Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by seanzzxx

  1. On 1/14/2019 at 3:53 PM, wyrlyn said:


    That's a really common problem with the Viltroxes, and it seems to be a quality control thing. I have the same on my 18-35, from 1.8 it's really sharp but at 1.2 it's a ridiculous washed out glow, totally unusable. I didn't bother returning it because I'm 1) lazy and 2) never shoot below f1.8, but it's still annoying. Can't complain for the price, though.

  2. No problem! Just to clarfiy, the 1.44x crop of super 35 is against FULL-FRAME (again, in 4k your 1dx mark II is not the same width as full frame).

    Full frame sensor width is 36mm.
    Super 35 film width is 24,89mm.
    1dx mark II in 4k sensor width is 27,5mm (give or take).


    36/24,89= 1,45. So the crop of super 35 compared against full-frame is 1,45x.

    27,5/24,89= 0,91x. So the crop of your 1dx mark II in 4k compared against super 35 is 0.91x. You can do this in all directions.

    24,89/27,5=1.10x. So the crop of super 35 when compared to the 1dx mark II in 4k is 1.10x.

    Again, this is all theoretical, because a 1.10x crop is meaningless.

  3. So Super35/the Arri Alexa (90% of movies you will have seen will be shot on those formats) have a crop factor of around 1.45 (I got this number wrong at first, updated my earlier post), unless they were shot anamorphic in which case we get into the story of horizontal crop factors and we get really freaky, which we will not do now.

    Your 1dX II has a crop of around 1.3, so the angle of view is WIDER. If you don't want to exceed 18mm angle of view when compared to s35, you'll have to put a tighter lens on your 1dx mark II. In your case the crop factor of a 1dX II when compared to super 35 would be around 0,9, so you wouldn't want to go wider than a 20mm roughly.

    However, to make your life easier: in real life a crop factor of 0,9x is is so incredibly, insignificantly small that it really doesn't matter, just go for the same lenses you would use on Super35 and you'll be fine.

  4. Okay, so a few things.

    Super35 is technically a 1.44x crop (I GOT THIS NUMBER WRONG AT FIRST, EDITED IT NOW) when compared to full-frame. However on Sony it's a 1.5x crop, on Canon a 1.6x crop for their aps-c sensors. If you want to match the angle of view of Canon aps-c (1.6x crop) to that of the Canon 1dx II, it's important to remember that the crop factor is compared against a specific sensor format, namely that of full-frame 35mm (so NOT Super35).

    So the aps-c crop is heavier than that of the 1dx II (1.6x as opposed to 1.3x when compared to full-frame). This means that if you want to to match the angle of view of a aps-c sensor to a 1dx II (4k) angle of view, you will have to apply a NEGATIVE crop (because you're actually getting a wider angle of view, not narrower). That crop is about 0,8x.

    So it will look like this:

    Super35 (canon aps-c) to 4K (Canon 1DX)(0.8x)
    18mm = 14,4
    21mm = 16,8

  5. 11 hours ago, tupp said:

    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.




    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.


    IronFilm's comment was made before the announcement, but Cinemartin is talking about two-to-four months, depending on the model: https://***URL removed***/news/2936447826/cinemartin-launches-fran-cameras-with-8k-global-shutter-and-raw-support


    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.

    No offense, but you have to be almost wilfully obtuse to think this footage looks good or even displays good dynamic range. You don't notice the:

    1) Incredibly wonky colors in log and even more so in the 'graded' footage at 2.56 or 2.19? I mean you could argue that this was the grade but this footage should never, ever be allowed to look like that in a product launch video,

    2) The heavy IR cast in much of the footage, including 2.56 and 2.10,

    3) The focus being off in a lot of the footage, most noticeably in 2.04: I mean these are the fundamentals, this simply cannot happen in a video like this,

    4) the dynamic range looks terrible and I would really love for you to convince me otherwise, you've got clipped highlight details and milky, crushed blacks at 1.48, 1.50 (better shadow detail), 1.58, 2,04, 2.18 and this is JUST from THEIR OWN highlight reel. You could argue this is because they didn't do anything to control the lighting on an extremely sunny day at high noon but my question to you would be then that WHY, for God's sake, would you EVER shoot your video like this when the aim of it is to make your footage look good?!

    5) the overall production quality is laughable, with audio sounding like they recorded it straight from a rode videomic pro in an empty concrete room, visuals popping in-and-out of frame out of sync, the guy explaining how to import the footage to your NLE, I mean it doesn't make ANY sense. This video is a masterwork in unintentional comedy.


    EDIT: Prices by the way:

    Fran LT: €10,995 regular, €7,920 introductory

    Fran (STD): €17,790 regular, €15,995 introductory

    Fran Plus: €25,670 regular, €19,995 introductory


    I mean these are URSA, EVA-1, even RED prices ... that's a big ask for this footage.

  6. 22 hours ago, Shirozina said:

    Just checked now (without the 1:2.40 frame guides) and yes there is a very slight corner shading wide open at the wide end but I wouldn't call it a problem and nothing that can't be fixed in the grade. Maybe on the Metabones it's different though?

    Okay, I just figured this out: it's the HOOD. With the sunhood on I get significant vignetting (on the left especially). Without it it's, like you said, not worth mentioning.

  7. That's weird, because I definitely am. Are you shooting at the full sensor width? I'll get some screen caps later today :)

    Also my comment about full frame was in reference to Emanuel saying the lens is usable at full frame except for the wide end while my experience is that that's not really true.

  8. 26 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

    Indeed. SB XL is designed for FF while Ultra model for APS-C coverage, but there's also some glass which covers FF such as 18-35mm f/1.8 other than the wide end.

    For people getting their hopes up, this is slightly misleading. My experience has been the following:

    The 18-35 will vignette even on a .71x ('ultra') speedbooster until about 20mm in DCI 4K (only barely and not worth mentioning in Ultra HD). It's sort of usable but the vignette is definitely there across the whole left and right side and it's relatively severe.

    It will basically be unusable on full frame on my A7RII until 35mm, at which point you might as well use the lighter, better, brighter 35mm 1.4 ART.

  9. The P4K will actually be better for small-budgeted crews in that regard because Prores runs much, much smoother than h.264 (because your computer doesn't have to do as much decompression in real-time). My old laptop tore through Ursa 4K Prores 444 files but stuttered with a7s II 4k footage.

  • Create New...