Jump to content
Andrew Reid

Lenses

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, jonpais said:

This from an interview with Newsshooter

According to ARRI, if you are filming in 2K or 4K at 24 frames per second with a 180 degree shutter angle (1/48th of a second) and the camera is moving quickly, the amount of motion blur means the image will look the same in 2K as it does at 4K. The only way to perceive a difference between 2K and 4K when the camera is moving is to use a higher frame rate and shutter speed – with less resulting motion blur. ARRI maintain that if you want to have higher resolution for motion pictures where objects are moving and the camera is moving, then you need to use higher frame rates for capture and display to see a difference. Within the industry, the jury still seems to be out on whether HFR material still looks at all like film and whether strobing artifact effects are needed for it to retain its film look. Kraus told me he was aware of the ongoing debate but added that if we don’t move to higher frame rates, then we need to end up with images that are more static, or forget about higher resolutions altogether.

It seems we are focusing on motion blur and only motion blur here and thats why I mentioned if this resolution reduction even happens at higher shutter speeds. It is obvious that one will not see certain details if motion blur is present in the image and you are waving the camera around like a mad man which I think none of us do (especially with cameras afflicted with heavy rolling shutter). Even the verbage of this interview sounds like its a theory ARRI and only ARRI has come up with to justify their venture into HFR technology. 

I want to know in your experience when have you encountered a situation where you can visibly see a difference between 4k and 1080p due to handheld movement

http://www.43rumors.com/olympus-interview-at-focus-numerique-says-8k-and-handheld-high-rez-mode-are-coming-on-future-mft-cameras/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
58 minutes ago, kidzrevil said:

It seems we are focusing on motion blur and only motion blur here and thats why I mentioned if this resolution reduction even happens at higher shutter speeds. It is obvious that one will not see certain details if motion blur is present in the image and you are waving the camera around like a mad man which I think none of us do (especially with cameras afflicted with heavy rolling shutter). Even the verbage of this interview sounds like its a theory ARRI and only ARRI has come up with to justify their venture into HFR technology. 

I want to know in your experience when have you encountered a situation where you can visibly see a difference between 4k and 1080p due to handheld movement

http://www.43rumors.com/olympus-interview-at-focus-numerique-says-8k-and-handheld-high-rez-mode-are-coming-on-future-mft-cameras/

It happens every time you press the shutter button. If in my last field test of the Olympus 25mm f/1.2, I had locked the camera down like I did with the Fuji, all the images would have appeared sharper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, kidzrevil said:

@jonpais the image was unusable ?

It's not that big of a deal. We're shooting videos here, not test charts. And I don't even own a 4K monitor. :) 

It's actually more complicated than that. We shoot at 24 frames per second in order to introduce motion blur. Our brain then takes those blurred images and assembles them into what appears to be a sharp image. Check out this demonstration. If you shot a still photo of a moving car or even a bicyclist at 1/50 second, it would be blurry. But shoot them with a motion picture camera and project them on a movie screen and nobody would say the images were blurry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats the point im making, in real life these little nuiances don't matter and are unnoticeable Unless you shoot charts like you just said.its almost like how most people can't see the difference between 4K footage and 4K footage downscaled to 1080. In theory there is a world of difference but in application that is far from reality @jonpais very interesting topic nonetheless, im going to put it to the test today

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

???

sounding a lot like alternative facts but ok.

How difficult is this to get? Blur = loss of resolution, no matter whether it's motion blur, lens blur or sensor blur (from dust on the sensor). It's simple logic. 

Now the math: Let's say that a particular motion causes 0.05% motion blur/loss of resolution in the recorded image:

  • With SD video (720x480), this would smear 0.3 pixels and thus remain invisible/have no impact on resolution.
  • With 1080p video, this would smear 1 pixel and thus still remain mostly invisible/unnoticed.
  • With 4K, this would smear 2 pixels and thus reduce the effective resolution of the image to 2K.

It boils down to the fact that if you shoot a film (or TV) show hand-held with a lot of camera motion, you will never end up getting a true 4K image and can just as well shoot in 2K (or lower).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1080p produced by the cameras that concern us is so bad so practically this conversation is pointless. 

I remember when People were arguing HD vs FullHD Televisions, and how FullHD was pointless with all sorts of charts and formulas, now we have 4K cellphone screens :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ehh... it's all pointless. Over the holidays, I was at the movie theatre and their projector went wonky during the previews and the menu screen appeared... they were projecting the trailers at 720p and they looked great... so if Hollywood movie trailers don't need to be projected at 4K, I highly doubt Albert's Bar Mitzvah or Elizabeth's Wedding or little Billy's 5th Birthday Party needs to be shot in 4K either. But Sony and Panasonic needs to sell those 4K TVs, so they tell us we need 4K... and that is what we get. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mercer said:

Ehh... it's all pointless. Over the holidays, I was at the movie theatre and their projector went wonky during the previews and the menu screen appeared... they were projecting the trailers at 720p and they looked great... so if Hollywood movie trailers don't need to be projected at 4K, I highly doubt Albert's Bar Mitzvah or Elizabeth's Wedding or little Billy's 5th Birthday Party needs to be shot in 4K either. But Sony and Panasonic needs to sell those 4K TVs, so they tell us we need 4K... and that is what we get. 

And those will be obsolete in 2018, when Panasonic introduces 8K...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, cantsin said:

How difficult is this to get? Blur = loss of resolution, no matter whether it's motion blur, lens blur or sensor blur (from dust on the sensor). It's simple logic. 

Now the math: Let's say that a particular motion causes 0.05% motion blur/loss of resolution in the recorded image:

  • With SD video (720x480), this would smear 0.3 pixels and thus remain invisible/have no impact on resolution.
  • With 1080p video, this would smear 1 pixel and thus still remain mostly invisible/unnoticed.
  • With 4K, this would smear 2 pixels and thus reduce the effective resolution of the image to 2K.

It boils down to the fact that if you shoot a film (or TV) show hand-held with a lot of camera motion, you will never end up getting a true 4K image and can just as well shoot in 2K (or lower).

Damn well I pray my clients never notice the smearing of those 2 pixels. That would suck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, cantsin said:

How difficult is this to get? Blur = loss of resolution, no matter whether it's motion blur, lens blur or sensor blur (from dust on the sensor). It's simple logic. 

Now the math: Let's say that a particular motion causes 0.05% motion blur/loss of resolution in the recorded image:

  • With SD video (720x480), this would smear 0.3 pixels and thus remain invisible/have no impact on resolution.
  • With 1080p video, this would smear 1 pixel and thus still remain mostly invisible/unnoticed.
  • With 4K, this would smear 2 pixels and thus reduce the effective resolution of the image to 2K.

It boils down to the fact that if you shoot a film (or TV) show hand-held with a lot of camera motion, you will never end up getting a true 4K image and can just as well shoot in 2K (or lower).

In fact, even if it's lower resolution with motion blur, you're almost always better off shooting 4K with today's mirrorless cameras, since they will have less moire and aliasing when downsampled to 1080p and it also gives you the option to crop the image during editing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 is just blowing my mind. I've got the Leica 12mm f/1.4 next in line, but the Sigma's really raising the bar. Everyone's saying how the Leica's tack sharp from wide open, but I've yet to see any footage from the lens that convinces me of that. And most of the charlatan reviews showing the bokeh wide open, first of all, either there isn't anything sharp in the image to begin with, or they never bother to say what the camera settings were or whether any sharpening was added in post. it's no different from someone posting a review of a $50 LED light and saying how they were able to shoot at f/9 from 12 feet away, meanwhile not saying that they were filming at ISO 12000! i just (almost) finished a review where the YouTuber published all of three or four pictures shot with the lens. Incredible that he's been so productive! My last video had at least sixty images. Another reviewer, talking about the Oly 12mm f/1.2 and filming with the PanLeica 12mm f/1.4, switched lenses in the middle of the review to show how much sharper the Oly was wide open, but neglected to inform readers that the Leica is sharper than the Oly when stopped down a touch. I think people considering spending $1,200 on a lens deserve more than just verbal reassurances that the lens is fine and worth the dough. I will say the build quality of the Leica is impressive, but you shouldn't have to spend over $1,200.00 USD for Panasonic to produce lenses with aperture rings and a solid metal casing. I'm not anyone's fanboy, but if Fuji can build lenses in Japan with high quality metal housings and aperture rings for as little as $500, Panasonic should be able to do the same with their lenses built in China. After all, there are metal bodies, then there are metal bodies, just the as there are high quality polycarbonates (or whatever!) and cheap plastics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, mercer said:

Ehh... it's all pointless. Over the holidays, I was at the movie theatre and their projector went wonky during the previews and the menu screen appeared... they were projecting the trailers at 720p and they looked great... so if Hollywood movie trailers don't need to be projected at 4K, I highly doubt Albert's Bar Mitzvah or Elizabeth's Wedding or little Billy's 5th Birthday Party needs to be shot in 4K either. But Sony and Panasonic needs to sell those 4K TVs, so they tell us we need 4K... and that is what we get. 

Bingo ! 

10 hours ago, jonpais said:

 I will say the build quality of the Leica is impressive, but you shouldn't have to spend over $1,200.00 USD for Panasonic to produce lenses with aperture rings and a solid metal casing. I'm not anyone's fanboy, but if Fuji can build lenses in Japan with high quality metal housings and aperture rings for as little as $500, Panasonic should be able to do the same with their lenses built in China. After all, there are metal bodies, then there are metal bodies, just the as there are high quality polycarbonates (or whatever!) and cheap plastics.

Agreed ! Idk why panasonic insists on these plastic lenses ! I am either leaning towards the leica branded 15mm f1.7 & 42.5 f1.2 or 

25mm f1.4 & 12mm f1.4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because they lightweight and consumerfriendly. Also, everyone's gotta play the segmentation game to some level. Back to Leica... the 15 mil is quite nice on a GX85/80, it's like it belongs there, LX100-like footprint. I do like the Leica rendering. Out of focus areas are Bob Ross paintings that are sprayed down with winner's champagne. It has character. It's not all about sharpness. Sometimes I even like soft Canon footage that just disregards the sharpness of a lens altogether. It's like a gentle smooth wine VS something a little more strong that might make you cough a little. No denying both are pretty good stuff though. To me it doesn't really matter what label is on the bottle or what container they serve me the drinks in... as long as it taste good and makes me feel like 'what the fuck did I do last night?' in the morning, I'm good.

Also saw that comment by Andy Lee in the 'Gear for sale' section! Really gotta give that Metabones Speedbooster with dummy C/Y to EF adapter and Contax Zeiss lenses a shot! Did you unlist the lenses to do just that? (btw, you can do a similar thing with Leica (or Leitz) Summicron-R lenses (L/R))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm contemplating to get a Nikkor 35mm f/2 AI-s and 85mm f/2 AI that a local store has in used to shoot them on APS-C with a focal reducer. Did anyone shoot with these? I'd hope for them to be a bit soft but detailed in 4k and not too sterile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Phil A said:

I'm contemplating to get a Nikkor 35mm f/2 AI-s and 85mm f/2 AI that a local store has in used to shoot them on APS-C with a focal reducer. Did anyone shoot with these? I'd hope for them to be a bit soft but detailed in 4k and not too sterile.

How much are they asking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Phil A said:

I'm contemplating to get a Nikkor 35mm f/2 AI-s and 85mm f/2 AI that a local store has in used to shoot them on APS-C with a focal reducer. Did anyone shoot with these? I'd hope for them to be a bit soft but detailed in 4k and not too sterile.

If you can get them for a decent price, go for it. They are excellent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14.3.2017 at 9:51 AM, jonpais said:

 I will say the build quality of the Leica is impressive, but you shouldn't have to spend over $1,200.00 USD for Panasonic to produce lenses with aperture rings and a solid metal casing. I'm not anyone's fanboy, but if Fuji can build lenses in Japan with high quality metal housings and aperture rings for as little as $500, Panasonic should be able to do the same with their lenses built in China. After all, there are metal bodies, then there are metal bodies, just the as there are high quality polycarbonates (or whatever!) and cheap plastics.

Isn't Fuji's "24mm" 999 USD? Still cheaper than Panasonic though. 

The PL 15mm is 550 USD at B&H and Fuji 23mm is 450 USD. Not a huge difference there either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By Alex T
      I'm looking to swap my Zeiss ZF.2 lenses for the equivalent Canon mountable Zeiss ZE lenses.
      Each of my lenses comes with 16:9 adaptors (which adapt the lenses to EF bodies, with de-clicked aperture and AF confirmation). 
      I have the following ZF.2 lenses: 21mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2.0, 50mm f/2.0 (Makro Planar), 100mm f/1.4 (Makro Planar).
    • By kidzrevil
      Excellent condition Nikkor 28mm f2.8 ais. No scratches,dirt,oil or fungi. 
      https://www.ebay.com/itm/292167203393 



    • By kidzrevil
      https://www.ebay.com/itm/291899495412 
      Another gem from my contax lens set
    • By kidzrevil
      https://www.ebay.com/itm/291899495412 
      Contax zeiss 28mm f2 hollywood for sale. Item is in great condition you can buy it off my eBay 
    • By Anamatis
      I'm really considering making a big upgrade to the URSA, but I've already invested in a fleet of Canon FDs. I've been doing some research on FD to PL mounts without a lot of luck. I know ARRI make an FD adapter to the ARRI mount (PL??) but besides that seems there's zilch out there. Some talk about machining the lenses to fit the new flange but I was hoping someone here knows of something...
       
       
×
×
  • Create New...