tupp

I don't think that the tester moved the camera -- the tester was using a single zoom lens and he simply zoomed to change the focal length and then cropped into the image to change the sensor "size." On the other hand, in doing so, the entrance pupil of the lens might have moved forwards/backwards. The problem with such a test (other than the fact that the tester is using the exact same zoom lens for a comparison) is that he didn't test separate optics made for different size formats. That won't work -- it's an almost identical scheme to the above mentioned test in which the tester used a single lens zoomed to different focal lengths. To do the test properly, you have to use two different lenses -- one designed for a smaller format and one designed for a larger format. I would also suggest the the two lenses that you choose to test should be made for two formats of extremely disparate sizes. Comparing a M4/3 lens to an APS-C lens might show a difference that is too subtle for most to perceive, and likewise when comparing lenses made for APS-C and full frame. To make the difference obvious to most people, it would best to compare, say, a lens made for 16mm film to one made for 4"x5" film. By the way, I made those animated gifs, because I could see the subtle yet important differences between the two images that evidently escaped most viewers when the photos were presented one above the other. Even after gifs were posted, some folks could not see the slight, telling differences in focus and DOF, to my dismay. So, you have to hit people over the head to demonstrate a difference. Here is a photo taken with a camera that has a 14"x17" film plane. Aside from the peculiar contrast (it's a tintype), do you think that this look (especially from the focus/DOF) can be duplicated on a Blackmagic Micro Cinema Camera? If you could achieve an identical extremely shallow depth of field with a lens made for M4/3, that girl's shoulders would be a completely blurry mush. I love M4/3, but there are general differences in the look of different formats that do not involve "imperfections." By the way, at what point was it declared that lenses for larger formats have more "imperfections" than those made for smaller formats? Please not that the "equivalence principle" and the depth of field formula are correct in finding the two mathematical limits (front and back) of depth of field. However, neither of these notions account for how the focus rolls off outside of these front and back limits, nor do the equivalence principle and DOF formula describe any variances might occur within their two mathematical limits. There are variables that affect focus that generally increase/decrease depending on the format size for which the optics are designed. For instance, it is easier to put more lines of optical resolution into larger formats. The smaller the format, the more difficult it is to squeeze in the same number of optical resolution lines. When a lens gets near the practical limits cramming lines of resolution into a smaller area, it must certainly affect the look of the focus, which influences how the DOF looks/rolls-off.

A halogen bulb is one of the two primary types of tungsten light sources. This type of lamp uses a thick, quartz glass "envelope" with a tungsten filament and halogen gas inside, hence the terms "quartz," "halogen" and "quartz halogen" -- all of these terms refer to the same type of bulb. The other type of tungsten lamp is "incandescent," which is the same technology as traditional household bulbs. Incandescent lamps have a thin, large glass envelope enclosing a tungsten filament and such bulbs are often filled with argon gas. Quartz halogen bulbs are significantly smaller and longer lasting and their color remains consistent throughout their life. Incandescent bulbs are more delicate and discolor as they age. Never touch the quartz glass of a halogen bulb with your fingers/skin. If you do, immediately clean the quartz thoroughly with isopropyl alcohol and a clean paper towel or plain cotton pad. Otherwise, the oil from your skin will impregnate the quartz and weaken it when it heats up, which can cause the bulb to explode. A 1/2 CTB gel cuts about 1/2 stop of output. On the other hand, if you are mixing ballasted daylight fixtures (such as HMIs), it 's just as easy to put CTO gel over those fixtures.

On the contrary, tungsten lights are usually smaller and lighter than their LED counterparts with equivalent output. Plus, tungsten lights have no fans. The Lowel Omni is compact and light-weight with a high power density and a nicely focus-able beam, but a redhead would work, too -- it's just a little bigger and has a more limited focusing range.

The DP light is a great fixture! I used two of them in a shoot just last week. With the FEL (1kw) bulb, you have a lot of punch that you won't find in most LED fixtures. Easy enough to use 1/2 CTB gels, so that the tungsten color mixes well with daylight. Keep in mind that the dimmer has to be rated for at least 1kw, if one uses the FEL (1000w) bulb or the EHF (750w) bulb. Completely disagree with you here. Omnis are GREAT lights! The reason why folks have had problems with the bulbs is that most of the bulb manufacturers initially did not include a central filament support, so the filament would break easily with shock, plus the focus mechanism on the Omni is exceedingly fast. When the FTK (500w) bulbs started to appear with filament supports, most of the bulb problems disappeared. However, one still should be careful not focus too quickly with an Omni light. The Omnis have a greater focusing range than the DP lights, and two Omnis easily fit into the space of one DP light. At 500w, the Omnis also pack a lot of punch for being so compact. I would definitely recommend Omni lights, and I always carry at least one in my lighting kit. By the way, I heard that QC dropped a little when Tiffen bought Lowel, so it might be wise to search for the pre-Tiffen fixtures. Yes, but don't lick them. Seriously, many of these "corn" bulbs have exposed contacts next to the LEDs, and you can get a little zap if you touch the contacts.

Higher resolution is not necessarily the primary advantage of larger formats -- the advantage is the look. Our own @richg101 developed a medium format DOF adapter -- the Forbes 70. He used the OG Blackmagic Pocket (HD) with the Forbes 70, and the images were beautiful and distinct from smaller formats. In addition, or own @Gonzalo Ezcurra made the largest format DOF adapters that I have seen (14"x14" and 20"x20"), and he used HD cameras with it, but the footage was wondrously gorgeous.

LOL!!! Actually, it would make me happy to have an 8"x10", reflective, DOF rig like the one created by Zev Hoover shown in the video above.

We've had heated discussions in this forum on the DOF equivalency principle and on the difference in the looks of different size formats. I am on the side that there is definitely a difference in the general look of different size formats. I also maintain that the DOF equivalency principle does not account for the rate that the focus "falls off" outside of the mathematical DOF range and that this DOF falloff rate differs between different formats. Keep in mind, that the assertions above apply not to the size of a sensor nor emulsion, but to the optics made for a particular size of sensor/emulsion. If one compares the images from a 16mm camera to those from, say, an 8"x10" camera, the difference in look and DOF falloff is striking. Here is footage from a recent 8"x10" camera:

Even though the format you mention may be uncompressed, the fact that it is 8-bit might cause banding artifacts to appear when you adjust the levels back down in post. Be careful and/or run tests in advance. In your NLE, you might find filters that have sliders and color wheels that will allow you to quickly change the Sony skin tones to your liking.

ETTR is suitable for raw and uncompressed formats. Just be careful going by a histogram alone. If you have zebras, set them in the range of 95%-100%, and use them to determine your upper limit and to choose which parts of the image may or may not blow-out. Waveform is also good for finding the upper limit.

Well, he certainly didn't invent tacky sunglasses and ugly shirts. Promo-wear has built-in hype, just because it is part of the fashion industry. On the other hand, the sunglasses and shirts probably didn't get as much hype as the RED One, which was vaporware for about 3 years. The RED founder and "hoax" mentioned in the same post? Oh, the irony... Some guy made a video about RED's special drives. I think he noticed something.

Has anyone here bought a Panavision DXL? ? Whether or not someone on this site bought something has no reflection on the innovation nor quality of the item in question. I don't think that I ever actually knew what the rental prices were on any one of the different Dalsa 4K raw cameras. Nevertheless, Dalsa was offering 4K raw long before it was even a glint in Jannard's eye. Keep in mind that the first ones to break ground usually incur the most development cost and sink the most resources into a type of product. So, initially, a new type of product is usually very expensive. Often, someone with deep pockets sees the development, and swoops into a market to take advantage of it (and gets all the credit). How does that $15K, very late-to-market, buggy RED One compare to a $1,500 Pocket4K? Do you see how that works? Jannard just rode a wave. Raw video and higher resolutions were inevitable in cinema cameras, as was raw compression. He didn't invent really anything.

RED was not the first to offer a cinema camera that shot 4K raw -- that distinction goes to Dalsa. Dalsa introduced their 4K raw camera at the 2003 NAB. At any rate, 4K raw and compressed raw were inevitable and obvious in the cinema world. At the Dalsa 2003 launch, raw files and the megapixels war had already been around for years in the still photo world. So, it doesn't take a genius to simply apply such notions to moving pictures. In regards to RED's wavelet compression, it had already been established in JPEG2000. So, it doesn't take a huge mental leap to merely apply the same compression method to another video format.

Yep! That would be somewhat smaller than 15m x 15m! ?

15 meters x 15 meters is a small room?

Up until about eight years ago, we said the same thing about the difference in the solidity of the look between a dolly and a Steadicam.

Hollywood/Western Station FTW! Thanks for the link! Some of those shots are beautiful.

Forza 18K from April 2014.

@User, it appears that you need a lens support -- but not a big one.

Agreed. If Panasonic uses an EF-mount once again (in spite of the fact that they already utilize the shallow and more versatile L-mount), that is truly something insane!

You are making a large format DOF adapter and using anamorphic optics? Our own @Gonzalo Ezcurra made the largest format DOF adapters that I have seen. I don't think that he ever tried anamorphic optics on them, but you should probably be aware of them, nonetheless. He made a 20"x20" version, called the "E-Cyclops." Then, he made a smaller, 14"x14" version, called "MiniCyclops." Here is construction of the E-Cyclops. Here are some of the results, evidently from the MiniCyclops. Unfortunately, he took down all of his amazing videos shot with these devices. He also made a motorized focus mechanism and a motorized stand for the cameras.

Again, the pink dots in the highlights of your video appear to be very different from the pink focus pixels that are discussed (and mapped out) on the ML forum. Upon a closer look, I see that focus pixels sometime appear in your video in the same frames as the pink highlight "fixed pattern" dots. Here is what pink focus pixel dots look like: Notice the distinctive, orderly pattern of the pink focus pixels. These faint orderly dots are easy to map out. The pink highlight dots in your video seem to be some other problem, likely related to the pink highlights phenomenon (completely different from the pink focus pixel phenomenon) and possibly also related to fixed pattern noise. Again, you additionally have a "black hole Sun" problem. I think that the free, open source MLV App will solve most of your problems, but I am not familiar with it.

Those pink dots don't look like the typical focus pixel dots. The problems is something else. It appears that you are also experiencing black (pink?) hole Sun effect. I seem to recall reading in the Magiclantern EOSM thread and watching one or two recent @ZEEK videos on how to remedy pink highlights and black hole Sun with EOSM raw. As I recall, one just lowers the white level in MLV App to eliminate the pink highlights. Perhaps, @ZEEK and/or @Alpicat will chime in with suggestions. Nice! Thanks for sharing!

I am talking about everything that involves converting an analog signal to a digital signal, including the signal going into a camera sensor's ADC and the signal coming out of that ADC. By the way, there are zillions of machine vision camera that offer selectable bit depths. There is no encoding nor compression nor codec. The bit depth changes, but the dynamic range doesn't change. No. It doesn't. Barring any artificial signal processing, the max limit of dynamic range is dictated by the analog stage of the sensor. Dynamic range is essentially (originally) a property of analog signals notated in decibels, regarding the maximum signal amplitude relative to its noise level. An ADC merely maps some number of digital increments to an analog signal's amplitude range (not to the signal's dynamic range). Regardless of how many digital increments the ADC maps, the relationship between max amplitude and noise level remains the same. Analog to Digital Converter. Most ADCs for camera sensors are linear. Certainly, other ADCs exist that don't make a linear conversion. First of all, a lot of folks who have tested Alexas would disagree with you and and say that it's dynamic range (in stops) is greater than it's bit depth -- 15+ stops of DR. However, the manufacturer Blackmagic's sensor could integrate an 8-bit ADC with the same analog stage of their 12-bit sensor and also make another sensor with a 16-bit ADC to go with the same analog stage, and the dynamic range would not differ one iota between the 8-bit version, the 12-bit version and the 16-bit version. The reason why the dynamic range (in stops) in CMOS sensors often approximates the bit depth of the ADC is because it is usually the most optimal/efficient balance between bandwidth and color depth. Mapping 16-bits to a sensor with 12 stops of dynamic range probably wouldn't improve the look much, but it would significantly increase bandwidth. Similarly, mapping only 8-bits to a sensor with 12 stops of dynamic range would severely limit the potential color depth and might make the images susceptible to banding. There are camera sensors that have outboard ADCs (not built into the sensor), and, changing the bit depth of the ADC has no effect on the DR.

Ha, ha! Likewise, I've explained many times that dynamic range and bit depth are two different and independent properties. I have also given practical, existing examples of cameras that offer variable bit depth while maintaining the same dynamic range -- the bit depth varies independently from the dynamic range. In addition, there exist cameras in which one can change the effective dynamic range while maintaining the same bit depth. It is a misguided notion that CMOS sensors (or any other types of digital sensors) have some sort of absolute linear relationship between dynamic range and bit depth. 12-bit ≠12 EV and 12-bit ≠ 12 stops DR. The mapping of bit depth increments is independent from the bit depth and also independent from the DR. You can map 8-bit logarithmically, linearly, rec-whatever or any other way -- regardless of the DR. Me too!

Dynamic range and bit depth are two different and independent properties. You can have a 30-stop dynamic range mapped to 8-bit. Likewise, you can have a 3-stop dynamic range mapped to 32-bit.