RRJackson

RRJackson

Lives in United States Bradenton, United States
Joined on Apr 27, 2008
About me:

Nikon F5
Nikon D700
Samsung NX10

Sigma 20-40mm f2.8 DG EX Aspherical
Samsung 30mm f/2 pancake
Rodenstock TV Heligon 42mm f/0.75
Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro
Sigma 150mm f/2.8 APO Macro EX DG HSM
Sigma 300mm f/4 APO Tele Macro
Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 1.4x teleconverter
Kinor 28-80mm f/3.5 Macro Zoom
Loreo Lens in Cap 35mm f/5.6 with Lubot 10x Loupe
Vivitar 90-230mm f/4.5 Close Focus
Spiratone 300mm f/5.6
Soligor C/D 500mm f/8 Macro

Comments

Total: 71, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
On Leica M-Monochrom preview (449 comments in total)

So for a while I've really wanted a monochrome M-mount camera with a 24x36 sensor to use with the Zeiss 21mm f/4.5. With a color sensor there are color shifts across the frame, but with this camera you could shoot distortion-free (essentially) wide-angle with a lens that's quite a bit nicer than any wide angle lens available for DSLRs, IMO.

Of course Leica still doesn't offer any viewfinder options, so you'd still be stuck with a viewfinder that can only frame as wide as 28mm. I mean, you can wing it. Or mount an auxiliary viewfinder. But how amazingly cool it would be if they'd offer something like the Bessa R4's .52 viewfinder with brightlines for 21mm.

Of course, I can't afford it, anyway. ;-)

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2012 at 02:53 UTC as 127th comment

Oh, this is a thing of beauty. My goodness. It's everything a digital Leica should be. Now if I could just afford it...

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2012 at 01:49 UTC as 53rd comment
In reply to:

Cy Cheze: Peaking and zebra aids exist on several consumer <$1,000 videocams. Maybe high-end studio rigs don't need them because the users have golden eyes that attain the perfect narrow DOF and bokeh. Only low end aviators need GPS or auto-pilot. Professionals have x-ray vision and can dead reckon throught he fog.

Actually, it's a heritage from 35mm and 65mm film. 16mm shooters pretty much always pulled focus solo. The reason that wasn't the case with larger film stocks was because it's nearly impossible to accurately pull focus by eyeballin' it with larger "sensors." That "heritage" persists to this day. News cameramen use 2/3" video cameras now that have sensors roughly the same size as 16mm film and they can (and do) pull focus for themselves. Meanwhile, if you watch feature films being shot there's still a guy with a tape measure pulling focus unless they go "fast and dirty" with a wide-angle lens. It's not so much about film vs. digital as it is about the size of the sensor. Small Sensor = Fun on the Run. Big Sensor = Slow on the Go. ;-)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2012 at 18:55 UTC
In reply to:

Cy Cheze: Peaking and zebra aids exist on several consumer <$1,000 videocams. Maybe high-end studio rigs don't need them because the users have golden eyes that attain the perfect narrow DOF and bokeh. Only low end aviators need GPS or auto-pilot. Professionals have x-ray vision and can dead reckon throught he fog.

Well, to be fair pulling focus for movies is frequently done using a tape measure to determine near and far limits of DOF when you're doing the blocking. Of course that doesn't mean you release a camera with no focus assists at all and count on everyone who buys it to always have an assistant pulling focus.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 20, 2012 at 14:16 UTC
In reply to:

Octane: I find it telling that Canon is so desperate trying to explain this camera to end users. Thanks, but we get it. It's too expensive and the market for 4K footage is almost non-existent.

The point is that the hypothetical soccer mom can buy a much better quality 4K camera for less money if she really wants to dabble in 4K origination.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 20, 2012 at 14:11 UTC
In reply to:

RRJackson: 8-bit video. Man, it's almost an insult. It's almost certainly a restriction imposed by the internal data bottlenecks, but there's nothing "professional" about 8-bit video. It's like higher-resolution HDV. I mean, it's better than nothing, but this isn't going to pose much of a threat to Red. The Scarlet is a crippled monstrosity, but even it can shoot 4K at 24p in 12-bit Recode RAW...for several thousand dollars less than the Canon EOS-1D C.

Uh, I don't know if that comment is directed at me, but that avatar of mine shows me with a Nikon F5 and a 135mm f/2. As for shooting Super-8 movies, I've done that. And 16mm movies. And 35mm movies. Not to mention years of shooting video for television.

I wasn't saying that you can't possibly shoot decent video using 8-bit origination. I was saying that with cheaper 12-bit options that won't show stepping in gradients most professionals wouldn't want to.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 20, 2012 at 13:41 UTC
In reply to:

Rasskot: Q: What have you done to 1D c to justify the huge difference in price between it and 1D x?
A: Headphone jack and slightly different software (we did nothing but estimated that people will pay that much money)
I pray to heavens that canon gets a worthy rival soon so people can choose and not be blackmailed like this.
Shame.

Yeah, that's classic. "Did you see the headphone jack?" Oh, well that certainly justifies tripling the price. How could I have missed the headphone jack?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 20, 2012 at 04:58 UTC
In reply to:

Octane: I find it telling that Canon is so desperate trying to explain this camera to end users. Thanks, but we get it. It's too expensive and the market for 4K footage is almost non-existent.

There's a huge market for 4K footage, but not for 8-bit 4K footage. Even though home 4K displays are just now starting to appear the production crowd want it as an origination format even if they're delivering in 1080p. Much better to oversample on origination. Makes the HD deliverables look much less video-y. But nobody wants to shoot in 8-bit color. That's soccer-mom stuff. Fine for YouTube, but not something to shoot a TV show/movie on.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 20, 2012 at 04:54 UTC
In reply to:

IcyVeins: Canon hasn't made an interesting camera in forever

You can almost hear their design meetings. "Now we could certainly provide 4K video in the EOS-1D X using a Super-35 section of the sensor. It would probably add $45 to the unit cost, but we think it would make the camera more attractive to consumers even though the video will necessarily have to be 8-bit. Of course we could go ahead and triple the price while designating it as a 'professional' model...perhaps that would suck enough to wear the Canon logo? Can anyone think of any other good ways to ruin it before we finalize our release plans?"

Direct link | Posted on Apr 20, 2012 at 02:22 UTC

8-bit video. Man, it's almost an insult. It's almost certainly a restriction imposed by the internal data bottlenecks, but there's nothing "professional" about 8-bit video. It's like higher-resolution HDV. I mean, it's better than nothing, but this isn't going to pose much of a threat to Red. The Scarlet is a crippled monstrosity, but even it can shoot 4K at 24p in 12-bit Recode RAW...for several thousand dollars less than the Canon EOS-1D C.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 20, 2012 at 01:42 UTC as 44th comment | 3 replies
On Blackmagic Designs announces Blackmagic Cinema Camera article (354 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jogger: The sensor is far too small to be using PL or FF lenses. Its smaller than 43 and once you crop, you probably looking at a 3x crop factor.. good luck getting any decent wide to normal lenses. They should have just gone with an APSc/S35 sensor.

The higher figure is for the height of the frame which changes based on the aspect ratio you end up using. In cinema you always use the horizontal width of the frame as the basis for calculations. That's why we call lenses "wide angle" lenses and not "tall angle" lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 18, 2012 at 19:02 UTC
On Blackmagic Designs announces Blackmagic Cinema Camera article (354 comments in total)
In reply to:

GodSpeaks: Move over RED.

Well this came out of left field. Looks very interesting, especially at that price point, and available in July (unlike RED which almost seems MIA now).

My only real concern is the crop factor. That will make WA shooting difficult, so WA lenses may be an issue. Have to wait and see what develops.

We know exactly the crop factor. It's 2.3x horizontally and 2.72x vertically.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 18, 2012 at 18:59 UTC
On Blackmagic Designs announces Blackmagic Cinema Camera article (354 comments in total)
In reply to:

tkbslc: Does it have auto aperture and focus with EF lenses? I don't think it is a coincidence the marketing images show a manual zeiss lens on there instead of a Canon L prime.

You always use the horizontal crop factor, since the vertical crop factor changed depending on the aspect ratio used, so the relevant number is 2.3x.

And yes, wide angle optics aren't going to be this camera's forte. Telephoto optics, however, are going to be no problem at all. Even a 135mm lens will have a FOV like a 310mm lens on the Blackmagic. Documentary guys will love this camera. A 300mm f/4 for example will have a FOV like a 690mm lens on a 135 system and that will be without any kind of exotic lens support rails. You can do all your favorite Ridley Scott/Sam Peckinpah shots without using lenses the size of fire hydrants.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 18, 2012 at 18:59 UTC
On Blackmagic Designs announces Blackmagic Cinema Camera article (354 comments in total)
In reply to:

Francis Carver: Great new digi-box, BUT for these few minor issues:

1. Crop factor is anywhere from 2.5x to 3.0x, depending whom you ask. it is major, however. Blackmagic Design had mysteriously "forgot" to mention anything about it in their detailed press release or in the posted specs.

2. You would need native Super 16mm film optics or maybe 1-inch C-mount lenses on it. Then you would need some PL and C-mount adapters to make them fit. Full-frame 135 and even DX sensor lenses would be a serious mis-match.

3. Small chance of being able to record fisheye, UWA, and WA perspective image sequences with this Blackmagic camera, due to the above mentioned lens mis-match issue. Crops, barrrels, etc. They should have announced some dedicated lenses for it as well.

4. You cannot change the battery in this thing. The battery inside the camera is sealed. After you shoot for 75-90 minutes with it, you need to plug camera into the AC adapter for 2 hours, according to the BMD specs. Not too good, is it?

The "Digital Bolex" is a first offering from a company with no track record. Blackmagic has been a staple of the post industry for decades. They're very well-established. If this camera performs well it will sell extremely well.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 18, 2012 at 18:52 UTC
On Blackmagic Designs announces Blackmagic Cinema Camera article (354 comments in total)
In reply to:

RRJackson: A few things worth mentioning about this. The active sensor size is 15.6mm x 8.8mm. That's a very nice size for shooting moving images.

16mm is 10.26mm x 7.49mm. Super-16 is 12.52mm x 7.41mm. A lot of big-budget films have been shot on 16mm. 'Black Swan' was shot on Super-16 and was nominated for an Academy Award for its cinematography.

It's also not *that* much smaller than 35mm Techniscope, which was the 35mm 2-perf format that Sergio Leone used to use all the time. George Lucas also used Techniscope for 'THX-1138.' At 22mm x 9.47mm it's a little bigger than the Blackmagic, but not all that much.

The point about the EF mount limiting the use of wide-angle lenses is well taken, but wide angle lenses typically involve distortion and in a moving image distortion grabs your eye and won't let go. A little distortion that won't be all that noticeable in a still will cause people and objects to visibly warp and bend as they cross the field of view in motion picture footage.

3-perf doesn't have a native 2.35:1 aspect ratio. It's sometimes cropped down to that, but that's not its native aspect ratio. 2-perf was created to shoot widescreen with spherical optics, although the actual ratio is 2.33:1 as captured, but when you transferred to an internegative the 2.35:1 ratio was achieved through extremely minor cropping. So yes, mrdc76 was correct.

And while only the Penelope is currently built to shoot 2-perf from the factory, there are a number of cameras that can be easily converted to 2-perf. Old Arriflex bodies are the most prevalent, but old Soviet Kinor bodies are right up there, as well.

As to expense, 400 feet of 16mm is about $125 and has a runtime of 11 minutes. 400 feet of 35mm is around $240 and has a runtime at 2-perf of 9 minutes. So it's more expensive, but it's also got over twice the surface area (92 square cm vs. 208 square cm) as Super-16 which essentially means the grain is half as big. Meaning you can shoot in half the light in a pinch.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 18, 2012 at 18:49 UTC
On Blackmagic Designs announces Blackmagic Cinema Camera article (354 comments in total)
In reply to:

GodSpeaks: Move over RED.

Well this came out of left field. Looks very interesting, especially at that price point, and available in July (unlike RED which almost seems MIA now).

My only real concern is the crop factor. That will make WA shooting difficult, so WA lenses may be an issue. Have to wait and see what develops.

It's 2.3x horizontally and 2.72x vertically. So an 8mm wide would be like an 18mm wide in terms of FOV, but it's also probably going to be more distortion than you'd want to use for video. The Tokina 11-16mm is probably a better bet. That would still get you down to about a 25mm FOV. That's wider than I usually ever use, but some people like going really wide. This will not be the camera for those people.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 18, 2012 at 05:40 UTC
On Blackmagic Designs announces Blackmagic Cinema Camera article (354 comments in total)
In reply to:

tkbslc: Does it have auto aperture and focus with EF lenses? I don't think it is a coincidence the marketing images show a manual zeiss lens on there instead of a Canon L prime.

You don't really want to use the diagonal to determine crop factor since we're talking about a shorter aspect ratio. You want to look at vertical and horizontal crop factors separately and really all you need to look at is the horizontal crop factor since the vertical will change depending on your delivery aspect ratio. So yeah, you divide 36mm by 15.6mm and you get about a 2.3x crop factor. The vertical crop factor will be 24mm divided by 8.8mm for a vertical factor of 2.72x, but again that's part of shooting widescreen.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 18, 2012 at 05:35 UTC
On Blackmagic Designs announces Blackmagic Cinema Camera article (354 comments in total)
In reply to:

Francis Carver: WARNING:

The BMD guys outright lies about the sensor size at 2:00 into the clip, claiming it is a M4/3 size sensor. It is nothing like M4/3. What will they come up with next, I wonder? If it a M4/3 sensor, why can't we use M4/3 lenses on it then?

http://www.eoshd.com/

The sensor they're using is 16.64mm x 14.04mm, but the Blackmagic Cinema Camera is only using a slice of the sensor that's 15.6mm x 8.8mm in size.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 18, 2012 at 05:25 UTC
On Blackmagic Designs announces Blackmagic Cinema Camera article (354 comments in total)
In reply to:

RRJackson: A few things worth mentioning about this. The active sensor size is 15.6mm x 8.8mm. That's a very nice size for shooting moving images.

16mm is 10.26mm x 7.49mm. Super-16 is 12.52mm x 7.41mm. A lot of big-budget films have been shot on 16mm. 'Black Swan' was shot on Super-16 and was nominated for an Academy Award for its cinematography.

It's also not *that* much smaller than 35mm Techniscope, which was the 35mm 2-perf format that Sergio Leone used to use all the time. George Lucas also used Techniscope for 'THX-1138.' At 22mm x 9.47mm it's a little bigger than the Blackmagic, but not all that much.

The point about the EF mount limiting the use of wide-angle lenses is well taken, but wide angle lenses typically involve distortion and in a moving image distortion grabs your eye and won't let go. A little distortion that won't be all that noticeable in a still will cause people and objects to visibly warp and bend as they cross the field of view in motion picture footage.

Techniscope (2-perf 35mm) was problematic in the days before digital post-production. For delivery you had to bounce it down to an anamorphic internegative and that gave you a generational loss. I mean, you had the same thing going on with Super-16, but that was mainly the realm of documentary guys. A lot of studios balked at generational loss in a 35mm production, though. Then it didn't make a speedy comeback in the age of digital post because nobody had built a Techniscope camera since the Arriflex 35 II CT/B went out of production in 1978. Aaton is making the Penelope, but that's only been out since 2008 and it's a $120,000 camera, so indie guys aren't buying them.

There are plenty of people converting more affordable cameras and shooting 2-perf, though. I personally own 8mm, Super-8, 16mm, Super16 & 35mm cameras, but haven't ever converted a 35mm for 2-perf.

The 2.3x crop factor is easy enough to figure out. The sensor is 15.6mm x 8.8mm. Divide 36mm by 15.6mm and you get ~2.3.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 18, 2012 at 04:13 UTC
On Blackmagic Designs announces Blackmagic Cinema Camera article (354 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jogger: The sensor is far too small to be using PL or FF lenses. Its smaller than 43 and once you crop, you probably looking at a 3x crop factor.. good luck getting any decent wide to normal lenses. They should have just gone with an APSc/S35 sensor.

BTW, someone pointed out the Tokina 11-16mm as a very popular wide-angle zoom among cinematographers. I hadn't considered that one. So that's like having a 25-36mm f/2.8. Certainly not too bad in terms of wide-angle coverage.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 18, 2012 at 02:32 UTC
Total: 71, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »