Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: musso on August 14, 2011, 08:29:12 pm
-
this may be a stupid question but here i go.
now on a 35mm system there are different size sensors 1.6-1.3 and FF
now my question is does a MF give you a larger FOV than a 35mm system meaning 16mm on a 1.6 camera would be about 26mm
now will the MF be 28mm or would it be wider?
thank you
joe
-
Medium Format will give a larger FOV for the same lens size. For example, a 50mm lens on a full format 35mm wouold be 80mm on a 1.6x sensor DSLR, 65mm on a 1.3x format DSLR but would be about 28mm equivalent in FOV on a Mamiya RB67 6x7 Medium Format camera. Hope that helps.
-
What i'm not getting is a 35mm full frame is 1 to 1 ratio. is this the case on a MF system. What I forgot to ask is if the MF lens is built any different to make up the different size in the sensors.
-
Hi,
MF lenses are simply larger and may also have smaller apertures. Having a smaller aperture keeps size and cost down. Most lenses are not very sharp at maximum aperture anyway.
MF sensors come in different sizes, but they are normally rectangular with aspect ratio different from 1. So to make quadratic pictures you need to crop. There has been a few quadratic chips some years ago.
Most digital backs have a crop factor, because the sensor is smaller than "full 645 frame". This is due to the excessive costs for large chips. The crop factor essentially means that wide angles will be less wide.
Best regards
Erik
What i'm not getting is a 35mm full frame is 1 to 1 ratio. is this the case on a MF system. What I forgot to ask is if the MF lens is built any different to make up the different size in the sensors.
-
Here's an interesting link to explain some of this stuff and too use a calculator to compare different lenses and sizes to cameras types. http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lenses.htm.
The 35mm is 1:1 ratio only because it has become industry practice to use 35mm full frame as a reference point because the old cameras were FF 35mm film cameras. Many old timers are used to those cameras so it's easy to use it as a reference standard. SO 50mm on a 35mm FF camera is "normaL. But puit the same klens on a Micro 4/3rds and you have 2x power or the equivalent of 100mm telephoto, or an 80mm lens on a 1.6 DX DSLR equivalent pciture. Because the back is larger (film or digital back on a medium format), the pciture becomes wide angle with a 50mm.
-
i guess what im getting at is i dont see any MF lenses below 28mm. is 28mm suitable for landscape photos with out stitching photos together for a decant landscape. or do i have this all wrong. im really thinking about a MF system and i love to do landscapes but most of my landscapes are below 24mm with a full frame 35mm system.
-
i guess what im getting at is i dont see any MF lenses below 28mm. is 28mm suitable for landscape photos with out stitching photos together for a decant landscape. or do i have this all wrong. im really thinking about a MF system and i love to do landscapes but most of my landscapes are below 24mm with a full frame 35mm system.
Yes, 28mm is incredibly wide on either 645 film, or one of the largest, "almost but not quite 645" digital backs.
Since you have been brought up on the system of digital sensor crop factors with respect to 35mm/full frame sensors, the easiest thing for you to do would be to look at it this way: small digital sensors have crop factors which are greater than 1.0x:
4/3rds = 2.0x
Canon etc. = 1.6x
Nikon etc. = 1.5x
Canon 1D & Kodak *60 series = 1.3x
35mm FF = 1.0x
...so medium format sensors/film have crop factors which are less than 1.0x, still using 35mm/FF as the reference size. In this scheme, a large medium format sensor is around 0.6x.
That makes a 28mm MF lens deliver an ultra-wideangle field of view. Per my post here (http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00LUZ8), the FOV is 102.4 degrees and the 35mm/FF equivalent lens would be 17.4mm.
What may confuse you, if you look at specs for medium format digital systems, is that you will again see crop factors like 1.3x and 1.1x, greater than or equal to 1.0x. The confusion evaporates once you are aware that these factors are normally with respect to a reference 645 film frame size (or in some contexts, 6x6 film frame size - this will be clear from the camera body), not a reference 35mm/FF frame size.
Ray
-
Easy to Use Free Calculator (specific for medium format):
http://www.captureintegration.com/2009/02/03/focal-length-equivalent-calculator/
In addition since you're new to MF you should read our primer on Technical Cameras for Medium Format Digital (http://www.captureintegration.com/tech-cameras/digital-view-camera/). This is by far and away the highest quality you can get for wide angle. It also allows you to do true stitching where the lens remains completely static and the digital back moves within a larger image circle. This manner of stitching has several advantages over rotating the camera and geometrically recreating the image with a stitching program. Some of these advantages are outlined in Don Libby's user report (http://www.captureintegration.com/2009/01/02/cambo-rs-1000-a-users-report/).
One example would be a 9-image stitch with an Aptus II 12 on a Arca Swiss RL3D and a Schneider 60mm XL (where the lens remains static and the back captures the top left, top center, top right, middle-left etc of the image circle) would be the field-of-view equivalent of a 17mm on a 5DII and would capture 460 megapixels in an image which would not need to be geometrically reshaped back together (since the image captured is 9 sections of one continous image circle). The same thing with a 5DII would require somewhere around a 48-shot stitch (6 rows of 8 images, 30% frame overlap) with a 100mm lens. That of course assumes all megapixels are equal (ask anyone with a modern digital back and a 5DII how they feel about the color, pixel-sharpness, dynamic range and tonal smoothness), and that it's possible to capture 48 images before the lighting/scene changes too much, and you'd still need to run those images through a stitching program which has to stretch/squeeze/remap the pixels to fit together since you're moving the lens for each shot.
Less extreme stitches of just 2 or 3 images with e.g. a Schneider 47XL can capture very wide images with great corner sharpness, and extremely high total resolution without having to remap the frames together.
There are a lot of issues/techniques that are not readily apparent for medium format landscape photography. That's one reason landscape workshops such as our upcoming NE Fall Color Workshop (http://www.captureintegration.com/2011/06/30/nelandscape/) have been so successful - some of these techniques and equipment really have to be handled in person to be fully appreciated. I'd strongly suggest you attend such a workshop or get in contact with a respected medium format dealer (mind you this is somewhat of a shameless plug for us, but of course there are other good dealers out there you could consider as well) who can have the long conversation and arrange for the hands on testing you'll need to really get a firm grasp on what's available and what the advantages/disadvantages are for each option.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/") | RSS Feed (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/")
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/")
Masters Series Workshop:
New England Landscape - Fall Color (Oct 5-8) (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2011/06/30/nelandscape/")
-
"One example would be a 9-image stitch with an Aptus II 12 on a Arca Swiss RL3D and a Schneider 60mm XL (where the lens remains static and the back captures the top left, top center, top right, middle-left etc of the image circle) would be ..."
D.
I'm curious do you know anyone who sells an aptus II 12, a arcs Swiss and a schnieder 60mm?
-
bcooter: I have never made any attempt to hide my biases which are stated in my signature on every post and even stated in this post that I was shamelessly plugging us as a dealer that can provide both expertise and equipment.
But I do normally do a better job of starting off such a post with "note upfront I should be considered a biased source of info - that said, we spend a lot of hands on time (and a lot of time with clients) to develop real-world advice." So thanks for reminding me. ;D
-
17mm on a 5DII and would capture 460 megapixels
You'd then have to crop that 460mp image because who in their right mind likes the angle of view a 17mm shot gives.
-
Thank you that makes more sense to me now.
thank you everyone for your input I learned a lot from this post. i am able to make an informed decision now.
thank you
joe
-
bcooter: I have never made any attempt to hide my biases which are stated in my signature on every post and even stated in this post that I was shamelessly plugging us as a dealer that can provide both expertise and equipment.
But I do normally do a better job of starting off such a post with "note upfront I should be considered a biased source of info - that said, we spend a lot of hands on time (and a lot of time with clients) to develop real-world advice." So thanks for reminding me. ;D
Doug -
Don't fall over yourself making excuses. They're not biases. They are reference points of relevant information. Everyone understands where you work and what you do. And the information you provide to this forum has been valuable for many members. Of course..... I am biased.
Steve Hendrix
-
Doug -
Don't fall over yourself making excuses. They're not biases. They are reference points of relevant information. Everyone understands where you work and what you do. And the information you provide to this forum has been valuable for many members. Of course..... I am biased.
Steve Hendrix
Steve,
Take what I said as sort of a joke, because we know Doug, you and most dealers are very pro their own brands. You guys mention Leaf/Phase, another dealer mentions Leica and we all know what you guys sell, regardless of what the signature says.
I don't expect Doug to mention that the Hasselblad has a removable prism, or true focus any more than I expect you to say it's taken Phase 3 to 4 years to get the Mamiya with just a right angle grip like the Contax.
Regardless, your information is appreciated, but I don't think it takes into account the changes professional image making is facing.
The point I'm making, if there is a point, is from my view and only my view professional image making has gone through a major shift of what clients expect.
We just came back from a month's project shooting mostly digital motion and stills.
Though this was a large, well budgeted project it definitely would not have come my way had we not offered high end motion as well as high end still imagery.
The previous large project we shot was still based, but the agency/client requested motion imagery. Two years ago the still imagery would have received 75% of the attention and 75% of the post production work, but in this case it flipped 180 degrees, to the point two months later we are still cutting video's from the project and the retouched still imagery was delivered two weeks after the project.
That's a huge shift in our industry.
I'll admit on the plus side both of you guys give good information regarding the brands you represent, but as you and I know the idea is to sell your brand . . . nothing wrong about that. I sell our studio's brand everyday.
The only thing I see in this forum and most of your related posts is it's not a complete reflection of the changes in the professional industry.
The equipment (cameras) we used (RED) were very close in price to the top of the line digital backs though did a lot more, shooting motion, sound, movement all with continuous lights. Those parameters of the project don't always fall in line with medium format still cameras, especially using continuous lights and the need for high iso in the still imagery to match the motion sessions.
Maybe you can relate this information to the respective manufacturers you represent, because as I go forward to buying new equipment, I'd love to know if Phase, Leaf, Hasselblad plan on a cmos based, live view medium format camera and/or back.
That would go a long way to helping decide where I and others plan to place our expenditures, because moving to motion has changed where we place our money and how we make our overall plans.
In regards to information, I know the representative makers of cameras don't want to tip their hand to the competition, but sometimes the lack of future transparency works against them because I won't spend money today if everything is going to change tomorrow?
IMO
BC
-
In regards to information, I know the representative makers of cameras don't want to tip their hand to the competition, but sometimes the lack of future transparency works against them because I won't spend money today if everything is going to change tomorrow?
This is all very debatable. Your work might have a need for both still and motion now, but who know how things might change/evolve. It's like the economy. I think the majority of shooters are either motion or still. It might work for you now. It might work for you down the road. It's definitely premature to say that this is how it's going to go for more than 10% of photographers. I'd be very curious to know how many medium format owners also shoot motion. I would guess it's much fewer than you think.
-
I'd be very curious to know how many medium format owners also shoot motion. I would guess it's much fewer than you think.
Actually, the number of high end medium format shooters also shooting high end video is growing for lots of reasons. The big one is to "get the job". But lower end capture gear (DSLR) shooting low end video (DSLR) is pretty established and tends to eat itself because of dwindling budgets.
However, when bc says "In regards to information, I know the representative makers of cameras don't want to tip their hand to the competition, but sometimes the lack of future transparency works against them because I won't spend money today if everything is going to change tomorrow?"
Ya think bud? Tipping the hand? Really? Might in not also be doing the R&D to find out whether it's possible? Chip yields for large sensors are horrible (which is why big chips cost a lot of money) and the R&D is very, very expensive. I think some of the doubt about CMOS in 645 sizes is the developmental costs...how long did it take Red to ship the Epic? Was it the camera or the sensor that took so long? (hint, the odds are it was the sensor)
You can bet that Phase/Leaf are looking real hard at doing CMOS chips if for no other reason that CCD manufacturing (and manufacturers) are dwindling.
Besides, everything is gonna change "tomorrow" right? Why worry? Get what you need when you need it and make money with it.
-
Actually, the number of high end medium format shooters also shooting high end video is growing for lots of reasons. The big one is to "get the job". But lower end capture gear (DSLR) shooting low end video (DSLR) is pretty established and tends to eat itself because of dwindling budgets.
However, when bc says "In regards to information, I know the representative makers of cameras don't want to tip their hand to the competition, but sometimes the lack of future transparency works against them because I won't spend money today if everything is going to change tomorrow?"
Ya think bud? Tipping the hand? Really? Might in not also be doing the R&D to find out whether it's possible? Chip yields for large sensors are horrible (which is why big chips cost a lot of money) and the R&D is very, very expensive. I think some of the doubt about CMOS in 645 sizes is the developmental costs...how long did it take Red to ship the Epic? Was it the camera or the sensor that took so long? (hint, the odds are it was the sensor)
You can bet that Phase/Leaf are looking real hard at doing CMOS chips if for no other reason that CCD manufacturing (and manufacturers) are dwindling.
Besides, everything is gonna change "tomorrow" right? Why worry? Get what you need when you need it and make money with it.
No I don't think any maker of anything is going public to give out future plans and no I don't think that the Fed is going to drive a truck up to my front door with gold bullion either.
I do know that when it comes to cameras if you are so inclined and pal around with the camera companies they'll tell you most of the pieces of the future puzzle, so in a way they do tip their hand.
In regards to motion I can't answer who does what, because I don't really listen to what other photographers are doing. I've always found it best to keep my eye on my own ball and keep working.
Maybe it works for me because I have been shooting some kind of motion with still based projects for a number of years, so it wasn't that much of a leap, but once again I don't have a polling organization.
I do know shooting motion has done more than just get me the gig, it's now at least 50% of our billing structure. In fact the clients that don't ask for motion, if time permits we still shoot it and everyone has asked to buy the footage so maybe the photographers that don't get asked are the ones that aren't doing it.
I dunno.
I do have an inbox though and I get at least 10 still to video related e-mails a day, so somebody must think it's important.
IMO
BC
-
Doug Peterson of C! wrote: (ask anyone with a modern digital back and a 5DII how they feel about the color, pixel-sharpness, dynamic range and tonal smoothness)
Well, here's one who is not only entirely happy with the features, performance across many criteria and price of his 5D2, but is also mightily pissed off with people taking cheap shots at it. And yes, I own more than one "high end" (ie stupidly expensive) back so have compared them. Can I respectfully suggest you concentrate on selling your products and lay off items that are clearly aimed at a different market. And yes, I know you sell Canon too. Sorry about the tone, Doug, but this knocking copy touches a nerve.
-
It's funny.
Maybe...a year ago or so, in my assistance, motion came first as a funny extra buzz from time to time. Beleive it or not but in an high-end studio, the Apples where too underpowered for the first motion we did so we had to use Windows units and Premiere.
But about 6 months ago, it wasn't just extra fun any more. It was the deal. In fact, I was "gently invited" to start a post-prod learning in motion otherwise the assistance value was seriously disminuished. I had the chance that I love it and wanted it, but some who didn't want to hear about it are today's cuying where I don't need to explain.
In some ways I thank those changes because by myself I wouldn't have choose to spend my week-ends learning and fill my head with tech to reach indigestion. Only now I'm starting to enjoy, just starting to get it and still a lot to learn but it's exciting.
The thing is commercial photographers want people now much much more preapared than just doing a nice photoshoping, setting triggers and strobes (that are disapearing), or scream to the boss "you're 10cm off" like it generally occurs with certain kind of sets...(am I pointing something in particular? nooo...) all that because the chalenges are bigger, in less time and let's be honest not paied as much as before (that's more complicated in fact). They want people very very preapared inside the fixed team. People that are doing everything or at least a lot, not well but very well and fast. And motion is more than 50% of revenues.
That's not something to mess-up with.
ps: and something I find motion brought back to the plateaux are seriousness and concentration. Because it became a circus where everybody was playing with their I.phone aps, talking about where to download those stupid aps in the breaks lunch...gadget cult...now we're back to seriousness on set.
-
Opinion and advice tends to be biased, all the more so when there's financial interest involved. If I asked for opinion from any of the representatives that hang here I'd be confident that I'd receive informed, valuable and biased opinion; I'd be naive to expect anything other.
The reps here provide a mine of information and this list would be all the poorer without them, but the reality is the company advertisements above and the presence of the representatives are inexorably linked.
I agree on all counts. Though the banner ads that have been introduced have only recently emerged (we're surprised they didn't come sooner).
Without getting into the virtues of having mixed participation on user forums, I will just say that we are extremely conscious of the fine line that is walked. Frankly, I think sometimes we step over it. Fortunately, we're usually alerted to it quickly.
We're certainly motivated to participate by the potential for exposing our company to a target audience. That said, when I began participating on public user forums (back in the Galbraith days), I did not really imagine that would lead to any particular advances on sales (I was kind of naive that way). I just participated for the heck of it - I found the discussions interesting, I had my own perspective, and there you go. The difference today is that I am aware we at Capture Integration occupy a prominent position as providers of these products, and given the success of Luminous Landscape as a destination for information and discussion about them (and many other products, technologies, artistic preferences, etc), it's natural that some who read our postings may feel compelled to contact us. Well done by LL, btw.
It is not easy (nor common) to discuss products you sell objectively. I don't know how successful we are there, but I do feel strongly that we have modified our approach to be as non-sales-ish as possible, that we provide information that is relevant, that is truthful, and real world, not manufacturer party line.
I will just finish by saying that I appreciate it when we're informed that we have stepped over the line, been disrespectful, or are guilty of over-enthusiasm. I also appreciate being told when we're walking the line the right way.
Regardless of whether we posted anything or not, we would still be frequent visitors, because we receive free feedback from you, the users of these products, your perspective on the equipment you use, how you use it, how the industry is changing, etc.
Thanks everyone.
Steve Hendrix
-
So well said Steve, and to which I can fully identify myself.
I would even like to add that sometimes, and I am sure that Steve, Lance, Doug and the other "representatives" here feel the same way, I feel (or I fear it could be understood so) that I am so much stepping over this thin line, that I am glad when I can participate in a debate which does not involve the brand and the products I am representing, in which I cannot be called "biased".
Thierry
I agree on all counts. Though the banner ads that have been introduced have only recently emerged (we're surprised they didn't come sooner).
Without getting into the virtues of having mixed participation on user forums, I will just say that we are extremely conscious of the fine line that is walked. Frankly, I think sometimes we step over it. Fortunately, we're usually alerted to it quickly.
We're certainly motivated to participate by the potential for exposing our company to a target audience. That said, when I began participating on public user forums (back in the Galbraith days), I did not really imagine that would lead to any particular advances on sales (I was kind of naive that way). I just participated for the heck of it - I found the discussions interesting, I had my own perspective, and there you go. The difference today is that I am aware we at Capture Integration occupy a prominent position as providers of these products, and given the success of Luminous Landscape as a destination for information and discussion about them (and many other products, technologies, artistic preferences, etc), it's natural that some who read our postings may feel compelled to contact us. Well done by LL, btw.
It is not easy (nor common) to discuss products you sell objectively. I don't know how successful we are there, but I do feel strongly that we have modified our approach to be as non-sales-ish as possible, that we provide information that is relevant, that is truthful, and real world, not manufacturer party line.
I will just finish by saying that I appreciate it when we're informed that we have stepped over the line, been disrespectful, or are guilty of over-enthusiasm. I also appreciate being told when we're walking the line the right way.
Regardless of whether we posted anything or not, we would still be frequent visitors, because we receive free feedback from you, the users of these products, your perspective on the equipment you use, how you use it, how the industry is changing, etc.
Thanks everyone.
Steve Hendrix
-
Steve,
Take what I said as sort of a joke, because we know Doug, you and most dealers are very pro their own brands. You guys mention Leaf/Phase, another dealer mentions Leica and we all know what you guys sell, regardless of what the signature says.
I don't expect Doug to mention that the Hasselblad has a removable prism, or true focus any more than I expect you to say it's taken Phase 3 to 4 years to get the Mamiya with just a right angle grip like the Contax.
Regardless, your information is appreciated, but I don't think it takes into account the changes professional image making is facing.
The point I'm making, if there is a point, is from my view and only my view professional image making has gone through a major shift of what clients expect.
We just came back from a month's project shooting mostly digital motion and stills.
Though this was a large, well budgeted project it definitely would not have come my way had we not offered high end motion as well as high end still imagery.
The previous large project we shot was still based, but the agency/client requested motion imagery. Two years ago the still imagery would have received 75% of the attention and 75% of the post production work, but in this case it flipped 180 degrees, to the point two months later we are still cutting video's from the project and the retouched still imagery was delivered two weeks after the project.
That's a huge shift in our industry.
I'll admit on the plus side both of you guys give good information regarding the brands you represent, but as you and I know the idea is to sell your brand . . . nothing wrong about that. I sell our studio's brand everyday.
The only thing I see in this forum and most of your related posts is it's not a complete reflection of the changes in the professional industry.
The equipment (cameras) we used (RED) were very close in price to the top of the line digital backs though did a lot more, shooting motion, sound, movement all with continuous lights. Those parameters of the project don't always fall in line with medium format still cameras, especially using continuous lights and the need for high iso in the still imagery to match the motion sessions.
Maybe you can relate this information to the respective manufacturers you represent, because as I go forward to buying new equipment, I'd love to know if Phase, Leaf, Hasselblad plan on a cmos based, live view medium format camera and/or back.
That would go a long way to helping decide where I and others plan to place our expenditures, because moving to motion has changed where we place our money and how we make our overall plans.
In regards to information, I know the representative makers of cameras don't want to tip their hand to the competition, but sometimes the lack of future transparency works against them because I won't spend money today if everything is going to change tomorrow?
IMO
BC
You are quite right, BC. The information that we provide here does not take into account how the industry has changed regarding the shift to motion. That is primarily because - other than the Canon gear we sell and the related accessories, LED, tungsten, HMI lighting, and grip, etc, - we are not yet significantly involved in motion solutions, from a strategy standpoint. That is slowly changing, with the addition of Will Godfrey to our technical staff, who has more of a background in motion than any of us.
Regardless, we certainly have our own perspective on the industry changes, especially the shift towards motion. We have discussions on a daily basis with clients on where they intend to spend their money. The element of investing in motion capability above and beyond, or instead of marketing, staff, facility or other traditional equipment needs has added an additional wrinkle, and we've noticed.
Since there is no current motion offering from the primary manufacturers whose products we sell (Phase One, Leaf, etc), we're in a wait and see. I have my own thoughts about what they're doing (or not). I know there's been a public disclosure that Phase One has 2 camera systems in the works. I know nothing more than that. The questions are - is there something they're working on? How far off is it? What is it? How large (or small) would it be? As a relative newcomer to that segment, how successfully could they compete? Can they be successful as a non-mainstream option for motion?
For now, there are no answers to those questions, but I suspect more information will be forthcoming at next year's Photokina. I do know - at least in the case of Phase One - they implement longer term planning than is apparent at any given time. Technological limitations are typically the determiner of when the plans are made public or whether they appear at all. When and if they're there, we'll be there as well.
We don't mean to convey any ignorance of the progress and stature that motion has taken in terms of commercial imaging and the resulting budgets. Many of our clients who own digital backs are intensively involved in motion-based projects as part of their strategy. In the meantime, since we do have significant experience and perspective on medium format still products, we continue to offer that to this forum category.
Steve Hendrix
-
Steve,
Appreciate your replies.
Kind of like when Sam Elliot turns to Jeff Bridges and says "I like your style Dude".
Anyway, I have a theory that most still photographers would not have considered video or motion or anything other than still photography if the economy was cooking today like it was in 2007.
Me I've always offered "some" video but it wasn't my main goal, just like your company always sold to advanced amateurs but probably never thought in 2007 about doing seminars for them or making them a large segment of your market.
We all gotta do what we all gotta do. I was listening to my early morning Wall Street Journal news and heard some guy say today's economy is like being a prisoner of war. Some people hope to be saved tomorrow and usually don't make it, others understand what they have to do to survive and get to it.
Let's face it nobody saw 2008 coming. Not to last until 2012 and most of us have a choice to either ride the still photography train to marginalization or move to more lucrative options by adding motion that is truly useable, not just a hand wave saying uh, we can do it, sort of.
The good thing about motion is it's damn hard. I love still photography and know it's a difficult job, but shooting a still frame that can easily be tuned up in post production for minimal money, vs. shooting moving imagery with sound, camera movement, scripts, scores, teleprompters, gaffers, etc. etc., is a whole different animal, especially in post production.
Today reminds me of the start of digital stills. During that time most photographers in my genre dissed digital until their clients demanded it, then they had the fast learning curve of catching up and today try to find someone that shoots large still production on film. It exists, but only in small numbers, because I've found once you prove you can do something, your normally asked to do it again.
Now, just because I've adopted large digital motion production doesn't mean I don't want to see stills go away, any more than I want to see Leaf/Phase/Hasselblad lose market share, because that is a reflection on my industry.
That's why I ask where they're going and if the companies you represent aren't considering a camera that can shoot 24 fps, at least consider a camera that has real live view and cmos along with a software suite that accepts still and motion imagery.
IMO
BC
-
The R&D effort put into something like the Canon 600D is probably huge. However, they sell wast numbers, so they can spread it over a lot of purchasers. If a similar effort was put into a MF camera, the price per unit would be insane. My way of explaining that the lcd user-interface of a MF camera may not be written by a team of 100 people.
I think that sensor size scale in a non-linear fashion: using a given state of tech, double the sensor size will more than double its price. I cannot see how the rest of the camera scales that way. If you double the amount of pixels, you will need twice the dsp power, twice the bandwidth etc, all of which should scale more or less linear (just add more hw).
-h
-
What's the purpose of medium format video when you can get 1080HD from a DSLR?
-
I think the best way to answer the motion question is pretty simple . No one is going to tip there hand on this but let's be real anyone not looking into it is pretty freaking stupid and/or just flat out not paying attention. I honestly think neither is the case here with the OEM's.
But with regard to motion for me and what I do, I keep hitting a mixed bag of feelings if I want to go there. In truth I don't but on the other hand I like to eat steak too. I think a lot of folks like me fall in the same camp, yea if you drag me down that road sure twist my arm but rather not.
Don't shoot me here but it is not what i consider art for some strange reason. I know that is wrong to say and I don't mean that in a offensive way at all to the great shooters in this field far from it. Just does not compute in my head as art. Trust me this is a innocent comment too and not to hurt anyone's feelings on it but in a way I still have old school thoughts art needs a place to hang out and look at. I actually feel bad saying this too but have to be honest.
-
I think the best way to answer the motion question is pretty simple . No one is going to tip there hand on this but let's be real anyone not looking into it is pretty freaking stupid and/or just flat out not paying attention. I honestly think neither is the case here with the OEM's.
But with regard to motion for me and what I do, I keep hitting a mixed bag of feelings if I want to go there. In truth I don't but on the other hand I like to eat steak too. I think a lot of folks like me fall in the same camp, yea if you drag me down that road sure twist my arm but rather not.
Don't shoot me here but it is not what i consider art for some strange reason. I know that is wrong to say and I don't mean that in a offensive way at all to the great shooters in this field far from it. Just does not compute in my head as art. Trust me this is a innocent comment too and not to hurt anyone's feelings on it but in a way I still have old school thoughts art needs a place to hang out and look at. I actually feel bad saying this too but have to be honest.
Guy,
When I was in Fine Arts, I was almost fired because I was spending too much time in the photo dark room. It was very badly seen in Paris and the south of France and teachers didn't consider photography as a major art but just a secondary module we should explore but from an healphy distance. Several times they came to talk to me that if I kept going like that they'd send me to Arles or Louis Lumière schools.
After awhile they realised I won't give-up so they let me.
Then, there was this other strange dude, the only student who could understand and work digital images with the very first enormous computer the school had just bought. Nobody was keeping any attention to this machine and everybody was looking at that guy like a strange person. "It won't never bite, that's not art..." those where the sentences we could hear. And look now a few years later.
There are always resistences, it always existed. But world move forward with or without us.
-
Well said Fred. I guess it's the change after all the years of tuning your brain a certain way, it's hard to jump into something that has moving time when you been trained to catch the moment if you know what I mean. But we are jumping OT here so don't want to get to far off topic.
-
Well said Fred. I guess it's the change after all the years of tuning your brain a certain way, it's hard to jump into something that has moving time when you been trained to catch the moment if you know what I mean. But we are jumping OT here so don't want to get to far off topic.
I think that if motion is not a revenue and something one does not really feel, it's not really necesarly to dig into it because it's a lot of time and life quality lost also. If on the contrary there's a real desire to express yourself with this medium, I would go for it, and if revenues don't depend on it, you can do it the soft way, no rush, smooth learning curve.
But if you don't feel a particular attraction to it, there is no prob not doing it. I personaly thing that it's just a question of personal attraction and-or clients needs.
Cheers.
-
What's the purpose of medium format video when you can get 1080HD from a DSLR?
So you can capture and edit at a higher resolution before downsampling to HD. Much better (read more professional) potential results...
-
So you can capture and edit at a higher resolution before downsampling to HD. Much better (read more professional) potential results...
And also the size-weight of MF is just about ideal.
Also, if we could film squared that would not be bad.
But it would be difficult with the D.O.F in motion, although super precise focussing is less critical than in stills, the D.O.F is really not ideal. (well depends, it can bring another lenguage too). The thing is, emulate in motion post the D.O.F of a view camera is even easier and more convincent than with PS but filming live with extreme D.O.F I really think it's going to be a chalenge.
-
...but filming live with extreme D.O.F I really think it's going to be a chalenge.
Not if you have a good cameraman/DP...I remember seeing Batman The Dark Knight in IMAX...if you remember the scene of the Joker (Keith Ledger) where his face literally filled the frame...when he was talking, his lips were in critical focus...when he was reacting, it was his eyes in focus. It was intentional. That's the mark of a really good cameraman/DP–it takes skill and time and Wally Pfister, the DP won an Academy Award for his work.
I'm with BC...motion work is hard. I was a director/DP for commercials in the late 1980's (before I got into Photoshop). Doing great motion work is not for the faint at heart. Yes, equipment now is MUCH cheaper and you can cut a feature length film on a Mac laptop...but to block out, light and film really good motion still takes a good gaffer & grip as well as a much larger crew than stills. Yes, you can work at the low end...but you'll likely get low end results. The stuff I've seen shot on a DSLR for motion is always cherry picked for what DSLRs can do, not what they can't do.
I've not shot with a Red (but I have been shot BY a Red for several videos) and I can tell you having a body that can capture high rez video and sound is merely the beginning...it's what you stick onto the Red that is telling...
I have a great deal of respect for directors and DPs...I don't do that anymore. It kinda makes me sad when I see a bunch of agency people trying to convince photographers to shoot video. It shows a lack of respect on the part of the agencies...fortunately, as BC says, motion ain't easy (if you wanna go it well). Cheap-ass clients deserve what they get.
-
Not if you have a good cameraman/DP...I remember seeing Batman The Dark Knight in IMAX...if you remember the scene of the Joker (Keith Ledger) where his face literally filled the frame...when he was talking, his lips were in critical focus...when he was reacting, it was his eyes in focus. It was intentional. That's the mark of a really good cameraman/DP–it takes skill and time and Wally Pfister, the DP won an Academy Award for his work.
I'm with BC...motion work is hard. I was a director/DP for commercials in the late 1980's (before I got into Photoshop). Doing great motion work is not for the faint at heart. Yes, equipment now is MUCH cheaper and you can cut a feature length film on a Mac laptop...but to block out, light and film really good motion still takes a good gaffer & grip as well as a much larger crew than stills. Yes, you can work at the low end...but you'll likely get low end results. The stuff I've seen shot on a DSLR for motion is always cherry picked for what DSLRs can do, not what they can't do.
I've not shot with a Red (but I have been shot BY a Red for several videos) and I can tell you having a body that can capture high rez video and sound is merely the beginning...it's what you stick onto the Red that is telling...
I have a great deal of respect for directors and DPs...I don't do that anymore. It kinda makes me sad when I see a bunch of agency people trying to convince photographers to shoot video. It shows a lack of respect on the part of the agencies...fortunately, as BC says, motion ain't easy (if you wanna go it well). Cheap-ass clients deserve what they get.
I totally agree with you lines. It's damn serious and requires serious skills in the all team involved.
When I was student I worked a summertime in the cine industry, there was no digital, it was hard work, highly qualified people. But there is also an enormous amount of conservatism. The Mamouth (cine) needs dollars, lots of dollars and when professions are highly specialized they also tend to become very orthodox.
There is also a reality in the new generation. Those kids are breaking the rules and the visuals. No budgets, pirated softwares and dslrs...if the story's good and people creative it will bite. Because honestly Jeff, there are also tons and tons of movies produced by this industry by super skilled teams that are very bad. So yes, the story is not doing rubbish in the low-end because everybody wants it, but neither 50 trucks and 10 cranes to produce also rubbish with more IQ. IMO.
-
There is also a reality in the new generation. Those kids are breaking the rules and the visuals. No budgets, pirated softwares and dslrs...if the story's good and people creative it will bite. Because honestly Jeff, there are also tons and tons of movies produced by this industry by super skilled teams that are very bad. So yes, the story is not doing rubbish in the low-end because everybody wants it, but neither 50 trucks and 10 cranes to produce also rubbish with more IQ. IMO.
Totally agree. The medium is not the message. The message sometimes gets through despite the medium. Ideally medium and message are in alignment, maybe then that's the big pay-day time.
-
All very interesting. I'm in a rather unique niché where I could probably go along my entire career without changing much of anything and do just fine. I have great clients who love my pictures, pay me well for them and we could just keep working that way. But, hell, that's boring.
I basically just got up one day and decided to add motion to my repertoire, that my clients were going to love it and that it was going to be a huge part of what I do. So I've been doing just that, mostly for the fun of it. It's not really fiscally driven, I've poured stupid money into motion gear and only recouped about a quarter of that with new work in the last year. It's building, though, and I'm really enjoying myself.
I've got this film project coming up in DC next month. The client is someone that I've shot stills with for years. They initially asked me to quote stills and motion. I put the numbers together and sent them out. They wrote back later and had me drop the stills. I wrote another client in the area and told them we'd be in town doing some film work in case they had anything they were considering shooting. Here I was thinking they might have a Stills project... nope we're talking about doing another film.
I have no idea what percentage of my work motion is going to end up being. I don't really care. I'm having fun with it. I'm making crazy little independent art films with friends. And of course I'm a gear head so I'm all over that shit... cameras, lenses, dollies, jibs... post production. It can be overwhelming at times but I am totally obsessive-compulsive and love diving into these sorts of challenges.
Keep it new, yeah?
CB
-
What's the purpose of medium format video when you can get 1080HD from a DSLR?
DSLR 1080p is quirky. Some pixels are read, most are simply dropped, resulting in reduced resolution and aliasing. Raw video is not available. Also, jerky movement and ergonomy. Not saying that MF video would be any better.
-h
-
Not saying that MF video would be any better.
It is...capturing at more than 2K for edit and eventual downsample (and codec compression) would be better than editing original HD resolution. DSLR HD video can have "problems" that you can't fix in post.
-
But then again we would fall in the same obssesion as before: the search for the "ultimate" image quality. If you follow that intimading path in motion it would blocks any dude.
CB got the spirit IMO.
It's all about passion, dedication, desire to overcome obstacles etc...not about the fact that it's reserved to an elite highly experienced where the only result we should expect as newcomers photographers would be sloshing in the sordid low-end. Yes, doing good things in motion is damn hard, more expensive and demanding. It involves tons of facettes that still photography does not have and a serious team work.
I like Schewe statement because he is saying "don't fool yourself, it's hard"
but I don't like Schewe statement because he is saying "don't fool yourself, it's hard"
Can't buy myself an Alexa and hire a super team today, and should I feel shame, guilt, and resignation because it's a matter of "people who know" and Hollywood budgets?
I don't know a lot in motion and all to learn, but I know this: the weakest part of the motion work I'm doing, is always me! not the fact that I have a GH2 or a Canon wich are not cameras specialy designed for it.
No gear excuses any more.
Shoot what we can afford and be creative with it. I avoid to listen to the "limitations" (being aware of it is another thing) to this or that combo because the only real limitation is often us.
to come back to Alan's question, here is a 2K-4K shots right-out-the-box of a corner at home in auto wb with the GH2 and a Zeiss Sonnar. The 4K is the high burst mode at 40fps.
As always (as for stills) the biggest original capture, the best render, even downsanpled. No mystery.
Now, imagine what would do a MF in movement...(the only thing I don't want to imagine are the prices they will put us if MF goes that route)
-
Whether your a one person show or run a large studio, I strongly suggest your first morning read be the Wall Street Journal because that will give you an indication of where the images for money is going more than any other news vehicle.
When the market contracts don't expect medium to large brands to sink six or seven figures on image creation that only plays in one medium. It's just not going to happen, because agencies and their clients want to get all the bang for the buck that's possible and most campaigns don't have a single specific goal. Gone are the days of " it's a magazine campaign only, or this is for outdoor". Now it's "I dunno" just shoot everything horizontal, vertical, motion and still and we'll get back to you.
You have to realize that if you make images for money, (and yes even editorial is suppose to be images for money) all clients have two goals. To get viewers to look at the media and to control the message in a positive way. If you can shoot stills and motion in the same project that covers those two goals your golden.
I don't want to dig too deep into my business model but for a long time motion creation has been good to me and regardless of how much we've invested in new equipment the last couple of years, it's much, much more than paid for itself.
Each person hits that spot where they have to decide if they want to be a small part of the solution or a large part.
I ain't Favreau or Mann, but our team is getting better at this every day and we've done some nice projects that I'm proud of. The difference is we work a lot faster than Favreau and Mann and do it with smaller crews.
Now, did I get up and say, I'm going to be a director? No. Actually when people ask me what I do I now have to stop and think, then say I create images, because defining what I do for a living is no longer a one word explanation.
To some it may not be comfortable and "art" covers a lot of territory, though I can make a huge list of directors and dp's that are considered artists that know how to make it work in their financial and artistic life in ways still photographers could only dream of.
In my view i don't find motion less personal or intimate than stills. I've always worked with crews, large and small and always had to collaborate so the personal interaction is about the same, though I know in motion imagery the personal interaction with the subject is deeper than with stills because your requiring so much more from the talent and yourself.
As a photographer you may appreciate hanging your print on the wall and examining every inch, but ask your clients if they view it that way, or better yet ask your client's customers what and how they view any image.
You'll learn a lot.
Anyway, Jeff's right motion is tough and if you ever stood next to the Cohen brothers they have the same eye circles that go full face that I have at this moment, because motion (especially with dialog) is overwhelming and you work until you fall, then you get up and work some more and I'm doing 2,3,4, minute commercial films.
Try doing 90 minutes.
Now where all of this goes in equipment I don't know. I do know I might bite on a square format motion/still camera just for the ability to creatively frame. Web video, even cinema doesn't have to be 2 to 1 or 16x9 or any format. The world can be what you want it to be as long as someone will writet the check.
For motion I care less about the physical size of the chip than I do the look. Our RED's are 4k and detailed though not detailed like a 4k still camera, but with a little work much prettier than the traditional video camera. The dslrs are amazing for what they do in low light, though to go through life trying to use them as real film replacement A camera is not really the optimal way to work.
For motion, especially in fast production I care more about raw files than the file size, because with 4 people on set and running multiple cameras nobody has the time to exactly match the color, tone and look of each camera 100%, but in raw processing it's much easier and safer.
Safe is a good word for motion, because unlike stills a simple bump of the tripod or anything out of place is very expensive to fix in post.
But in the end, the only real advice I have for anyone is if your a still photographer and your work is improving, your client base is moving up, your billings are climbing and your happy, don't change a thing, but if any one of those is not going the way you want, I'd dial 1-555-help-me-red.
IMO
BC