Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: 5ds vs 5d "classic"  (Read 2551 times)

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1363
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #20 on: May 08, 2018, 02:33:02 PM »

Aw, shucks.  (that's American for "thanks" in a humble way)

Just to add to the original story...

I sold my 5d classic on Sunday to the KEH guys who came to town for the day.  Then, Monday, I discovered that my "new" used 5Ds had a crack in the camera body.  It had been dropped on it's head pretty hard at some point, but continued to work.  Obviously, I can't keep this camera in this condition.  But I'm leaving the country on Saturday, and now... I have no digital camera at all, just lenses :)

The guys at B&H seem very helpful and are sending me another used body overnight and will refund me for the original camera when they receive it back.  Wish me luck that this new "used" body is in working order!  I am glad that I didn't try to buy a used camera on ebay though...
Holly crap. I missed a part of the story board from "Bruce and the camera".
I though you sold your vintage one and bought a 5Ds new (price body new in shop 2200 euros) or have you been talking about a used 5Ds R? I don't get the 3000 euros mentionned earlier.
Scene1: Used body sold.
Scene2: broken used body I thought was new.
Scene3: new used body until broken body reborn.
Comming Episode: has Bruce falled into the relentless Murphy law's of bad luck or will the new temporary used body survive until the refurbished one has been resent? :o
the drama starts to get exciting. ;D
I want to follow more episodes.
The good news is that refurbished bodies are best than used, (if they send it to Canon).
« Last Edit: May 08, 2018, 03:04:51 PM by fredjeang2 »
Logged

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1363
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #21 on: May 08, 2018, 03:02:31 PM »

By the way Bruce,
The "agressive" sharpening I was talking about earlier does not appear in FB where it's all perfectly fine. Only occurs in the gallery display of your web site and not in all pics, which is strange. I wonder if it's a kind of wordpress plug-in with some oscur settings. Curious. (don't worry cause I'm a bit anti-sharpening anyway so what seems too much for me is what's often considered ok+)

PS: wish you best luck with the new cam.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2018, 03:14:53 PM by fredjeang2 »
Logged

smthopr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • Bruce Alan Greene Cinematography
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #22 on: May 08, 2018, 06:38:19 PM »

Holly crap. I missed a part of the story board from "Bruce and the camera".
I though you sold your vintage one and bought a 5Ds new (price body new in shop 2200 euros) or have you been talking about a used 5Ds R? I don't get the 3000 euros mentionned earlier.
Scene1: Used body sold.
Scene2: broken used body I thought was new.
Scene3: new used body until broken body reborn.
Comming Episode: has Bruce falled into the relentless Murphy law's of bad luck or will the new temporary used body survive until the refurbished one has been resent? :o
the drama starts to get exciting. ;D
I want to follow more episodes.
The good news is that refurbished bodies are best than used, (if they send it to Canon).

To fill you in:  New camera $3500 US.  Refrub from Canon, $3000 + 10% California tax or $3300. Used camera from B&H, $2750 (no tax from B&H when they ship from NY State to California)  So, used is $650 less than new and $450 less than refurb...  B&H has 30 day return policy and 90 day warrantee.

Logged
Bruce Alan Greene
www.brucealangreene.com

smthopr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • Bruce Alan Greene Cinematography
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #23 on: May 08, 2018, 06:40:27 PM »

By the way Bruce,
The "agressive" sharpening I was talking about earlier does not appear in FB where it's all perfectly fine. Only occurs in the gallery display of your web site and not in all pics, which is strange. I wonder if it's a kind of wordpress plug-in with some oscur settings. Curious. (don't worry cause I'm a bit anti-sharpening anyway so what seems too much for me is what's often considered ok+)

PS: wish you best luck with the new cam.

I think there are some scaling issues with regards to the Wix website.  I might be able to redesign the photo page to fix that.  There are also a few photos on the website that came from cheap lab scans and I haven't had time to make a proper scan at home yet.  These scans came pre-"sharpened" to a high degree.
Logged
Bruce Alan Greene
www.brucealangreene.com

nemophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 770
    • Nemo Niemann Photography
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #24 on: May 10, 2018, 01:18:54 PM »

I own the 5Ds. It's my first 5D-series camera, having always owned the 1D-series (my other body is a 1Dx). I was DYING for higher res for many years. One of my long term clients does 8' in-store posters. For the resolution they need for printing, I never have to up-res the image from the 5Ds. How I wish the sensor had gone in to a 1D body. Overall, I love the quality of the images. It's not a high-ISO camera -- but I don't care. I have shot with it at 400 and 800 ISO and had excellent results.

You ask about the difference from your 1st Gen 5D? It's night and day. When working on images form a job, after viewing and working on 5Ds images, I feel I'm working on lo-res images when I switch to 1Dx photos. That's not really the case, but the detail is astounding. My only complaint is that I would have liked to have seen an Ethernet port on the 5Ds, like the 1Dx. When ramming 50MP images through to a laptop on a studio tethered shoot, it virtually cripples the computer. I suppose if they put a USB-C into a 5Ds Mark II (not that that camera has even a glimmer of rumor), that would mitigate the problems.

I love the 5Ds. I frequently will  shoot mRAW as well, which is still 28MP. Another alternative is the 5D Mark IV. I've used it on a number of shoots. Very nice camera if you want something between the 5Ds and original 5D.

smthopr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • Bruce Alan Greene Cinematography
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #25 on: May 10, 2018, 04:41:32 PM »

I own the 5Ds. It's my first 5D-series camera, having always owned the 1D-series (my other body is a 1Dx). I was DYING for higher res for many years. One of my long term clients does 8' in-store posters. For the resolution they need for printing, I never have to up-res the image from the 5Ds. How I wish the sensor had gone in to a 1D body. Overall, I love the quality of the images. It's not a high-ISO camera -- but I don't care. I have shot with it at 400 and 800 ISO and had excellent results.

You ask about the difference from your 1st Gen 5D? It's night and day. When working on images form a job, after viewing and working on 5Ds images, I feel I'm working on lo-res images when I switch to 1Dx photos. That's not really the case, but the detail is astounding. My only complaint is that I would have liked to have seen an Ethernet port on the 5Ds, like the 1Dx. When ramming 50MP images through to a laptop on a studio tethered shoot, it virtually cripples the computer. I suppose if they put a USB-C into a 5Ds Mark II (not that that camera has even a glimmer of rumor), that would mitigate the problems.

I love the 5Ds. I frequently will  shoot mRAW as well, which is still 28MP. Another alternative is the 5D Mark IV. I've used it on a number of shoots. Very nice camera if you want something between the 5Ds and original 5D.

Thanks for the "review" Nemo!

I've never shot tethered to the computer so, no problem there!

Just to add to my earlier post, I've received a "new" used camera from B&H, and this one seems to have it's body intact and seems to be working.  Now to figure out this menu which is far bigger than the 5D classic menu.  So many AF options to choose from...  I guess learning this can be my "on the plane" activity or give me something to do on my 9 hour layover in Vienna :)
Logged
Bruce Alan Greene
www.brucealangreene.com

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1363
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #26 on: May 11, 2018, 05:29:26 AM »

The stupid choice for Canon in those models is that
They did not enabled the dual pixels technology, which
Makes a huge difference in what AF experience is concerned.
To keep price "low" maybe? Or they thought that the target will
Be mostly the landscapers and product shooters, audience that
Is more conservative on high performance/reliability AF.
And tethers often.

Title: don't sign the cheque yet
Anyway. As it seems that Bruce is on testing mode, why not open the paradigm
And test some high resolution mirrorlesses also?
I mean that DSLR is a dead-end road and where R&D, refinement and sophistication happens
Is in the mirrorless technology.
Before choosing this Canon once for awhile, I'd test a Sony mirrorless.
Because Canon will progressively abandon the dslr market.

People have put side by side 80Mpx from a Pana G9 next to Hasselblad and the img quality matches.
It's no joke and well documented. (Sony has similar capability).
The cam is built under military standards, really weather sealed in a package that is 1/2 the size of a 1d...
It shows the potential of mirrorless technology in the hands of big companies.
Sony does high reso FF mirrorless (not so well built-like-tank than the G9) but still smaller, lighter and
Way more sophisticated than the Canon DSLRs.

If in testing mode, I would not precipitate on a one way ticket but try the Sony before deciding as cost is about the same.
You might be very surprised and change your mind.

2 other considerations.
1) A 2 sides of the coin regarding Sony is that there are tons of parameters
In relation with profiles. As a result, many tempted users with unproper knowledge set the values weirdly and problems
Occur (cast, gamma and sharpening issues etc...). But as you have the knowledge on colour science,
That becomes an advantage in the right hands because you can really
Shape the camera and look as you want and make it behave your way. It just requires profiles with your background expertise be used at its full potential.

2) tons of Sony users use their Canon glasses with no issues.
And oh yeah...stabilisation! It changes a lot.
6.5 stops on the G9 is true and no marketing claim.
The Sony about 5 stops...that's a lot not to be ignored.

Watch this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QfFxbFJ9jdM

3) the sensor size has not changed. Baking more mpx in the very same surface in capture does not mean that much except that it avoids post prod. There is a conssens on a "magic" number in what FF is concerned which is arround
24 Mpx as a well balanced performances included higher isos and also the upsampling
Capacities. I see a lot of difference in upsampling from a 12mpx D2x compared to a D800. But that vanishes by a big margin when upsampling a D610. And it's not Fred's claim. You can do the tests.
While the sensor size is not bigger, the differences are engineering tricks and they are pushing
Limits but loose on higher isos. We don't need high isos until we need them...
My point is that between Sony 40ish mpx and 50, there is no difference.
But an better balanced perf is 24mpx. Sony has both 40 / 24 mpx.
There is no magic. If we really want high rezzz top quality it's MF or pixel shift tech..

4) those high res FF on steroids are not that suitable for people, street and reportage with humans, included
On big enlargements because it deshumanise a lot and you end with pores and autopsy details,
As Rob pointed. And then they all go crazy with frequency separation to clean all that crap.
The make-up becomes critical, often hugly if not perfectly executed.
We were doing big fashion prints with a 6mpx Fujifilms (12mpx) some years ago for Art Galleries and thet were
Better than what you got with those high rezzz unless you downgrade on camera settings.
Because it doesn't look like scans or MF. It looks electronic. Again on what humans are concerned I put my bet on 24 Mpx.
Smaller pixels favorize lands and buildings but do not people where bigger pixels look more natural and not overdone.
Are you going to do landscapes only? Mmmmm


« Last Edit: May 11, 2018, 09:46:41 AM by fredjeang2 »
Logged

scrane

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #27 on: May 11, 2018, 10:14:01 AM »

I, too, have noticed that the original 5d outperforms its paltry resolution spec. I suspect this is due to a weak anti aliasing filter.
The old 5d is still one of my favorite cameras.
Logged

smthopr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • Bruce Alan Greene Cinematography
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #28 on: May 11, 2018, 11:14:42 AM »

The stupid choice for Canon in those models is that
They did not enabled the dual pixels technology, which
Makes a huge difference in what AF experience is concerned.
To keep price "low" maybe? Or they thought that the target will
Be mostly the landscapers and product shooters, audience that
Is more conservative on high performance/reliability AF.
And tethers often.

Title: don't sign the cheque yet
Anyway. As it seems that Bruce is on testing mode, why not open the paradigm
And test some high resolution mirrorlesses also?
I mean that DSLR is a dead-end road and where R&D, refinement and sophistication happens
Is in the mirrorless technology.
Before choosing this Canon once for awhile, I'd test a Sony mirrorless.
Because Canon will progressively abandon the dslr market.

People have put side by side 80Mpx from a Pana G9 next to Hasselblad and the img quality matches.
It's no joke and well documented. (Sony has similar capability).
The cam is built under military standards, really weather sealed in a package that is 1/2 the size of a 1d...
It shows the potential of mirrorless technology in the hands of big companies.
Sony does high reso FF mirrorless (not so well built-like-tank than the G9) but still smaller, lighter and
Way more sophisticated than the Canon DSLRs.

If in testing mode, I would not precipitate on a one way ticket but try the Sony before deciding as cost is about the same.
You might be very surprised and change your mind.

2 other considerations.
1) A 2 sides of the coin regarding Sony is that there are tons of parameters
In relation with profiles. As a result, many tempted users with unproper knowledge set the values weirdly and problems
Occur (cast, gamma and sharpening issues etc...). But as you have the knowledge on colour science,
That becomes an advantage in the right hands because you can really
Shape the camera and look as you want and make it behave your way. It just requires profiles with your background expertise be used at its full potential.

2) tons of Sony users use their Canon glasses with no issues.
And oh yeah...stabilisation! It changes a lot.
6.5 stops on the G9 is true and no marketing claim.
The Sony about 5 stops...that's a lot not to be ignored.

Watch this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QfFxbFJ9jdM

3) the sensor size has not changed. Baking more mpx in the very same surface in capture does not mean that much except that it avoids post prod. There is a conssens on a "magic" number in what FF is concerned which is arround
24 Mpx as a well balanced performances included higher isos and also the upsampling
Capacities. I see a lot of difference in upsampling from a 12mpx D2x compared to a D800. But that vanishes by a big margin when upsampling a D610. And it's not Fred's claim. You can do the tests.
While the sensor size is not bigger, the differences are engineering tricks and they are pushing
Limits but loose on higher isos. We don't need high isos until we need them...
My point is that between Sony 40ish mpx and 50, there is no difference.
But an better balanced perf is 24mpx. Sony has both 40 / 24 mpx.
There is no magic. If we really want high rezzz top quality it's MF or pixel shift tech..

4) those high res FF on steroids are not that suitable for people, street and reportage with humans, included
On big enlargements because it deshumanise a lot and you end with pores and autopsy details,
As Rob pointed. And then they all go crazy with frequency separation to clean all that crap.
The make-up becomes critical, often hugly if not perfectly executed.
We were doing big fashion prints with a 6mpx Fujifilms (12mpx) some years ago for Art Galleries and thet were
Better than what you got with those high rezzz unless you downgrade on camera settings.
Because it doesn't look like scans or MF. It looks electronic. Again on what humans are concerned I put my bet on 24 Mpx.
Smaller pixels favorize lands and buildings but do not people where bigger pixels look more natural and not overdone.
Are you going to do landscapes only? Mmmmm

Fred, I considered most of what you've written here... But, my lenses are too old to use reliably with the adapter on a sony.  And replacing all the lenses for Sony would have been very expensive.  At some point, one needs to make some decision, so 5Ds it is!  For the kinds of scenes that I shoot, the 50mpx will work for me often, but of course, I don't aways need it, but it's there.  I still have film cameras for when I want a less electronic look.  But traveling with film is not so convenient these days, so the 5ds kind of fits the bill for me at this time, I think :)  My old lenses are quite small, so the package is not too big to carry around...  For me, this is kind of a one size fits all solution.
Logged
Bruce Alan Greene
www.brucealangreene.com

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1363
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #29 on: May 11, 2018, 03:31:38 PM »

I, too, have noticed that the original 5d outperforms its paltry resolution spec. I suspect this is due to a weak anti aliasing filter.
The old 5d is still one of my favorite cameras.
I have noticed that too with both D2Xs and D3.
I think that what happens is that they reached a top many years ago and the endless resolution's increment without incrementation of the sensor's size itself are just tricks of engineering, the same way a plane factory packs twice more people into the same cigar! it's perfectly possible (now tell me about the comfort). But it's a fact: for a reason I ignore, the D2Xs handles surprizingly well drastic upsampling with extra sharpening and the results could rival those of dobled MPx without problem as long as isos are kept low, while trying to double the size of a more pixel-packed sensor does not produce so pleasing results. Edit: even the D2Xs for arquitecture!
IMO it has a direct relation with the pixel size/density.
For example, the 20MPx from micro43 does not handle well upresizing (tried it, no thanks) because pixels are small and the density is high. Putting 20mpx on a micro 43 equals 40ish on a FF. This is really the limit.
This fact was also well documented, and I had closely followed this saga, with the surprizing Leica R digital back that was producing prints of a quality way beyond it's resolution specs.
All R users were saying the same over and over again with proofs (in this forum actually)

If those assumptions are correct, We may deduct that the FF sensor size reached maturity at 12 Mpx and its maximum performance at 24 considering the low light perf.
Is no accident why the current Canon flagship and IMO the best Canon ever made so far is a 20MPx camera.

At 50, camera shake becomes ultra critical, glasses that were performing well on a former model may reveal themselves underperforming, focussing is more difficult open, files are huge, post slows-down. Not everything is grace and joy.

I understand Bruce's points. Considering old lenses, they're not going to take advantage on a Sony adapter and 50mpx, although on steroids, are in-camera.
But it remains to be seen if those very same old lenses will perform so well at those high resolutions.
The difference is that mirrorless tech has been developped specificaly for digital imagery and the specs match the required resolution.
The mounts are also much more versatile, allowing a wider range of potential combinations and costs are kept low.
But yeah...changing all a set of lenses is a very expensive move.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2018, 04:32:13 PM by fredjeang2 »
Logged

smthopr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • Bruce Alan Greene Cinematography
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #30 on: May 11, 2018, 06:03:33 PM »

I have noticed that too with both D2Xs and D3.
I think that what happens is that they reached a top many years ago and the endless resolution's increment without incrementation of the sensor's size itself are just tricks of engineering, the same way a plane factory packs twice more people into the same cigar! it's perfectly possible (now tell me about the comfort). But it's a fact: for a reason I ignore, the D2Xs handles surprizingly well drastic upsampling with extra sharpening and the results could rival those of dobled MPx without problem as long as isos are kept low, while trying to double the size of a more pixel-packed sensor does not produce so pleasing results. Edit: even the D2Xs for arquitecture!
IMO it has a direct relation with the pixel size/density.
For example, the 20MPx from micro43 does not handle well upresizing (tried it, no thanks) because pixels are small and the density is high. Putting 20mpx on a micro 43 equals 40ish on a FF. This is really the limit.
This fact was also well documented, and I had closely followed this saga, with the surprizing Leica R digital back that was producing prints of a quality way beyond it's resolution specs.
All R users were saying the same over and over again with proofs (in this forum actually)

If those assumptions are correct, We may deduct that the FF sensor size reached maturity at 12 Mpx and its maximum performance at 24 considering the low light perf.
Is no accident why the current Canon flagship and IMO the best Canon ever made so far is a 20MPx camera.

At 50, camera shake becomes ultra critical, glasses that were performing well on a former model may reveal themselves underperforming, focussing is more difficult open, files are huge, post slows-down. Not everything is grace and joy.

I understand Bruce's points. Considering old lenses, they're not going to take advantage on a Sony adapter and 50mpx, although on steroids, are in-camera.
But it remains to be seen if those very same old lenses will perform so well at those high resolutions.
The difference is that mirrorless tech has been developped specificaly for digital imagery and the specs match the required resolution.
The mounts are also much more versatile, allowing a wider range of potential combinations and costs are kept low.
But yeah...changing all a set of lenses is a very expensive move.

I think my lenses perform well enough ... in the center and at optimum aperture.  The 100mm f2.0 is very very sharp.  The 50mm1.4 is good when stopped down.  The 35mm 2.0, I don't know, and the 24mm 2.8 is probably good enough in the center of frame, edges will be softer.  Of course at very high shutter speed or on a tripod :)  I think there is no question that more than 50mpx would be a waste for these lenses.  But I do think the 5ds will out resolve my 6x9 film cameras with an 4000dpi/12k scan that I get from my Nikon scanner :)
Logged
Bruce Alan Greene
www.brucealangreene.com

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1363
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #31 on: May 11, 2018, 07:36:46 PM »

But I do think the 5ds will out resolve my 6x9 film cameras with an 4000dpi/12k scan that I get from my Nikon scanner :)
I think so too.

I have a question Bruce, in relation with your long experience with cine lenses, not that much from the mechanical/operational aspects inherent to film but optically.
Let's take a cine lens which look you knows well: do you think that you'd find the very same qualities (same look characteristics) if it was possible to use this lens on a still camera instead?

I'm asking this question because since we sank into the gripping stories of hybridicities putting bleak prospects on dslr dwindling supplies, a blockbusting rush highjacked the e-bay sales: the seek for cinema lenses to be mounted on mirrorlesses. I had filmed once with some cheap Oct19 for the russian Konvas (I like russian gear) mounted on Panasonic cam and the look was "interesting" but the ergonomics horrible to be polite so as the too busy for my taste bokeh. After a few sessions, it remained clear to me that it was more of an exotic affair than a real advantage.
But those lenses that could be found at about 200 euros are now on sales at 500 and more!! (this is why I talked about a rush, offer and demand).
After this funny experiment, I lost my interest on Angenieux cine lenses and similar shopping at the Boulevard Beaumarchais (there was a time when resselers gifted them for 10 bucks to de-clutter their shops...I should have been wise, buy the all shops, and now I'd be rich... >:(
But do you thing a cine lens would optically perform the same on Arri as on a still cam or is it just a mystic?
« Last Edit: May 11, 2018, 07:53:03 PM by fredjeang2 »
Logged

smthopr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • Bruce Alan Greene Cinematography
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #32 on: May 11, 2018, 10:07:12 PM »

I think so too.

I have a question Bruce, in relation with your long experience with cine lenses, not that much from the mechanical/operational aspects inherent to film but optically.
Let's take a cine lens which look you knows well: do you think that you'd find the very same qualities (same look characteristics) if it was possible to use this lens on a still camera instead?

I'm asking this question because since we sank into the gripping stories of hybridicities putting bleak prospects on dslr dwindling supplies, a blockbusting rush highjacked the e-bay sales: the seek for cinema lenses to be mounted on mirrorlesses. I had filmed once with some cheap Oct19 for the russian Konvas (I like russian gear) mounted on Panasonic cam and the look was "interesting" but the ergonomics horrible to be polite so as the too busy for my taste bokeh. After a few sessions, it remained clear to me that it was more of an exotic affair than a real advantage.
But those lenses that could be found at about 200 euros are now on sales at 500 and more!! (this is why I talked about a rush, offer and demand).
After this funny experiment, I lost my interest on Angenieux cine lenses and similar shopping at the Boulevard Beaumarchais (there was a time when resselers gifted them for 10 bucks to de-clutter their shops...I should have been wise, buy the all shops, and now I'd be rich... >:(
But do you thing a cine lens would optically perform the same on Arri as on a still cam or is it just a mystic?

that's an interesting question. 

"super 35" which is the size of the sensor we're mostly shooting at today has a width, the same size as the height of a FF still camera sensor.  I'm attaching a still frame from an Arri Alexa shot with an UltraPrime Ziess lens.  Keep in mind that we shoot each frame at 1/50th sec.  So motion blur almost always comes into play.  The Arri Alexa also has a resolution of about 12mpx, but on the smaller sensor and we down res to 2k or 1920 for release.  So the photo site density of an Alexa is about the same as the Canon 5d classic!

So, are the cinema lenses better optically than conventional 35mm format still camera lenses?  It's hard to see unless one shoots on an 8k movie camera, which I haven't done.  Also, no one releases in anything more than 4k for movies.

I do remember doing extensive lens tests on film and projecting them in a theater.  And there, on a shaking film print, we could see differences in the sharpness of cinema lenses.  The modern Ziess primes were quite good, but zooms, even expensive ones, showed a very slightly poorer image.  So, I'm sure we can see the difference between cinema lenses even on an Arri Alexa which captures about the detail of a Canon 5d classic.  So, I'm guessing that the best cinema lenses will out resolve 5d mkII, but not the 5ds.

Of course what cinema lenses do supply are a matched set of primes.  But, if you shoot Ziess primes and mix them with an Angeniux zoom, they will look quite different, mostly due to color and contrast.

I have shot with older Ziess primes on a Sony a7rII.  This camera shoots a crop mode to match the image circle of a cinema camera at 4k resolution.  And they looked very good, but I did not compare to still camera lenses as those are designed for the full frame 46mpx sensor.

I'm rambling on here because I have no science here, and cinema has so much motion blur that we don't often see a locked down shot to fully view lens resolution.  So really even viewing a movie at 4k will probably not show more detail than an HD or 2k version.  There are other projects, that are not movies that shoot 4k at 60 frames per second with much less motion blur, and there, I think the 4k and maybe 8k would really show.  I saw demos of this at the NAB convention last month and the 8k projection at 60 frames per second was quite impressive, but... it didn't look like what we think is a "movie".  More like really good TV.

And lastly, we needed to build quite a monster with the Sony A7Rii with the cinema lenses, matte box, external Ninja recorder, and remote radio follow focus.  Not to mention all the cables!  But it did work and make really nice images provided we recorded Slog on 4k pro res in the Ninja recorder/viewfinder.

Attached below is a frame from "Night Shift", opening in cinemas June 21 in Russia and Russian speaking nations.  See if you can judge a lens by a movie frame ?   8)
Logged
Bruce Alan Greene
www.brucealangreene.com

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1363
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #33 on: May 12, 2018, 10:03:54 AM »

that's an interesting question. 

"super 35" which is the size of the sensor we're mostly shooting at today has a width, the same size as the height of a FF still camera sensor.  I'm attaching a still frame from an Arri Alexa shot with an UltraPrime Ziess lens.  Keep in mind that we shoot each frame at 1/50th sec.  So motion blur almost always comes into play.  The Arri Alexa also has a resolution of about 12mpx, but on the smaller sensor and we down res to 2k or 1920 for release.  So the photo site density of an Alexa is about the same as the Canon 5d classic!

So, are the cinema lenses better optically than conventional 35mm format still camera lenses?  It's hard to see unless one shoots on an 8k movie camera, which I haven't done.  Also, no one releases in anything more than 4k for movies.

I do remember doing extensive lens tests on film and projecting them in a theater.  And there, on a shaking film print, we could see differences in the sharpness of cinema lenses.  The modern Ziess primes were quite good, but zooms, even expensive ones, showed a very slightly poorer image.  So, I'm sure we can see the difference between cinema lenses even on an Arri Alexa which captures about the detail of a Canon 5d classic.  So, I'm guessing that the best cinema lenses will out resolve 5d mkII, but not the 5ds.

Of course what cinema lenses do supply are a matched set of primes.  But, if you shoot Ziess primes and mix them with an Angeniux zoom, they will look quite different, mostly due to color and contrast.

I have shot with older Ziess primes on a Sony a7rII.  This camera shoots a crop mode to match the image circle of a cinema camera at 4k resolution.  And they looked very good, but I did not compare to still camera lenses as those are designed for the full frame 46mpx sensor.

I'm rambling on here because I have no science here, and cinema has so much motion blur that we don't often see a locked down shot to fully view lens resolution.  So really even viewing a movie at 4k will probably not show more detail than an HD or 2k version.  There are other projects, that are not movies that shoot 4k at 60 frames per second with much less motion blur, and there, I think the 4k and maybe 8k would really show.  I saw demos of this at the NAB convention last month and the 8k projection at 60 frames per second was quite impressive, but... it didn't look like what we think is a "movie".  More like really good TV.

And lastly, we needed to build quite a monster with the Sony A7Rii with the cinema lenses, matte box, external Ninja recorder, and remote radio follow focus.  Not to mention all the cables!  But it did work and make really nice images provided we recorded Slog on 4k pro res in the Ninja recorder/viewfinder.

Attached below is a frame from "Night Shift", opening in cinemas June 21 in Russia and Russian speaking nations.  See if you can judge a lens by a movie frame ?   8)
Many thanks Bruce. Very informative.

About your attached image? The first impression, and I'm surely wrong, is that it does not look digital but has a more film like flavor. Humans look humans, not dolls. So I'd first put a bet that the img is from analogic. Isos I'd say 800. But the lens? this is very tricky. Arri-Zeiss anamorphic 35mm would be the one that comes into my mind. Very difficult, Zeissish. a T2 ish max aperture and in the pic I'd say that aperture might be at about 4 ish? WB I'd say 4000? All a bunch of guessings, lots of "ish" ;D
the reso seems about the same as your vintage Canon because if you had taken this image with, it would look similar.

« Last Edit: May 12, 2018, 11:56:48 AM by fredjeang2 »
Logged

smthopr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • Bruce Alan Greene Cinematography
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #34 on: May 12, 2018, 10:55:19 AM »

Many thanks Bruce. Very informative.

About your attached image? The first impression, and I'm surely wrong, is that it does not look digital but has a more film like flavor. Humans look humans, not dolls. So I'd first put a bet that the img is from analogic. Isos I'd say 800. But the lens? this is very tricky. Arri-Zeiss anamorphic 35mm would be the one that comes into my mind. Very difficult, Zeissish. a T2 ish max aperture and in the pic I'd say that aperture might be at about 4 ish? WB I'd say 4000? All a bunch of guessings, lots of "ish" ;D
the reso seems about the same as your vintage Canon because if you had taken this image with, it would look similar.

You can tell from the out of focus circles that this is shot with a spherical lens because they are round and not ovals.

It is a T2.0 - 2.8 shot. And probably a 16mm lens.  ISO is 800.  White Balance is about 3200 with mostly tungsten lamps.  There were LED party lamps also in this nightclub.  The shot is also not on a tripod, but on a Steadicam, so there is moving camera and moving people.  I picked a frame here where it seemed to be the least motion blur.  And that only happens about once every 36 frames or so.

I guess these lenses can out resolve this camera if the camera is locked down on a tripod and nothing is moving in frame.

I will say this though:  The TV companies and Netflix are pushing 4k TV's and programming, and there are now some requirements that movies and tv be captured at 4k+.  And what does this mean about lenses?  Cinematographers are looking for old Anamorphic lenses to degrade the image!  Pretty soon the most famous name in cinema lenses will be "Holganon" from the famous plastic camera maker.

Logged
Bruce Alan Greene
www.brucealangreene.com

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1363
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #35 on: May 12, 2018, 01:56:39 PM »


I will say this though:  The TV companies and Netflix are pushing 4k TV's and programming, and there are now some requirements that movies and tv be captured at 4k+.  And what does this mean about lenses?  Cinematographers are looking for old Anamorphic lenses to degrade the image!  Pretty soon the most famous name in cinema lenses will be "Holganon" from the famous plastic camera maker.
How the hell? So it implicity means that uprezzing is not accepted? Which then also would implicitly means that they are going to dictate which cameras have to be used?

If I'm correct, Sony has a lot to do with Netflix, and they are probably very interested to sell their 4k teevees. (with content shooted by their cameras better)

What about the Alexa then?
« Last Edit: May 12, 2018, 02:13:54 PM by fredjeang2 »
Logged

smthopr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • Bruce Alan Greene Cinematography
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #36 on: May 12, 2018, 02:42:37 PM »

I don't think there is a connection with Sony and Netflix .  For Netflix produced content Alexa is not accepted . Only the large format Alexa qualifies for Netflix produced content. Netflix does buy films that they don't produce in other formats though.
Logged
Bruce Alan Greene
www.brucealangreene.com

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1363
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #37 on: May 12, 2018, 02:49:03 PM »

I don't think there is a connection with Sony and Netflix .  For Netflix produced content Alexa is not accepted . Only the large format Alexa qualifies for Netflix produced content. Netflix does buy films that they don't produce in other formats though.
But the point I'm missing is that when you say "Cinematographers are looking for old Anamorphic lenses to degrade the image", do you reffer to the clinical, surgerical look or too sharp given 4K?
This is what I understood.
So they rehumanize so to say using "Holganon"?
Logged

smthopr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • Bruce Alan Greene Cinematography
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #38 on: May 12, 2018, 03:42:35 PM »

But the point I'm missing is that when you say "Cinematographers are looking for old Anamorphic lenses to degrade the image", do you reffer to the clinical, surgerical look or too sharp given 4K?
This is what I understood.
So they rehumanize so to say using "Holganon"?
yes, something like that ..
Logged
Bruce Alan Greene
www.brucealangreene.com

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1363
Re: 5ds vs 5d "classic"
« Reply #39 on: May 12, 2018, 04:56:26 PM »

Thanks a lot for your time and presence Bruce. I always learn a lot from you in this forum, and that is priceless. ;)

Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up