Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by tupp

  1. No, it doesn't. Dynamic range and bit depth are completely independent properties. Now, an ADC might be part of the signal pipeline that constricts DR, but that has nothing to do with bit depth. Again, the bit depth of those ADCs don't have anything to do with the DR. Those ADCs could just as well be 4-bit with the same DR. By the way, 16-bit ADCs exist.
  2. Folks, just a friendly reminder: Dynamic range and bit depth are two different and completely independent properties. A change in dynamic range does not affect bit depth, and vice versa. Bit depth and dynamic range do not correlate -- period. They are completely different properties. Exactly. You can also make a 16-bit camera that has 2 "stops" of DR. In addition, you can make a camera with a given dynamic range that allows one to choose 8-bit, 10-bit or 12-bit depths (many such cameras actually exist). I can think of a few scenarios in which an 8-bit encoding would be more desirable than a 10-bit encoding of the same image -- if the 10-bit encoding has a lower resolution than the 8-bit encoding, the 8-bit image could exhibit more detail. Furthermore, if the resolution of the 8-bit version has over four times the resolution of the 10-bit version, the 8-bit version will have more color depth than the 10-bit version. Keep in mind that color depth and bit depth are not the same: color depth = bit depth x resolution Also, an uncompressed 8-bit version could very well have an advantage over a highly compressed 10-bit version.
  3. Looks like a nicely performing cinema/broadcast camera. The F-mount is interesting. The B4 mount suggests a crop sensor mode (but there might also be magnification optics in their B4 mount). Perhaps, in regards to S35, Blackmagic is starting to think a little outside of the EF/PL box. However, from the photo it appears that the internal NDs are permanent and this is yet another S35 camera from Blackmagic with an interchangeable lens mount that will not accept lenses and adapters requiring shallow mounts. So, there are countless nice, interesting lenses that cannot be used with this camera, nor will interchangeable FF-to-S35 focal reducers work with this camera and nor will special adapters (such as tilt/swing/shift, continuously variable ND, etc.) work. If this camera has a crop sensor mode, it would be great if it could accept M4/3 and C-mount lenses. On the other hand, @lucabutera's internal Magicbooster insert might work inside the camera's EF mount, even with the camera's internal NDs.
  4. The TechArt E-mount adapter with a speed booster (as suggested by @BTM_Pix) is one way to go. Or you could simply go FF-to-FF and just use the Kipon MD-to-NZ adapter. Which MF Minolta lenses do you have?
  5. Just use one of the Kipon Baveyes MF-to-FF focal reducers made for the Nikon Z-mount. As an added benefit over straight MF, you get an extra stop of brightness.
  6. Use a matte for your establishing shot with walls painted the same/similar color as the walls in your live shooting space. Stay tight for most of the other shots and only show the running water partially in a corner of one of the shots. Here are some underground mattes. Here is a tutorial.
  7. Kipon has it, without the ND: Looks like they have made a few additional Z-mount adapters, including some tilt/shift models. Also, they seem to have made four focal reducers for medium format lenses on the Nikon Z (they appear to offer the same models for the EOS R). Has anyone tried the Kipon "Elegant" lenses on the Nikon Z?
  8. I wonder which one of you is correct... 😎 Actually, if the camera does get released, I would imagine that it would happen sometime in between your two projected times. It probably won't happen "soon," as the guy in the video announcement didn't give any prices, and also note that the images of some of the camera models are CAD renderings. Two more camera models? That's even more ambitious than two guys producing a single camera. Somebody needs to go to the Ximea site and see if they are offering additional cameras with similar features to these two additional models. The footage looks pretty good to me, especially the properly exposed shots showing sunlit areas juxtaposed to deep shadow areas. However, the only way to get an accurate assessment of the DR is to conduct a proper test with proper charts. I don't see any indication of "trolling." They appear to actually be making progress. On the other hand, this recent announcement is probably premature.
  9. In addition, the Ikonoskop camera and the original EOSM can shoot with 16mm and/or S16mm lenses, plus there are many 2/3" cameras that can use 16mm lenses. Also, I seem to recall seeing an Aaton S16mm digital camera at NAB awhile back.
  10. Not really. In the first place, the development of this camera is in the beginning stages. They achieved first light just five months ago, and, apparently, there are only two guys working on it. This haphazard test footage is not meant to be a final demo of the camera -- it's way too early for that. These clips just show that the camera works and that some properties might have been improved. Secondly, although I do not think that 8K is necessary nor desirable for 99.999% of filmmaking, no conclusions can be drawn from this footage. A controlled, side-by-side test is the way to discern and advantages/disadvantages of one format/camera over another. Keep in mind that digital color depth (the first property that you mention) is primarily determined by two equally weighted factors -- resolution and bit depth. In other words, resolution has the same influence on color depth as does bit depth. The higher the resolution, the higher the color depth. So, an 8K image has more color depth than a 4K image. Of the three properties that you mention, dynamic range (capture dynamic range) is most important to me. An unwanted camera-induced color tint can usually be fixed by merely white balancing or by moving a slider in grading software. Not sure exactly what is meant by "color science." It seems to be exceedingly subjective how each of us define that term and how we individually perceive desirable/undesirable color. Again, it's way too early to conclude anything about the image quality of this camera, and they don't have John Toll on staff to shoot their test clips.
  11. More sample footage: It's hare do tell, but it looks like there could be IR pollution in some shots, and they probably have more work to do on the capture DR.
  12. @Matt James Smith Very nice! I think you've nailed the Super 8 look. The rolling shutter jitter when the camera shakes at the end is the only thing that hints the footage might be digital. Nice job! Thanks for sharing the video and the settings!
  13. There is a possibility that a M4/3 lens-to-EF-M adapter (which would accommodate your PL-to-M4/3 adapters) will appear in the near future. Also, a used EOSM goes for ~US$180. Add US$125 for the PL-to-EOSM adapter and your total cost is US$305 -- significantly less than an Olympus E-M10 III.
  14. Might need to be shimmed for parfocal. Which lens and adapter did you get?
  15. Consider the original EOSM with Magic Lantern. It can shoot 2520x1080, 12-bit lossless raw at a crop between 16mm and S16mm. Here are two examples shot by our own @Alpicat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQFKXUS-9V0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2cEQLVQM78 This resolution (2520x1080) requires the ML SD card hack, which is slightly tricky to set-up -- you have to use the right SD card. On the other hand, there are lower resolutions at that crop (between S16 and 16) that don't require the SD card hack. Of course, there are many other ML raw (and non-raw) possibilities with the EOSM, such as 1736x1120, 14 bit lossless raw utilizing the full height of the EOSM's APS-C sensor (another @Alpicat example). A used original EOSM costs around US$180 right now, but the numbers of EOSMs offered are dwindling. Also, there are several PL-to-EF-M adaptors, including some that tilt.
  16. Well, it's a good guess that Nikon has a slight bias to make the auto-focus of their own lenses to work fairly well with this camera.
  17. The Nikkor F mount is safer, as it has a greater flange focal distance. It can be adapted to almost any camera with an EF mount or shallower. Furthermore, it is impossible to mount some lenses with EF mounts onto the EF speed boosters, while those same lenses with Nikkor F mounts can be mounted to the Nikkor F speed boosters (supposedly because of the EF speed boosters have an EF-S blocking flange). Of course, lenses with EF mounts cannot be properly adapted (without extra optics) to cameras/adapters with Nikkor F mounts. To ensure the most possible camera/lens combinations, the basic rule of thumb is that cameras should have the shortest possible flange focal distance while lenses should have the longest possible flange focal distance.
  18. The Nikkor F mount has slightly longer flange focal distance than the Minolta MD mount. So, it might be best to get a focal reducer that attaches a Minolta Lens to a Fuji camera, and then figure out a way to temporarily attach (and coarsely shim) a Nikkor mount to that focal reducer. Or, just buy two focal reducers -- one for Minolta to Fuji and another for Nikkor to Fuji.
  19. This is exciting! On the other hand, there have been concerns about Fuji's previous compression engine givng false, waxy colors, so I hope this latest iteration has overcome some of those issues. If camera manufacturers would just implement a small raw video tap on these cameras, it would allow us to deal with most such issues ourselves (as the linked article demonstrates a raw still fix using a Darktable demosaicking algorithm and chroma filters). It should also be noted that, by its nature, the X-Trans color array yields less color information than a Bayer array, and X-Trans is not immune to moire. As I recall, the only standard 2x3 print aspect ratio was 4x6 (in the USA). The rest were 5x7, 8x10, 11x14, 16x20 and 20x24.
  20. tupp

    Low budget car rig

    Nice rig! Definitely loose the gimbal on a simple hood mount. Also, you really should safety your rig with a motorcycle strap or ratchet strap. For your small setup, you probably need only one strap going across the hood, hooking into opposite wheel wells. Here is an example of a larger rig with straps: In the above car rig images, note the padding where the buckles/hooks make contact with the car body. I would also add soft "groovetyne" fabric scraps at any point at which the the strap webbing contacts the car's body. For a small camera hood rig, I usually avoid suction cups and instead use a simple pancake (1/8 apple box with baby plate) with groovetyne or neoprene underneath: There are plenty of inexpensive tilting heads with 1/4"-20 camera threads that fit on the baby pin. This pancake rig is usually secured with two straps and possibly a sandbag (if there is wobble). One more thing about shooting in a car in which an actor is actually driving -- avoid busy streets! The actor is constantly trying to be the character, which can significantly distract him/her from noticing other cars, pedestrians and road hazards. Having a "spotter" car ahead of the picture car can provide extra safety and can govern the speed (slow speeds often look faster in the footage, so there is usually no need to "press the pedal to the metal").
  21. I don't think that this is true in all raw modes on the EOSM. My understanding is that raw on the EOSM in the lower res crop modes (which you seem to seek) is stable and can work without over-cranking the SD card. Perhaps @Alpicat could enlighten us further on this matter. It looks like a very clean cameflex mount with the end flanges removed. Here is such a mount with the end flanges: Here is the cameflex mount with no end flanges, but with a PL flanges: Here is is a cameflex-to-Emount adapter:
  22. To get to the point at which the throat diameter might "block" the sensor on full frame, the flange distance has to be significantly shallower and the throat diameter has to be smaller than those of an E-mount. It's not even close (so to speak) in this case, as full frame requires a 43.27mm image circle and the throat diameter of an E-mount is 46.1mm. With the E-mount, there's plenty of room for IBIS and even for tilt/shift.
  23. @ntblowz The throat diameter of a lens mount usually has little to do with the size of the image circle from a lens. Consider an 8"x10" view camera: That relatively small lens creates an image circle that fully covers the camera's 8"x10" film. Not only that, but it has an even larger image circle than required for 8"x10", because the lens has to allow for tilt, swing and shifts. In addition, the hole in the camera's lens board is even smaller than the front element of the lens. So, even though the lens mount is a small fraction of the size of an 8"x10" sheet of film, the lens has no problem covering an area of significantly more than 8"x10". The same principle applies to smaller formats. In regards to larger sensors being easier to stabilize than smaller sensors that have less mass, that is a misguided assumption. The lower a sensor's mass, the less work required form the sensor stabilization actuators. Such an IBIS scenario is differs from the general principle that heavier cameras are more stable. With a simple heavier camera, the lens and sensor move together, so extra mass reduces overall jitter. However, with IBIS, the sensor has to be moved relative to the lens to compensate for overall jitter.
  24. tupp

    Nikon FF Mirrorless

    16mm?! That would be great!
  25. The latest development with ML and the EOSM is that one can shoot raw with the full height of the sensor -- and it looks fairly clean (minimal moire/aliasing). The resolution is 1736x1120, and I think that the pixels are binned 3x3. Here's @Alpicat's test at 14-bit lossless raw: Here are the instructions on how to setup the EOSM in this new crop/resolution.
  • Create New...