in the Nevada desert.

In the "Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K" thread it is mentioned that the sensor stack thickness of black magic sensors (being that they have a thinner sensor stack) may cause issues with the image with lens not designed for a specific sensor stack thickness.  There is a mention of the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 being basically immune to this issue due to the fact that its is a very telecentric lens.
Kisaha wrote in that tread : "3. How telecentric the lens is. (More specifically, how far forward the exit pupil of the lens is.) A lens with the exit pupil far away from the sensor is not affected by the thickness of the sensor stack very much. A lens with the exit pupil very close to the sensor is affected a lot."
and drm wrote: "3. The Sigma 18-50 f/1.8 lens is pretty much immune from the problem because it has an exit pupil distance of 150mm." As sigma does not make an 18-50 f1.8, I assume he is talking about the 18-35 f/1.8.
So the physics of the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 with its exit pupil distance of 150mm makes it very telecentric, which may explain in part why it is hard to beat as it finds itself on so many different sensor stacks thickness and still maintains its image quality.  The telecentric quality of the Sigma 18-35 may also allow the image to stand up better when running through additional glass like a speed booster.
 

I was trying to figure out why we were wrong, the optical system hasn’t changed so the depth of field hasn’t changed - this is pretty fundamental in optical systems I have worked on.
 
The bit that we were missing, as Kye says with the circle of confusion, was that while the optical system hasn’t changed, the viewing conditions have. The depth of field ( effective to the viewer of the output ) is the same for any size sensor as long as the output is scaled similarly to the input I.e. FF35 is viewed twice the size of M43. The circle of confusion is related to both the input and output size and scaling that changes the visible depth of field. I think of it like zooming into 100% , I can see whether something is actually in focus but I couldn’t tell when scaled to fit the screen, the difference won’t be as apparent as that example though.
 
This is interesting to me because it explains why FF35 looks so good on a phone but can be too shallow on a big screen, and may explain some of the rush to the bigger sensors - as the images we view get smaller we need shallower depth of field to match the depth of field we see ourselves or are accustomed to in media.
 
What I haven’t quite wrapped my head around yet is whether it changes the absolute level of blurriness of the out of focus areas. My initial thought is that it doesn’t, it just changes the rate of transition between acceptable sharpness and out of focus but not the absolute blurriness ( I’m sure there’s better terms for this ) Anyone got any pointers on that ?

Ok maybe we got it wrong after all? haha

No you don't. I'm not trying to compare the framing or make the same shot. 

I put the same lens on 2 different camera's on the DOF calculator at the same distance. And it should show that the DOF is the same. At least, that's what I thought. It doesn't matter that the framing isn't the same. A 70mm is a 70mm. It doesnt matter if you mount it on a full frame camera or on a banana.
A crop sensor is basically the same as cropping in post and then blowing the image up to the same size as it would have been on the full frame camera. It doesn't change any other stuff, besides that you have a narrower FOV. That alone doesn't change the DOF. The DOF will only change once you start zooming in / out or moving. Which the DOF calculator doesnt take into account and is not what I'm asking here.

Guys give it a break and write a film ffs!

I watched The Godfather (again) recently. This film probably has as much detail as a poor 720p camera. The highlights are often blown out and it looks like the dynamic range of that film is no more than 6-8 stops. It is yellow as fuck.
And still, it's a beautiful movie. And almost everyone agrees.
I realised that, including for myself, this obsession with gear, pixel peeping and resolution is a race to the creative bottom.

Guys give it a break and write a film ffs!

I watched The Godfather (again) recently. This film probably has as much detail as a poor 720p camera. The highlights are often blown out and it looks like the dynamic range of that film is no more than 6-8 stops. It is yellow as fuck.
And still, it's a beautiful movie. And almost everyone agrees.
I realised that, including for myself, this obsession with gear, pixel peeping and resolution is a race to the creative bottom.

My mistake ...  the reviews of the S1H made it sound like the backup recording was not available prior to the two SDII slots .... makes sense that the XQD can keep up with
anything the SDII writes in the S1.
 
Thanks
Bob

That's unfortunate, I wonder if a filter could be installed to fix that issue. I am guessing they left that out for greater stills image quality. Hopefully it'll be different on the S1H

Can anyone here with an S1 do some aliassing / moiré tests? Take some of your blouses / shirts / jackets with very fine texture patterns and shoot it to see if you can get it to moiré?
I had 2 S1 bodies, kept 1 for photography, and it was very bad on both of them. Now, I shoot weddings so I see a lot of people in jackets and suits with fine patterns but I saw it on many people's clothes. Including 2 grooms in 2 weddings...
But, most people aren't talking about this. It seems like I am the only one complaining about this stuff. So, what is going on? Could be good if other people did some tests or pixel peeped more to see if there is strong aliassing or moiré in their shots Thanks

Guys give it a break and write a film ffs!

I watched The Godfather (again) recently. This film probably has as much detail as a poor 720p camera. The highlights are often blown out and it looks like the dynamic range of that film is no more than 6-8 stops. It is yellow as fuck.
And still, it's a beautiful movie. And almost everyone agrees.
I realised that, including for myself, this obsession with gear, pixel peeping and resolution is a race to the creative bottom.

Guys give it a break and write a film ffs!

I watched The Godfather (again) recently. This film probably has as much detail as a poor 720p camera. The highlights are often blown out and it looks like the dynamic range of that film is no more than 6-8 stops. It is yellow as fuck.
And still, it's a beautiful movie. And almost everyone agrees.
I realised that, including for myself, this obsession with gear, pixel peeping and resolution is a race to the creative bottom.

Very easy reason why:

PRICE!! 

The Panasonic S1R is US$3.7K

At $2.5K the S1 is a *lot* cheaper!

And there are heaps of other tempting cameras around that much lower price point of US$2.5K, or even sub $2K. 

Such as Z Cam E2 / BMPCC4K / Sony a7 mk3 / Panasonic GH5S / GH5 / Fujifilm X-T3 / Nikon Z6 / etc 

We're really spoiled for choice! If someone wishes to spend much less than what a S1R costs. 
And if a person does want to spend somewhere around that US3.7K price point that a S1R costs, then they've got plenty of other choices there as well to tempt them away, for example:

The Sony FS5 is cheaper (and is MUCH cheaper if buying secondhand on eBay)

Also did you know the Panasonic EVA1 has dropped in price to sub $4K new? That is only marginally more expensive than the S1R (cheaper than the S1R when you consider how much it would cost to make the S1R a bit more fictional!). And the EVA1 would put the operator into a totally different class of work than owning the S1R, that the ROI from an EVA1 would undoubtedly be better than owning a S1R. 

And if you carry on looking up, the Canon C200B has dropped to sub $5K new as well, which from a professional working perspective is not really that much more than an S1R either. 

I could go on and on. But basically the Panasonic S1R is too expensive for both amateur and semi professional filmmakers, unless you first and foremost are going to get a lot of value at of its stills capabilities as well (perhaps you're an ex Sony a7R, Canon 5DS, or Nikon D810 shooter etc). 

If you are a photographer hybrid who can justify the expensive of a stills orientated S1R then sure, go for it! Although personally I'd probably rather get two cameras instead (is always handy to own two! A back up for each, or for multi cam shoots), which each dedicated to the task at hand. (videography or stills)
Such as a Nikon D810 + Z6, or a Sony FS5 + a7R mk2 would be a waaaay nicer combo to use for shoots than a single Panasonic S1R! (and yet, the total cost would be very similar for any of these three options from Nikon / Sony / Panasonic )

My guess is that the HLG is only available in 24/25p or 30p though (same as the S1), since, unfortunately you can't use it for 60p, so as far as dynamic range goes you'd be limited to however much you could tweak the built in profiles. 

Hi guys,
I have a weird problem with the 10-bit mov clips from the GH5-s.
I have a desktop and a laptop with very similar specs and performance. The desktop has a Ryzen 1700 with a GTX 1070 ti, the laptop a i7 8750h and a GTX 1060 6GB. Both have an SSD, the same version of Windows 10 (64-bit Home) and the exact same version of Premiere.
The desktop plays the 10-bit clips without any problems in both VLC player as Premiere and cuts through it like butter.
The laptop is a different story. VLC player (same version) acts very weird upon importing and crashes. Premiere can't handle the files as playback is horribly slow and choppy. The CPU and GPU don't fully work as I can see in diagnostic tools.
8-bit 4k files however are no problem and editing is as smooth as can be.
I know that the 1060 is a bit less powerful than the 1070 ti but it should be more than capable for just simple browsing through the footage. Mind you, even the preview monitor can't handle the files.
Mercury playback is on for both machines. Copying the mov files to the SSD makes no difference. It seems to me like a software or codec problem, especially because even the same version of VLC player can't show the clips.
Anyone know how to fix this? Would be appreciated!! Thanks

You can get an adapter for the FVD that gives it 72mm threads, and then just use a step ring to connect it to the front of your 40-Compact.

Both HCDNA and Rapido are quite heavy and that's why they are often mounted using clamps.
FVD-16A has a thread on its back - it's a 75 mm (female, and that's quite unusual since almost every filter has a male thread at the back) thread.
HCDNA - can't really say much about it because I've never considered it as an option, sorry.

Damn.  You're right, I think I confused myself.
My 44-2 doesn't have a pin and the aperture is fully manual.  My other Helios, which I bought as a 44-4, but is only labelled 44M, has the pin and a Manual/Auto switch.  According to camerapedia the M just means m42 mount.  But there are heaps of people who have lenses that don't have switches and can't set the aperture manually.
I also checked the Fotga adapter, and it definitely doesn't press the pin.  



Looks like the advice is to get a 44-2 or make sure you get the manual/auto switch.  Sorry @Stab, hope you didn't hit ebay in the last couple of hours? ???

If you search on eBay, you can find good prices on Helios lenses that were already modified to the Nikon mount. I would look for one of those if you intend to use it with your speedbooster. Using adapters to Nikon F mount can be tricky, a lot of them need glass adapters or won’t hit infinity focus. So I would search for someone that already modified the lens mount and guarantees infinity focus and obviously check the sellers feedback. 
Good luck. 

The 44-4 doesn't need the adapter to push the pin, so get that one and get the cheapest adapter that looks sturdy.  I've bought a number of cheap Chinese adapters and they're all solid and work fine for me.
I've currently got my 44-4 on a Fotga non-SB adapter as a 116mm equivalent lens, and my 44-2 on a cheap Chinese SB (it's a SB and mount adapter in one) as a 80mm lens, but I've got more lenses in-transit so I'm not sure if they'll stay in my lineup.  They are quite soft, and prone to flare from highlights within the frame, so I might end up liking a more generic lens instead.  Now I've found the 5K mode on my GH5 that has much less sharpening I don't need the lenses to do as much softening for me.
Vintage lenses are so cheap, plentiful and interesting that it's hard to fight the urge to try all of them 
Not to tempt you (ha ha ???) but there are some other nice lenses similar to the Helios.  I've got a Mir 1B 37mm f2.8 on order that's meant to be the 35mm equivalent of the Helios, so that'll be interesting when it arrives.  You can even buy them new!

That's a fair point haha. 

This is difficult to answer without knowing about the application. What do you want to shoot? Sports have entirely different requirements to portraits or travel photography. 
I use the Viltrox+Sigma (EOS mount) setup. First time I tried it for stills, it reminded me of the time I was using the EM1mk1 with the Viltrox FT to m43 adapter and Olympus 14-54mm f2.8-3.5 mk2. Quite snappy but not spectacularly fast. I'd say at the same level as some older native m43 lenses. If I use the setup for stills it will be for static subjects, so, again, depends on your application. 
 

I can't remember as it's been a while, but I remember it worked okay for portraits, traveling, etc.
GH5, 0.67XL Metabones Speedbooster, Sigma Art 18-35/1.8
I use this combo all the time for video, high school football half time shows.

I have tried it a couple of times and it seemed reasonably accurate but not very fast. 

Is there anyone here with the GH5 / GH4 that shoots with the Sigma 18-35 on a (Canon) Speedbooster and can tell me something about the autofocus when taking stills?
Is it accurate? And is which mode is it working the best? Would I be able to trust it for shooting stills?
I shoot with the Nikon version of this setup now, thinking I would never need to shoot stills, but since recently I get asked a lot to shoot stills. And I love this lens / combo.
Anyone who has tested it or could test it for me? Thanks!