tupp

@ZEEK occasionally posts in this forum!

Thank you for doing that comparison! ... but, as you state, there were differences, nonetheless, even though zoom lenses were utilized for the test. The differences that I see are significant. In addition, the comparison suffers the same maladies that afflict all equivalency tests so far. The front and and rear limits to the DOF are not clearly shown. Also, not visible is the focus fall-off outside of the DOF range. Furthermore, the DOF is rather deep. The visual benefits of larger formats are more readily revealed by a shallower DOF. I don't think that they would match too much more closely than what is shown -- not with two primes and not with a shallower DOF and not with clearly showing the foreground and background limits of the DOF. Also, there seem to be some problems with the test that make it inconclusive. The images certainly wouldn't match if two dramatically different sized formats were compared, such as Super 16 and 8"x10". Perhaps one would do so to prove one's point. So, far I haven't seen a single equivalency test that actually demonstrates that two prime lenses made for different formats can match. Again, thank you for doing the test, but, unfortunately, the differences between the images are prominent, and the test suffers from many the same problems inherent in every DOF/equivalency comparison so far. The images from two different M4/3 primes of the same focal length would probably not look as different as the images shown in the test. To do a proper test, a lot more of the variables have to be controlled, and crucial data cannot be obscured (as seems to be the case in most such DOF tests). It's not easy to wrangle all of those elements, but nothing will be conclusive until somebody does it correctly. In the meantime, here is footage shot on Zev Hoover's 8"x10", reflective DOF adaper, and here's a video by our own @Gonzalo Ezcurra testing the focus and DOF on his 14"x14" MiniCyclops DOF adapter. Neither clips are making a DOF comparison with another format, but note how some of Gonzalo's shots intentionally show the foreground that is outside of the DOF range. I would like to see someone use M4/3 to match the looks in the above videos. Not sure how someone arguing with Brian Caldwell is relevant to the points made in this thread, but us "non-entities" should hold our ground!

By the way, It's good that you did not use two formats that "contiguous" in size -- most tests are APS-C vs. FF, or M4/3 vs. APS-C. The differences between such similarly sized formats is slight. However, if you do the same test between Super 16 and 8"x10", the differences in DOF roll-off and the in general look of different sized formats is readily apparent.

Thank you for making this comparison. All three of the images differ from each other perceptibly, despite detail missing in the black background areas and despite the fact that the "given" DOF is way too deep for valid test. It's best to start out with a longer focal length and show detail that continually runs from in front of the subject to a far distance in the background. Also, I have never seen a equivalency test that shows how the foreground limit of the DOF -- that's very important in an equivalency test. I think that I have only once seen an equivalency test that actually showed the location of the background limit of the DOF. In addition, is there a zoom lens on the 1 inch camera? Zoom lenses handle focal length differently from primes.

Not really. A 50mm lens for Super 16mm usually has to pack more lines of resolution into a smaller area than, say, a 50mm lens made for medium format. That difference in lines-per-mm makes a difference in look and in sharpness (which is involved in DOF).

Strongly disagree here. Even if #1 and #3 match according to the "equivalence principle," they won't look the same. The DOF on a Super 16mm camera can be made to "mathematically" match the DOF on an 8"x10" camera, but they will not look the same. Furthermore, in the same scenario, the rate and manner in which the DOF "rolls off" will differ between those two different formats.

Someone suggest white plastic bags early in the thread. Early in the thread, someone suggested regular diffusion gels, which come in a variety of grades and light transmission rates. If you are trying to make the light softer, a 3x5 diffuser on a 3x5 fixture won't help.

Very sorry to hear about that. Did it fall off of a car mount? 😉

Oops! You're correct! I linked the wrong dummy battery! Unfortunately, I can't change the link. Here is the dummy battery (and USB boost converter/adapter) for the E-M10 models. Thanks!

Again, why do you want to put diffusion on that light? Is there a certain look that you seek? If so, please post/link an image of that look.

Of course, you can tape/velcro regular theatre/photo/cine diffusion gels. They come in a variety grades/opaqueness. With LEDs, you can also use, tracing paper, cotton sheets, white plastic bags, etc. However, what are you trying to accomplish by diffusing that light?

I forgot where I got my dummy battery that works on both my E-M10 III and my E-PL6. However, here is one listing on the USA Amazon. You can also get the dummy battery with power adapters for USB batteries or you can attached the linked dummy battery to an AC power adapter that outputs 7v-8V. Of course, you could just use inexpensive Sony NP-F batteries (nominal voltage 7.4V), and choose one with a large capacity. The nominal voltage of most consumer/pro-sumer cameras is 7.4V, but many such cameras have a built-in voltage regulator that accepts a range higher and lower than the nominal voltage. However, I always try to supply the nominal 7.4 volts into the camera, so that the camera's internal voltage regulator doesn't have to do a lot of work, possibly heating up and causing sensor noise.

An odd mix of F-LOG, Eterna, HLG and Film Simulations (Chrome). If you're wondering why grade is all over the place that's why 😀 If you have a Ninja V, you could try the new 12-bit raw (and the new 10-bit 422 profiles) on your GFX100.

Or, Canon just used a "ransomware attack" as an excuse to intentionally cripple their servers. I do the same thing!

Canon hit by Maze Ransomware attack, 10TB data allegedly stolen. Let the jokes commence.

By the way, the E-M10 III has a built-in intervalometer.

There is no cable release of which I am aware, but one can release the shutter through the wifi app. Not sure how one can control the wifi app with an Arduino. The E-M10 II can use a cable release, but it's max video resolution is Full HD. The video is nice quality. Most of the advantages of the E-M10 III involve the uncropped 4.6K and IBIS 4K video, as mentioned in the EOSHD article. I don't know anything about the E-M1 II. You could also get of the less expensive, used/refurb Olympus E-PL models (no built-in EVF) and just use it for your unattended, Arduino stills.

More info would help, and it is not clear whether or not you are seeing additional vignetting on the Sony lens with the step-up/down ring and the filter. If you are seeing more vignetting than before, do you have any other filters mounted to the Sony lens? Does your Sony lens have a 55mm filter size? If so, an 82mm step-up/down ring would probably not reduce vignetting compared to a 72mm ring. A regular ND just reduces overall intensity of light -- it doesn't have any special interaction with polarized light. The unevenness in the sky could be a product of the cross polarization of your variable ND, or the sky could just be uneven. By the way, polarizing filters only affect a portion of the sky. You're not using a separate polarizing filter with your variable ND, are you?

Thanks, Captain!

Please try to use "CGI" to simultaneously duplicate the field curvature, DOF and DOF roll-off of a vintage lens in a skateboarding video, in which the camera and subject are constantly changing their distance from each other with the camera panning back and forth 360-degrees and with multiple subjects constantly moving all over the frame. Please let me know how well that goes.

In regards to optics, its the depth of field roll-off, the field curvature and aberrations. Many optical qualities cannot be duplicated in post, such as depth of field roll-off, field curvature, aberration.

Well, it doesn't take much experience to simply bring the contrast into range and to adjust the saturation and color balance to one's liking. A lot of the "crappy" footage that I see is from inexperienced shooter exceeding the limits of the camera profile/LUT. It usually is best to shoot with the method that will provide the lowest contrast and the most color depth in post, regardless of whether the shooter is experienced or inexperienced (but especially with inexperienced shooters). Also, it doesn't take much to develop a fundamental photographic literacy, and such a basic skill will help one prevail through many varied shooting challenges, more so than just relying on all-in-one profiles/LUTs. With flat or raw files, it takes a negligible amount of time for an inexperienced shooter to simply apply a LUT in post that matches a given camera profile -- we are talking one or two clicks of a mouse. The shooter will still get the baked-in look with all of the arbitrary side-effects. Furthermore, if the inexperienced shooter was off on exposure or color balance, he/she can recover more information from a flat or raw camera file. While shooting, one can likewise just choose the LUT to be used in post -- no post decisions. In addition, the possibility of recovery remains if a flat/raw camera file has exposure/color problems. The options for recovery are fewer with "baked-in" camera files. Exactly.

Yes. It's great that he is back!

Probably not. As I said, I don't use LUTs, and the Acros profiles are actually types of LUTs. Nothing beats the eye of a versatile, experienced color grader. A LUT is limited in regards to what shots it can make look good. A LUT designed for high key won't work with a low key shot, and vice versa. Also, a single LUT is limited to a single look -- not so with a good color grader. However, the main advantage that I argue is having all three color channels available when finishing in black & white. I am not particularly dismissing Acros as a baked-in look. I am saying that, in general, it severely limits one's options to commit to recording black & white camera files from a color camera. It doesn't matter if one records with the Acros profile, with some other internal black & white LUT or with an "inside straight. " I strongly disagree. Again, by having control of all three color channels in post, one has many more options. With the Acros profile (or with any other in-camera black & white profile), one is largely stuck with the way it looks. It might look good in many cases, but so do the results of a good color grader. A black & white LUT such as Acros can't handle all capture contrast ranges and exposure problems the way a good color grader can with all three color channels available. I dispute that. Again, I am not talking about a LUT. I just looked at some Acros footage, and I have no doubt that a good color grader with access to all three color channels can make the images look just as good (and mostly better) than Acros. Below is a quick and dirty examples of the dramatically different looks possible by having control of all three color channels: Both images are from the same color photo. All I did was change the relative intensity of the three color channels (and then adjust the overall contrast accordingly). One sacrifices such control of the look when one records black and white camera files with a color camera. By the way, here is what the black & white image looks like with a decently even balance between the three color channels:

I don't know what Acros is, but what I suggested has nothing to do with LUTs. I never use LUTs unless an untrained client is on set. I like to have maximum control of the grade (or see to it that the hired color grader has maximum control). It's not conceit, but experience that tells me it is generally better to leave one's options open. Acros sounds like it bakes-in a look and one would be mostly stuck with that look as the result would be black & white. Having all three color channels to work with and to adjust separately gives a lot of versatility in the grade to black & white. After having done it several times, I would never commit to an in-camera conversion to black & white.