PDA

View Full Version : Reference table: equivalent lens



divide
04-30-2009, 02:39 AM
Here are a few equivalent lens (based on horizontal fov in degree), calculated using 3ds Max:

A: 5DMKii (36mm width)
B: Super 35mm 1.85 (24.89mm width) - Red One (24.4mm width)
C: D90 (23.6mm width)
D: cine 35mm 1.85 (20.95mm width)
E: GH1 (18.8mm width)
F: Super 16mm 1.85 (12.39mm width)
G: 2/3" Scarlet (10.1mm width)

lens are rounded to the closest mm

fov: A..B...C...D...E...F...G
66: 28 19 18 16 14 10 8
60: 31 22 20 18 16 11 9
55: 35 24 23 20 18 12 10
50: 39 27 25 22 20 13 11
45: 44 30 29 25 23 15 12
40: 49 34 32 29 26 17 14
33: 61 42 40 35 32 21 17
26: 78 54 51 45 41 27 22

dcloud
04-30-2009, 03:27 AM
ok now this is what ive been asking about. :)

add aps-c (500d)

Ian-T
04-30-2009, 05:00 AM
I don't get it, if the GH-1 is only slightly smaller than standard 35mm, then what's all the fuss about its crop factor? I think maybe the complaints are coming from 5Dll users....because this size sensor is way bigger than anything most folks here ever used (besides Red One users of course).

dcloud
04-30-2009, 05:27 AM
I don't get it, if the GH-1 is only slightly smaller than standard 35mm, then what's all the fuss about its crop factor? I think maybe the complaints are coming from 5Dll users....because this size sensor is way bigger than anything most folks here ever used (besides Red One users of course).
not slightly, but half.

lack of satisfaction.

jacks off to 5d blurry background

divide
04-30-2009, 05:42 AM
not slightly, but half.

No, as stated Ian-T, GH1 is only slightly smaller than standard 35mm, not half.
35mm is in fact 20.95mm width, while GH1 is 18.8mm width.

dcloud
04-30-2009, 05:56 AM
did you mean super 35?
http://rebelsguide.com/dl/sensorSizes_06_cheatSheet.png
i guess i was refering to full frame

I think thats what other people are complaining about.. "its harder to get dof with something half the 5d"

So Im guessing the EX1 and 2/3" cams are useless? gimme a break.

divide
04-30-2009, 06:03 AM
I mean 35mm as I described in the table, but that reminds me I should add Super 35 to the table.

edit: done !

Ian-T
04-30-2009, 06:07 AM
@dcloud. Exactly my point. It just boggles my mind sometimes. But then I realize the only ones who are complaining are those who probably own the 5Dll.....which has way more DOF than standard 35mm film...too much actually. It's like how I've seen most people use 35mm adapters...the shallow DOF is always way overboard compared to what we see in Hollywood films.

Isaac_Brody
04-30-2009, 06:40 AM
I think thats what other people are complaining about.. "its harder to get dof with something half the 5d"

Not true. If you've shot 16mm or 2/3 chip then 4/3 will be very easy. Shallow DOF is overrated and with fast primes I don't envision many people complaining about DOF.

I take that back, people will always find a reason to complain... :thumbsup:

LizaWitz
04-30-2009, 06:44 AM
The 4/3 sensor is only a bit smaller than the RED One, and significantly larger than the Red Scarlet.

daveswan
04-30-2009, 06:55 AM
4/3 is half the size of 35mm, the 5DII is full 35mm.
"More DoF" means (To me) deeper DoF

Instead of saying more or less DoF can we use proper photographic terms of Deep or Shallow DoF.

Remember DoF stands for Depth of Field, therefore more DoF means more, ie Deeper DoF

Ian-T
04-30-2009, 07:01 AM
4/3 is half the size of 35mm, the 5DII is full 35mm.
"More DoF" means (To me) deeper DoF

Instead of saying more or less DoF can we use proper photographic terms of Deep or Shallow DoF.

Remember DoF stands for Depth of Field, therefore more DoF means more, ie Deeper DoF
I think you are mixing up terms here. The GH-1 is only slightly smaller than "standard" 35mm film (We are not talking Super 35mm). The 5Dll is much larger than "standard" 35mm. I mentioned above that it has "too much" shallow DOF (more than really needed for cinema i think). So..."standard"35mm shallow DOF is basically more than enough. That's why I am confused on why folks are balking at the GH-1 which is only slightly smaller than "standard" 35mm. It's basically the Red One..junior (as far as sensor size goes).

divide
04-30-2009, 07:02 AM
good idea, I added Scarlet, Red One, and Super 16mm to the table.

artforme
04-30-2009, 07:09 AM
It's only half the FOV of FF35. There is more than one way to shoot 35mm film, which changes the size of the image on the film, and thus the FOV. FF is only one way.

Ian-T
04-30-2009, 07:13 AM
Ok...true. But answer this for me (you or anyone else)... Since we know that the GH-1 uses ALL of the sensor to create its image in 16:9 and the 5Dll does NOT (since it crops its image to make that very same 16:9)...then are we really talking half (in terms of the GH-1 vs 5Dll)? I didn't do the math...but with that information....I certainly don't think so.

artforme
04-30-2009, 07:16 AM
I agree with you, that it's a plenty big sensor, capable of extreme shallow DOF.

Although there are plenty of sensor charts out there that compare all the different formats. Not sure where they are at this moment.

A quick wikipedia education moment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_35_mm_film

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SensorSizes.svg

divide
04-30-2009, 07:16 AM
the GH-1 uses ALL of the sensor to create its image in 16:9

Do you mean, that actually all sensors are used as opposed to MKii which only use one sensor out of 2 (or 3..), and then downsize the picture using some bilinear or trilinear filter to match the Full HD size ? That would be fantastic, since it would mean very good sensitivity in low light (since several sensors are averaged).

dcloud
04-30-2009, 07:20 AM
exactly. ive shot on 35mm and 16mm. I didnt use thatt much DOF either

Ian-T
04-30-2009, 07:22 AM
divide...I'm not quite sure how to answer that myself. But what I have leaned about the 5Dll is that the 16:9 image that it creates is actually cropped where the GH-1's sensor (which was made extra wide) uses the whole sensor to create the 16:9 image. I don't know if that makes a huge impact but I would think that helps the GH-1's FOV a little. So the crop factor is really a little less than 2x's. And since the 5Dll crops its image anyways then I'm just wondering how much difference there really would be betwen the two cam's FOV. There will definitely be a difference...but how much. I guess the only way to tell is to do a side by side comparison.

artforme
04-30-2009, 07:31 AM
This is the best comparison chart link that I know of. (http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/1_chartx.jpg)

daveswan
04-30-2009, 07:55 AM
35 mm (Film) is 36x24mm, the FF Digital is much the same size (Some may be 1mm smaller in each dimension). Cropped formats differ, Nikon is 1.5 times smaller, Canon 1.6, Sigma (Foveon) 1.7, and 4/3 is 2 times.

I think The 5DII simply crops the top and bottom which would equate to 36 x 20.2. I have read that the GH! uses a non-standard sensor which can read 4x3 16x9 3x2 and 1x1 with vere nearly the same resolution, within the 4/3 image circle

artforme
04-30-2009, 08:00 AM
Academy is 22mm x 12mm or 22mm x 16mm. There is more than one format for 35mm film. Please specify if you are only talking about FF.

LizaWitz
04-30-2009, 08:00 AM
So, the GH1 is just under the size of Academy 3Perf. Thus, the FOV and DOF will be about the same as shooting that format.

In fact, eyeballing it, it looks like that this gives us a larger area than most movies are shot on, which are cropped 4perf.

Ian-T
04-30-2009, 08:02 AM
This is the best comparison chart link that I know of. (http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/1_chartx.jpg)LOl...I'm afraid to even guess where my poor HV20 stacks up on that chart. But thanks for the link.

Late
04-30-2009, 08:16 AM
35 mm (Film) is 36x24mm, the FF Digital is much the same size (Some may be 1mm smaller in each dimension). Cropped formats differ, Nikon is 1.5 times smaller, Canon 1.6, Sigma (Foveon) 1.7, and 4/3 is 2 times.


Those are crop factors used to multiply focal lengths. An FF 35mm sensor is about 4 times bigger (864 square mm) than 4/3 (225 square mm) in area (well... about 3.84x). Meaning, in the space of a single 35mm sensor you could place roughly four 4/3 sensors.

You can see the size comparison here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SensorSizes.svg

Ian-T
04-30-2009, 08:25 AM
...well...since we are being exact here the GH-1 is considered the biggest 4/3 sensor (http://fourthirds-user.com/2009/04/the_biggest_four_thirds_sensor_yet.php) so far ....so it sits around 244.4 square mm. FYI

daveswan...I think this link basically agrees with your above statement about its non-standard sensor.

Late
04-30-2009, 08:28 AM
...well...since we are being exact here the GH-1 is considered the biggest 4/3 sensor so far ....so it sits around 244.4 square mm. FYI

It never actually uses the whole sensor at any aspect ratio. If you crop the 35mm to 16:9 then that does equalize it a little bit. GH1 doesn't lose any angle of view when you change the aspect ratio since it still uses the whole image circle. The sensor is actually larger than the usable image circle.

Kholi
04-30-2009, 08:54 AM
Thanks for your contribution on this, Davide!

Having the camera in my HANDS I can tell you that wides won't be an issue, and I'm the sort of person that LOVES wides to a fault. The crop factor discussed BEFORE the camera's inception was completely wrong, which was why I forewent taking possession of a 7-14 Vario G lens and instead am going to keep using the Tokina 11-16/2.8.

It's HALF the price of the new Vario lens and two stops faster than it at all focal lengths. Not to mention it should be slightly wider as well. We'll see when I get my Nikon and Contax adapter in.

FOV and DOF should be no worry anymore. Anyone looking to grab the camera who's been discouraged by this should put no extra thought into it. It's close enough to 35mm Standards.

Instead, you should be elated that you have a camera that you can use just about ANY glass on. Thus increasing the chances to vary up your look for each project.

Ever use old Japanese Lenses!? They're awesome!

Late
04-30-2009, 09:02 AM
Thanks for your contribution on this, Davide!

Having the camera in my HANDS I can tell you that wides won't be an issue, and I'm the sort of person that LOVES wides to a fault. The crop factor discussed BEFORE the camera's inception was completely wrong, which was why I forewent taking possession of a 7-14 Vario G lens and instead am going to keep using the Tokina 11-16/2.8.

It's HALF the price of the new Vario lens and two stops faster than it at all focal lengths. Not to mention it should be slightly wider as well. We'll see when I get my Nikon and Contax adapter in.


How can an 11mm lens be wider than 7mm when used on the same camera? The 11mm will be about 22mm equiv and the 7mm will be about 14mm equiv (in 35mm FF terms).

mkeep
04-30-2009, 09:13 AM
The original post mentions widths but aren't crop factors calculated using the diagonal measurement?

ydgmdlu
04-30-2009, 09:21 AM
I don't think that the top and bottom cropping that the 5D does affects the FOV. You get the same horizontal angle of view, which is what concerns people the most.

Perhaps width is more important than diagonal after all.

divide
04-30-2009, 09:24 AM
I don't think that the top and bottom cropping that the 5D does affects the FOV. You get the same horizontal angle of view, which is what concerns people the most.

Perhaps width is more important than diagonal after all.

I can't agree more. That's why I built my table based on horizontal FOV and width.

Late
04-30-2009, 09:29 AM
I don't think that the top and bottom cropping that the 5D does affects the FOV. You get the same horizontal angle of view, which is what concerns people the most.

Perhaps width is more important than diagonal after all.

Well it does effect FOV in the way that the corners are no longer touching the image circle edges. Of course, if you just think in the horizontal terms, you could say that the FOV doesn't change, but in that case you should also say that the GH1 gets a wider FOV when you switch to 16:9 mode. So either 5D gets a narrower FOV at 16:9 or the GH1 gets wider at 16:9, depends the way you look at it, but it does still equalize the sensor size difference a little bit.

Ian-T
04-30-2009, 09:44 AM
I think you're right. And according to the numbers (I can't believe I'm getting caught up in this numbers game) the crop factor is more like 1.91x...to be exact. :)

mkeep
04-30-2009, 09:54 AM
Well it does effect FOV in the way that the corners are no longer touching the image circle edges.

Yeah, I don't get it. I just drew a little diagram in photoshop to try to visualize it. Draw a squareish frame and a circle that touches the corners. Then draw a 16:9 crop in that frame and it's clearly using a smaller portion of the circle. What am I missing?

Edit: hmm, I think I get it now. never mind.

Ian-T
04-30-2009, 10:14 AM
Yeah, I don't get it. I just drew a little diagram in photoshop to try to visualize it. Draw a squareish frame and a circle that touches the corners. Then draw a 16:9 crop in that frame and it's clearly using a smaller portion of the circle. What am I missing?

Edit: hmm, I think I get it now. never mind.

Ok...I was going to refer you to the link I provided earlier. Look halfway down the page.

http://fourthirds-user.com/2009/04/the_biggest_four_thirds_sensor_yet.php

mkeep
04-30-2009, 10:41 AM
Yes, those diagrams help a lot. Thanks. So assuming that the GH1 sensor is indeed 18.8x13, that means the crop factors are:

Calculated using the diagonal:
FF35 = 1.89
Academy = 1.19

Calculated using width only:
FF35 = 1.91
Academy = 1.17

So roughly 2x if you're used to shooting 35mm stills, and roughly 1.2x if academy 35 is your point of reference.

androoow
04-30-2009, 11:30 AM
wow.. theres so many stats, numbers .... figures etc in this thread that even DAVIDNJ would be happy ..... reading all these stats is starting to bumm me out ....i'll be so happy when i can just watch quality stuff shot with it .

Ian-T
04-30-2009, 11:41 AM
So roughly 2x if you're used to shooting 35mm stills, and roughly 1.2x if academy 35 is your point of reference.Exactly.


@androoow...yeah i know what you mean. I'm feelin sort of like a nerd right now.

Kholi
04-30-2009, 12:51 PM
I still have my D90.

Just comparing the Video modes side-by-side I can barely tell that the D90 @ 18mm is slightly wider than the GH-1 @ 18mm. Both with their kit lenses.

I think it's maybe 3mm Wider at the same focal length, the D90 I mean.

They're both the same "height", just the D90 seems to be slightly wider but I honestly can't even tell.

That's why I'm not worried about FOV anymore.

mattsand
04-30-2009, 03:33 PM
all these formats are "higher" than both 16:9, 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 so they are all cropped for video/cine. to compare them we need to crop them all to the same relative height otherwise the comparison doesn't hold. who cares if the gh1 sensor has more pixels top and bottom if you're not using them? i don't think it's even possible to shoot video in 4:3 with it but even if it was you can't compare fov with another camera shooting 1.85:1, for example. thus: width is the correct number to do the comparison by, it stays the same in all formats regardless of vertical crop.

as for "35mm" that phrase usually means you're shooting motion pictures. the still format is sometimes referred to as full frame, usually in the past as 24x36. few people call it 35mm so let's not start complicating things.

/matt

Ian-T
04-30-2009, 03:39 PM
all these formats are "higher" than both 16:9, 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 so they are all cropped for video/cine. to compare them we need to crop them all to the same relative height otherwise the comparison doesn't hold. who cares if the gh1 sensor has more pixels top and bottom if you're not using them? i don't think it's even possible to shoot video in 4:3 with it but even if it was you can't compare fov with another camera shooting 1.85:1, for example. thus: width is the correct number to do the comparison by, it stays the same in all formats regardless of vertical crop.

as for "35mm" that phrase usually means you're shooting motion pictures. the still format is sometimes referred to as full frame, usually in the past as 24x36. few people call it 35mm so let's not start complicating things.

/mattHave you looked at this information on its sensor? It's not cropping like how most sensors crop because of the type of sensor it has. So the width in 16:9 is not the same as it is in 4:3.

http://fourthirds-user.com/2009/04/the_biggest_four_thirds_sensor_yet.php

mattsand
04-30-2009, 03:47 PM
i know. whis is *exactly* why the width is what is important. what this width is i don't know for sure. trying to do the equivalent 4:3 diagonal and claiming this to be some sort of constant is clearly not a scientific or accurate way of estimating it, just a theoretical construct. all sensors can theoretically do this if they're circular, what they actually do is another story. find the width of the sensor and case is closed. is the gh1 sensor even circular?

/matt

artforme
04-30-2009, 03:54 PM
I think it's just an over sized rectangle, but I forget where I saw the picture of it...

mattsand
04-30-2009, 03:54 PM
oh, and there's no "proof in the pixel size" either. they may simply be oversampling the sensor differently to maximize the megapixels. somebody needs to measure this properly, easy with a test chart. let's see it. even easier would be to read the specs but maybe that info isn't available.

mattsand
04-30-2009, 03:56 PM
I think it's just an over sized rectangle
then why on earth would they not use as much of it as possible for all modes? no, if this is how it works it needs to be a rounded rectangle at least.

/matt

LizaWitz
04-30-2009, 04:04 PM
The sensor is bigger than the image circle. In 16:9 you get a wider image, both in pixels and physically, than you do in 4:3 or 1:1 stills.

The chart of the sensor size has been posted somewhere in the GH1 threads....

Late
04-30-2009, 04:04 PM
i know. whis is *exactly* why the width is what is important. what this width is i don't know for sure. trying to do the equivalent 4:3 diagonal and claiming this to be some sort of constant is clearly not a scientific or accurate way of estimating it, just a theoretical construct. all sensors can theoretically do this if they're circular, what they actually do is another story. find the width of the sensor and case is closed. is the gh1 sensor even circular?

/matt

Don't know what's so hard to get about this. The sensor is larger than the image circle so it can use the whole image circle no matter what the aspect ratio. The width of the sensor is the width of the widest aspect ratio available (16:9) which should be about 18.8mm (4352 pixels).

Ian-T
04-30-2009, 04:05 PM
...., what they actually do is another story. find the width of the sensor and case is closed. is the gh1 sensor even circular?

/mattMatt...the sensor is definitely circular. The width does go beyond how typical cams crop their image. There is another page (I believe on the Panasonic site) that shows two of the same images. One with a standard crop from a 4:3 sensor and the other with a crop from the circular sensor. The circular crop showed a wider FOV than the standard crop. If I can find that page I'll post it. But anyways...what I do agree with you on is the we don't exactly know the dimensions. But the fact is...it is beyond a standard crop.

Ian-T
04-30-2009, 04:06 PM
Ha....let's gang up on Mattias until he gets it.

squig
04-30-2009, 04:11 PM
width- http://www.pbase.com/viztyger/image/109862819/original

35mm film projector aperture 1.85:1 is 21mm x 11mm so the GH1 sensor size is almost spot on.

Late
04-30-2009, 04:11 PM
Matt...the sensor is definitely circular. The width does go beyond how typical cams crop their image. There is another page (I believe on the Panasonic site) that shows two of the same images. One with a standard crop from a 4:3 sensor and the other with a crop from the circular sensor. The circular crop showed a wider FOV than the standard crop. If I can find that page I'll post it. But anyways...what I do agree with you on is the we don't exactly know the dimensions. But the fact is...it is beyond a standard crop.

I don't think the sensor is actually circular (at least it doesn't have to be). It just has to be larger than the image circle with the corners of the sensor poking out. The hight of the sensor is determined by the highest aspect ratio and the width by the widest aspect ratio.

Ian-T
04-30-2009, 04:17 PM
I don't think the sensor is actually circular (at least it doesn't have to be). It just has to be larger than the image circle with the corners of the sensor poking out. The hight of the sensor is determined by the highest aspect ratio and the width by the widest aspect ratio.You're right...I explained that part wrong. I was just trying to get him to look in a different direction from the chart in that link I posted.

But then again why not? That is exactly why Mattais asked his question about not utilizing the whole sensor. Or maybe it's as you said...that it's just one oversized rectangle sensor. But I doubt that.

So...when I think abiut what you are suggesting....it looks sort of like a fat cross? That's possible.



____________________
__l l__
l l
l l
l l
l_ _ l
l_____________________l (I suck!!)



Like this?

Late
04-30-2009, 04:24 PM
You're right...I explained that part wrong. I was just trying to get him to look in a different direction from the chart in that link I posted.

But then again why not? That is exactly why Mattais asked his question about not utilizing the whole sensor. Or maybe it's as you said...that it's just one oversized rectangle sensor. But I doubt that.

So...when I think abiut what you are suggesting....it looks sort of like a fat cross? That's possible.

No it's not a cross. The parts that it's actually utilizing is something like a cross (edit: actually not since there is also the 3:2 ratio in between), but the sensor itself is rectangular (the corner parts just aren't used). There would be no benefit to cut those corner pieces off.

I found a picture of the sensor here:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DMCGH1/DMCGH1A.HTM

Ian-T
04-30-2009, 04:34 PM
For some reason I remember seeing this picture more than once. But I think we have been talking the same thing all along except that the shape of the sensor is not an actual circle. The area being used is like a cross. (as you said) which I always understoon...but it is rectangular in shape. Not a perfect 16:9 rectangle or Mattais would have a good point in it not utilizing all of its area. But it's sized just enough to allow a little breathing room for a 4:3 and 16:9 and 3:2 image.

Late
04-30-2009, 04:45 PM
Yep. Sort of a complicated way of coming to a conclusion where the guys with cameras could have arrived at by simply removing the lens and having a peek, but I guess I don't have anything better to do. :) All we can do is speculate on the internet until panasonic brings the camera to the rest of the world.

mkeep
04-30-2009, 05:11 PM
as for "35mm" that phrase usually means you're shooting motion pictures. the still format is sometimes referred to as full frame, usually in the past as 24x36. few people call it 35mm so let's not start complicating things.

Haha. Yeah, few except for, you know... photographers.

LizaWitz
04-30-2009, 05:43 PM
The sensor is not a circle due to the way integrated circuits are manufactured. They are made on a large wafer, with many chips per wafer, and then cut out. IF they were circular, there would be a lot of excess space-- a lot of expensive excess space.

Its easier to just have the corners of the sensor extend outside the image circle, and that way the 16:9 is full width and the 4:3 is full height.

Go here, and scroll to the right to the GH1 Sensor. The light grey square is the sensor, it sticks out of the image circle (And its simplified on this diagram, cause its actually physically even bigger, as you can see in the picture below.)

I guess you could call it a cross shape.

Here's a picture of the actual sensor.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DMCGH1/ZSENSOR-LG.JPG

I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said before, but I'm confused by the amount of confusion on this, and trying to clear it up.
http://www.pbase.com/viztyger/image/109862819/original

Ian-T
04-30-2009, 06:57 PM
Thanks Liza. We caught that a few postrs up.

DavidNJ
04-30-2009, 07:04 PM
That would imply the camera is processing 640M photo sites/sec vs. 373Mp/sec on the EX1/EX3/HPX300 (without demosaicing) and 180Mp/sec on the 5DM2. Now that we have the cameras, do the 16:9 video and still images have the same frame?

Kholi
04-30-2009, 10:49 PM
Yes. Looks the same to me. But there's an option in the menus that specifies angle of view. I dunno what it's for but it has a video camera icon and a still camera icon. Naturally I chose the video camera icon.

Hmmm

mattsand
05-01-2009, 05:09 AM
you got it backwards. i get everything. you should know this my now. a lot of people think i'm an asshole and a lot of people disagree with my opinions, but very few question my knowledge for very good reasons. if you think there's something i haven't understood you simply haven't understood what i wrote.

in short condensed form: the sensor has a width in video mode, if we know that width we can compare fov with other cameras, if we don't we can't. theories on what this width may or may not be based on pixel size and circular sensors are fine and all but ultimately tell us nothing. pointing the camera at a ruler and switching between 4:3 and 16:9 gives us the answer in five seconds. can somebody please?

/matt

mattsand
05-01-2009, 05:14 AM
Haha. Yeah, few except for, you know... photographers.
and carpenters use it to refer to the length of a piece of wood. we're making movies here, aren't we? ask 1000 dp's what the frame size of 35mm is and you'll get exactly zero answers referring to the size of a still frame.

/matt

mattsand
05-01-2009, 05:30 AM
I don't think the sensor is actually circular (at least it doesn't have to be). It just has to be larger than the image circle with the corners of the sensor poking out. The hight of the sensor is determined by the highest aspect ratio and the width by the widest aspect ratio.
this is how all sensors work. they are a certain format, and to make a different aspect they need to crop either top and bottom or the sides. whether the actual pixels in the corners are used, or whether they are even exposed by the image circle of your particular lens (all lenses are different) is academic. you can't calculate the dimensions based on a circle because the sensor isn't circular. it's entirely possible that panasonic are *both* extending the width a little and cropping a little bit more, depending on the sensor width. the diagonal does *not* have to be the same just because it's throretically possible for it to.

(btw s35 is (was?) used this way a lot, to extract both a 4:3 image and a 16:9 or even 2.35:1 one from the same frame. the 4:3 fills the height while the widescreen frame fills the width)

/matt

mattsand
05-01-2009, 05:34 AM
kholi, can you take one still in 4:3 mode and one video, or still if possible, in 16:9 mode with a locked down camera and tell us the result?

Steve Castle
05-01-2009, 08:59 AM
Panasonic already has samples on their site, none of this is speculation. Panasonic also uses the same technique on other cameras like their DMC-TZ3 P/S. In practice, it's much ado about nothing, a bit of crop-factor here, a bit-wider there, its not going to make a real noticeable difference when you're really shooting.



http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo13/steve_castle/image38.gif

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo13/steve_castle/image41.jpg
http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo13/steve_castle/image40.jpg
http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo13/steve_castle/image39.jpg

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo13/steve_castle/gh1rel_ma_13_l.jpg

LizaWitz
05-01-2009, 09:05 AM
Since its apparently still not clear, I'll make it big:

18.8mm X 10.6mm

AdrianF
05-01-2009, 09:14 AM
Divide

Thanks for the table, I'm sure it'll be useful to many. I'm used to shooting four thirds stills and up until I read this thread, thought it was a fairly simple conversion ( from FF), even for someone like me who's a bit blonde when it comes to working things like this out.
So after reading this through again questioned what is the big deal here? If we know the size of the imager 18.8 x 10.6 or thereabouts, just use a FOV calculator like this one

http://www.frankvanderpol.nl/fov_pan_calc.htm

If I'm using this correctly ( which I think I am? ), then that's giving me roughly what I would expect.

Adrian

TheRealMe
05-03-2009, 06:26 AM
After reading every posts of this thread, I think I'm more lost then before. And at this point, I realize that there's only one thing that I really want to know :

When we refer to a 50mm lens as a "normal" lens (meaning not telephoto and not wide), which format are we using as a reference? Full Frame 35mm still film? Academy 35mm motion Film? Super 35mm? How many perforation?

Maybe it's a stupid question but I'm getting really confused!

hish
05-03-2009, 07:11 AM
After reading every posts of this thread, I think I'm more lost then before. And at this point, I realize that there's only one thing that I really want to know :

When we refer to a 50mm lens as a "normal" lens (meaning not telephoto and not wide), which format are we using as a reference? Full Frame 35mm still film? Academy 35mm motion Film? Super 35mm? How many perforation?

Maybe it's a stupid question but I'm getting really confused!


Full Frame, 36mm x 24mm.

TheRealMe
05-03-2009, 10:37 AM
Full Frame, 36mm x 24mm.

So this means that even when you're shooting on 35mm film (academy or super) or on Red, you have to use some kind of conversion table (to know what's your normal 50mm lens).

Is that right?

hish
05-03-2009, 10:53 AM
So this means that even when you're shooting on 35mm film (academy or super) or on Red, you have to use some kind of conversion table (to know what's your normal 50mm lens).

Is that right?


Yes.

Texanite
05-03-2009, 11:36 AM
WhyTF does Panasonic.com list the GH1 as having a "28-280mm Telephoto Kit Lens"? Trying to provide the "35mm equivalent" for the general public at the expense of actually giving accurate information?

http://www2.panasonic.com/consumer-electronics/shop/Cameras-Camcorders/Digital-Cameras/Lumix-Digital-Interchangeable-Lens-Cameras/model.DMC-GH1K_11002_7000000000000005702

Kholi
05-03-2009, 11:40 AM
There's a lot of inaccurate information being given by Panasonic on this camera. Dunno why.

Maybe it's to keep their current Lumix customer base at home with the system?

It certainly is NOT a 28-240 in Film/Movie/Video mode, though. It's the same FOV as RED, or extremely close and that's MORE than good enough for me.

hish
05-03-2009, 11:54 AM
There's a lot of inaccurate information being given by Panasonic on this camera. Dunno why.

Maybe it's to keep their current Lumix customer base at home with the system?

It certainly is NOT a 28-240 in Film/Movie/Video mode, though. It's the same FOV as RED, or extremely close and that's MORE than good enough for me.


Kholi, you can settle this matter once and for all.

Record a quick snippet in movie mode of two rulers making a cross. Have the lens set to either the wide or the long end. Note the distance from the end of the lens to the rulers and post both a captured frame and the distance between the end of the lens and the rulers here. The picture should be taken like the picture I'm going to attach now.

With these measurements I can calculate the definitive width and height of the sensor.

AdrianF
05-03-2009, 01:46 PM
WhyTF does Panasonic.com list the GH1 as having a "28-280mm Telephoto Kit Lens"? Trying to provide the "35mm equivalent" for the general public at the expense of actually giving accurate information?

http://www2.panasonic.com/consumer-electronics/shop/Cameras-Camcorders/Digital-Cameras/Lumix-Digital-Interchangeable-Lens-Cameras/model.DMC-GH1K_11002_7000000000000005702

That is accurate information, the kit lens is Micro Four Thirds 14-140mm, which has a 28-280mm equivalent FOV in 35mm ( FF ). The confusion seems to be coming from the reference to 35mm and references to it in the film world. Most camera manufacturers give this 35mm figure as a comparison for both stills and video cameras.

The clips that I've seen, using Four Thirds lenses seem to show that the camera is shooting video with the Four Thirds FOV. I think what Kholi is saying is that this is pretty close to what he's used to working with on the RED and not that the video mode is cropping or changing the FOV to be something different from the stills the camera shoots?

Adrian

Texanite
05-03-2009, 02:42 PM
That is accurate information, the kit lens is Micro Four Thirds 14-140mm, which has a 28-280mm equivalent FOV in 35mm ( FF ).

The way I phrased my last post may have been misleading. The panasonic site doesn't say "equivalent". The panasonic site merely says that the lens is 28-280mm, which isn't accurate.

I'm guessing that their point is to market the focal length as the equivalent, but it's misleading to say that it has a 28-280mm lens in the kit if the lens is actually 14-140mm.

Kholi
05-03-2009, 02:55 PM
That is accurate information, the kit lens is Micro Four Thirds 14-140mm, which has a 28-280mm equivalent FOV in 35mm ( FF ). The confusion seems to be coming from the reference to 35mm and references to it in the film world. Most camera manufacturers give this 35mm figure as a comparison for both stills and video cameras.

The clips that I've seen, using Four Thirds lenses seem to show that the camera is shooting video with the Four Thirds FOV. I think what Kholi is saying is that this is pretty close to what he's used to working with on the RED and not that the video mode is cropping or changing the FOV to be something different from the stills the camera shoots?

Adrian

Adrian has it right. I FINALLY get what all the noise is about. Yeah, if FF is the standard by witch they're measuring then the lens SHOULD be a 28-280mm equivalent Full Frame. 5D MKii = Full Frame.

Full Frame isn't the standard for film and video acquisition. That's sort'a like "VISTAVISION" in our world, and that's old hat. I mean it's probably cool to shoot with a Full Frame every so often, just not my cup of tea.

So, the answer is YES it's a 28-280 equivalent if you're judging it by Mark II standards.

NO, it is very close to S35mm FOV if you're judging it by Motion Picture standards. Or just about spot on with RED ONE's 4K FOV.

If you want to shoot Vistavision then you want an MKii.

If you want to shoot with standard Cinematic DOF and FOV (ala RED @ 4k ) then the GH-1 DoeS provide that.

The 14m end is near-to-exact what you would get on a RED.

Adrian, thanks for clearing that up. I was STIL confused at why it was being called a 28-280 35mm Equivalent up until you posted that.

AdrianF
05-04-2009, 01:44 AM
The way I phrased my last post may have been misleading. The panasonic site doesn't say "equivalent". The panasonic site merely says that the lens is 28-280mm, which isn't accurate.
Sorry texanite, I should have followed your link really!




The 14m end is near-to-exact what you would get on a RED.

Once you're used to the Four Thirds system, it really is simple to figure, even for a mathematical light weight like me. Actually this thread has been useful to me, as I was looking to use some c-mount 16mm lenses and wasn't entirely sure how they would look, field of view wise. I now feel a little clearer on this point, after looking at online sample shots from G1 users and using the FOV calculator.

Now that Pany 7-14mm is looking quite a nice option.

Adrian

squig
05-04-2009, 02:02 AM
It's gonna take a while for people to understand that the red one and GH1 have almost the same DOF/FOV as 35mm film camera's. When you're talking motion picture capture the 5D has a -2x crop factor which gives it a much shallower depth of field which means if you want anything in focus your going to have to stop down at least a couple of stops thus negating it's superior low light performance.

GH1 video 16:9 sensor area 18.8mm x 10.6mm
35mm film projection aperture 1.85:1 21mm x 11mm

Texanite
05-04-2009, 12:29 PM
Sorry texanite, I should have followed your link really!

No worries. It looks like the other Panasonic info is much clearer, specifically stating "35mm film camera equivalent: 28-280mm" Methinks that the folks putting together that particular Panasonic.com page just missed the boat somewhere.


Now that Pany 7-14mm is looking quite a nice option.

I agree. I happy that the wide end of the kit lens, IMO, looks wide enough for basic wide work, but the 7-14mm looks hot.

daveswan
05-04-2009, 01:56 PM
The GH1 is being marketed into a predominantly photographic market. It makes perfect sense therefore to quote the lens FL in 35mm (Stills) terms.
In any case there are a whole lot more photographers than cinematographers out there in the real world.

Texanite
05-04-2009, 02:22 PM
The GH1 is being marketed into a predominantly photographic market. It makes perfect sense therefore to quote the lens FL in 35mm (Stills) terms.

I'm not looking for an argument here, but a 14mm lens is not a 28mm lens. They are two different things and it doesn't matter who it's being marketed to, saying that the lens is 28mm when it's actually 14mm is factually incorrect. Even if it makes "perfect sense" to you it's just not true. It's not. Really IT'S NOT.

Saying it's the equivalent is fine, but saying that it's a different focal length than it really is is not fine. The focal length of a lens does not magically change based on the format you're shooting.

Steve Castle
05-04-2009, 02:51 PM
I'm not looking for an argument here, but a 14mm lens is not a 28mm lens. They are two different things and it doesn't matter who it's being marketed to, saying that the lens is 28mm when it's actually 14mm is factually incorrect. Even if it makes "perfect sense" to you it's just not true. It's not. Really IT'S NOT.

Saying it's the equivalent is fine, but saying that it's a different focal length than it really is is not fine. The focal length of a lens does not magically change based on the format you're shooting.

No reason for dramatics, its on the link you provided. They specifically state its a "35mm camera equivalent".

Thing is, focal length is arbitrary. Relatively, its hard to understand the FOV it'll give from the consumer's perspective without a standard metric to measure it against. 35mm "full-frame" is that standard metric, its a carry over from the film days, its used because everyone (older then 20) has used 35mm film some point in their life. Advertising it's equivalent focal length makes sense, and to their credit, they do properly tell you its focal length, and its marked as such on the lens.


The GH1 kit is proudly equipped with the LUMIX G VARIO HD 14-140mm / F4.0-5.8 ASPH. / MEGA O.I.S. lens. This compact lens boasts a focal length of 28-280mm [35mm camera equivalent]http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo13/steve_castle/Picture2-2.png

It's no different from how Nikon, or anyone else, advertises their lenses...

Here's a snippet from Nikon's page advertising the 18-200mmVR DX lens. I've even seen point&shoots advertised this way.


Offers the broad 18-200mm focal range (11.1x zoom) for use in a variety of situations (equivalent to a 27-300mm lens in 35mm format)http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo13/steve_castle/Picture4.png

Park Edwards
05-04-2009, 02:58 PM
I get what texanite is trying to say because I have this debate with people at work who think "crop" factor is changing your focal length and not your field of view...it's a very misleading

Steve Castle
05-04-2009, 03:13 PM
I get what texanite is trying to say because I have this debate with people at work who think "crop" factor is changing your focal length and not your field of view...it's a very misleading

It is confusing, which is the reason why makers advertise the "35mm equivalent" along with the actual focal length. This is further complicated by the fact that the very vast majority of dSLRs use APS-C sized sensors. In contemporary terms, most people are more familiar with 1.5 or 1.6 crop sensors then full-frame ones. Nikon didn't even have a 'full-frame' camera until a couple of years ago with the release of the D3. But this is a topic discussed ad nauseum in photography since APS film was first released.

The reality is, in actual practice, people get used to what they are using. A little crop factor here or there isn't important to all the other variables that need to be considered.

Texanite
05-04-2009, 05:23 PM
It's no different from how Nikon, or anyone else, advertises their lenses..


Offers the broad 18-200mm focal range (11.1x zoom) for use in a variety of situations (equivalent to a 27-300mm lens in 35mm format)

:shocked: As I stated again and again, I have no issues with the lens information being presented as "35mm equivalent". None. Honestly. No issue at all. Really, please just believe me, that's not what I'm talking about. Seriously, I have no problem with that and that is NOT what I'm talking about. Really. Really. Really. Hello, is this thing on?

The only thing that I was pointing out is that Panasonic.com is saying that this camera comes with a 28-280mm lens and it doesn't. That's all. That's it. Totally. That is all. Please don't try and explain again how the 14-140mm lens is equivalent to anything else. That's not the point.


http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/34342/1241482480.jpg .........http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/34342/1241482515.jpg



For those who think that it makes perfect sense to advertise the 14-140mm lens as a 28-280mm lens:

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/34342/1241483802.jpg

Steve Castle
05-04-2009, 08:59 PM
:shocked: As I stated again and again, I have no issues with the lens information being presented as "35mm equivalent". None. Honestly. No issue at all. Really, please just believe me, that's not what I'm talking about. Seriously, I have no problem with that and that is NOT what I'm talking about. Really. Really. Really. Hello, is this thing on?

The only thing that I was pointing out is that Panasonic.com is saying that this camera comes with a 28-280mm lens and it doesn't. That's all. That's it. Totally. That is all. Please don't try and explain again how the 14-140mm lens is equivalent to anything else. That's not the point.


.........



For those who think that it makes perfect sense to advertise the 14-140mm lens as a 28-280mm lens:



Are you honestly getting worked up about this? You also missed the point of my previous post...

If you scroll down it says on the same page that its 14-140mm. It explains in plain English that 28-280mm is a 35mm equivalent. No deception there. Beyond that it's written "14-140mm" on the lens, and on the box, and every other marketing material outside of that site. I'd agree that they should be more consistent, but really its just a website, and they explain it. Nothing to pop-a-vein over.

again...
on the same page you linked to and posted screen-shots of (not in fine print, "proudly" presented as one of the features) :

The GH1 kit is proudly equipped with the LUMIX G VARIO HD 14-140mm / F4.0-5.8 ASPH. / MEGA O.I.S. lens. This compact lens boasts a focal length of 28-280mm [35mm camera equivalent]http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo13/steve_castle/Picture2-2-2.png

Isaac_Brody
05-04-2009, 09:02 PM
Whooaa calm down. It's really not worth getting worked up over marketing materials.

Texanite
05-04-2009, 10:27 PM
If you scroll down it says on the same page that its 14-140mm.

The point is not that Panasonic.com does list the correct info in some places. I know that. I stated that myself. Scroll up to the top of this page and read my post where I say "other Panasonic info is much clearer, specifically stating "35mm film camera equivalent: 28-280mm" I know that in some places, including information on that page itself, Panasonic.com does list the correct information. That's not being debated. I never said that they DIDN'T list accurate information in some places. But that doesn't change incorrect information.

If you list incorrect specs, like a bulleted point that says it comes with a 28-280mm lens, and it doesn't really come with a 28-280mm lens, then it's incorrect. That's how facts and reality work. It doesn't matter if elsewhere you explain that it really comes with a 14-140mm lens which is similar to a 28-280mm lens if you're thinking in the world of full frame 35mm still photography. That doesn't somehow make a previously false statement magically become a true one.

The point was not that they got it right in most places, the whole point is that they list it incorrectly. And they DO list it incorrectly. It's just a fact. The kit lens is not a 28-280mm lens. But Panasonic.com DOES say that it's a 28-280mm lens on multiple web pages and that information is incorrect. That's all I'm saying.


This entire debate is riduculous and a complete waste of time. I'm sorry I ever pointed out that Panasonic does in fact, on multiple pages, list the focal length incorrectly. But I stand by everything that I've stated including:


"The only thing that I was pointing out is that Panasonic.com is saying that this camera comes with a 28-280mm lens and it doesn't. That's all. That's it. Totally. That is all."

Steve Castle
05-04-2009, 10:50 PM
The point is not that Panasonic.com does list the correct info in some places. I know that. I stated that myself. Scroll up to the top of this page and read my post where I say "other Panasonic info is much clearer, specifically stating "35mm film camera equivalent: 28-280mm" I know that in some places, including information on that page itself, Panasonic.com does list the correct information. That's not being debated. I never said that they DIDN'T list accurate information in some places. But that doesn't change incorrect information.

If you list incorrect specs, like a bulleted point that says it comes with a 28-280mm lens, and it doesn't really come with a 28-280mm lens, then it's incorrect. That's how facts and reality work. It doesn't matter if elsewhere you explain that it really comes with a 14-140mm lens which is similar to a 28-280mm lens if you're thinking in the world of full frame 35mm still photography. That doesn't somehow make a previously false statement magically become a true one.

The point was not that they got it right in most places, the whole point is that they list it incorrectly. And they DO list it incorrectly. It's just a fact. The kit lens is not a 28-280mm lens. But Panasonic.com DOES say that it's a 28-280mm lens on multiple web pages and that information is incorrect. That's all I'm saying.


This entire debate is riduculous and a complete waste of time. I'm sorry I ever pointed out that Panasonic does in fact, on multiple pages, list the focal length incorrectly. But I stand by everything that I've stated including:

Its much ado about nothing, Its clearly explained in multiple locations (its also explained in the technical specifications). I mean really, we are all intelligent enough people to be able read a couple paragraphs about a product; especially if its a $1,500 investment. You would have a point if they omitted entirely, or if Panasonic was writing "28-280mm" on the lens. But there not.

But I agree that Panasonic lacks consistency on their website, and that this debate is a waste of time.

Cheers.