Some quick questions about the built-in Leica on the HVX

U

USLatin

Panamaniac
What is the 35mm lens equivalent to the HVX's built-in Leica when fully zoomed to 55mm in terms of perspective? I am trying to figure out what focal length I need to purchase to achieve the same look as the bare HVX when fully zoomed in.

In more general terms, do the equivalent 35mm lenses on Barry's chart also match in perspective or just magnification factor?

I hope this isn't a dumb question as it is likely the same, but I thought I'd better ask than just assume they will be the same. I am just now getting around to learning the effect that a smaller sensor/film pane has on DoF, so I didn't want to let other important aspects of optics which affect your look to go un-noticed in my research as I set out to build my kit. I hope someone that can teach me a bit about optics has the time to respond. Thanks in advance.
 
If you want to get the same field of view with a 35mm still camera you need approximately a 423mm lens. It all depends on the size of the image sensor that records the image (size of the film plane). Let's say you have a 50mm lens on a super8 camera. The super8 frames are quite small, in other words they are only able to record a very small part of the image "projected" by the lens which gives you only a very small angle of view. If you use a 50mm lens on a 16mm camera you have a bigger area (16mm film frame) where the image gets recorded. As you now "capture" more of the by the lens "projected" image you also get a bigger angle of view. A 50mm lens on a 35mm motion picture camera gives you again a bigger angle of view but is still slightly telephoto. On a 35mm still image camera (35mm film doesn't have the same frame size as 35mm still image film) the 50mm lens would be approximately a normal lens.
The longer the lens (larger focal length) the narrower the DOF. This is exactly the problem (or advantage?) of the consumer camcorders. Most of them have very small image sensors, in order to get a "normal" angle of view they are equipped with very wide angle lenses which leads to a very large DOF.
A helpful link to compare angle of views with different sizes of film planes -->
http://www.panavision.co.nz/main/kbase/reference/tblelenseqvform.asp

sorry for my bad English...
 
by the way, if you use a 423mm lens on a 35mm adapter (using a 35mm by 24mm sized ground glass (same as a 35mm still image frame)) you would get proximately the same field of view as you get with your HVX200 zoomed in to 55mm but you would need to step down the aperture to get the same DOF...
 
I get all of this, thanks for putting it so clearly though, it sure helps to hear it from someone in their words and so logicaly. But I am trying to figure out if the perspective from the Leica set to 55mm is the same as the perspective of a 55mm lens on a 35mm adapter. I am talking about the loss of depth perseption assosiated with a long lens or the cookie-ness of setting a wide lens close to your subject.

I am worried I might have to invest into a 400mm lens to get the same lok I get at 55mm on the Leica as I L-O-V-E that look...
 
sorry, I am still not quite sure what you are looking for. I would say yes, you need to invest into a 400mm lens (to use with an adapter with 35mm by 24mm gg) if you want to get the same "look" as you get with your HVX fully zoomed in. The "perspective" with a 55mm lens on an adapter stays the same as long as you do not move the camera but the field of view becomes much larger. If you move the camera nearer to the subject, in order to have the subject occupying the same amount of space in the frame as it does with the 55mm of your hvx, the perspective changes. You actually get to see more of the background (wider view) than you do with your hvx.
I hope I am right here...
 
Last edited:
Yes, I understand that too... but what I am trying to compare is the perspective between say a 50mm on an adapter vs. the HVX at 6.6mm or Z25 which according to Barry's calculations are only 0.8mm apart.

Will those look identical minus the GG's effects on color grain and DoF?
 
Wow dude, you are up late :) Thanks for your posts!
I also think it would... hope someone else can confirm this for us.


I am hoping to be able to figure this out cause an 17mm on the HVX (around 135mm) is just nowhere close to long enough... but 25.5mm (around 200mm) might be something I would be ok with being limited to for my personal kit... while renting or buying a 400mm might be a bit much if you have 200mm available with an 80-200mm 2.8f for $800
I know wides are nice to have and they come fast, but 35mm is basically all I really need, wider is a nice luxury while longer for me is just gorgeous and I have lots of use for with actual purposes for them, and purposes I care lots about for story telling.
 
the more I am thinking about it the more I get myself confused :-) I wrote Barry Green a PM. I am sure he will be able to clear this up. Have to get some sleep. Good night....
 
CordVision gave you the key link, the Panavision DOF/FOV calculator. All you have to do is compare the field of view -- if you have the same field of view, you'll generally have the same "perspective."

A 55mm lens on a 35mm adapter, when zoomed in to proper 35mm cine frame size, yields a field of view of 20.7 degrees, which you could match on a raw HVX by zooming to about 13.6mm.
 
Oh, last night I forgot to check out that link you posted. Thanks for pointing that out Barry.

So Barry, you said "if you have the same FoV you will generally have the same perspective"


Are the possible differences due to not having the camera correctly set up and zoomed in to the exact 35mm surface area on the GG... I understand how being zoomed in even just a little past would yield a smaller FoV, but should not have an effect on the perspective of the taking lens... does the camera's lens add it's own effect too? I would think not since the image is already planar, yet it is still going though a lens and thus it should be affected, maybe ever so imperceptibly by the Leica...

If I understand this situation correctly I guess the perspective of still lenses should be the same as the perspectives of the Leica at their actual focal lengths of 4.2-55mm since perspective must be a "phenomenon" attributable to the "amount of bend"...?
 
USLatinContent said:
I am worried I might have to invest into a 400mm lens to get the same lok I get at 55mm on the Leica as I L-O-V-E that look...
Click to expand...

What is it that you love so much about the look at Z99 on the HVX? I suspect it is the shallow depth of field at that setting that you love, and you will find that you can achieve the same look with an 105mm or 135mm lens opened up to f2.8 or f4 when you use an adapter.
 
If using a 35mm adapter, at the proper zoom position to replicate the size of image of a 35mm movie camera, you should have identical perspective.

The question as I understood it was not using a 35mm adapter, instead it was comparing the naked lens against a still-camera lens. So if you match the FOV you should have the same perspective; the question would be whether any exaggerated perspective would apply when using the very wide angle and getting in close; I don't think it would but I can't say for sure without trying it.
 
Would the hvx at 55mm pointed at an object very near to the lens create the same image (not taking DOF into account) as if you would shoot the same object with the same distance to the lens with the lens at 4.2mm and crop the image so you get the same framing as you got when you shot the object with the 55mm lens? In other words, could you photograph a landscape (also with objects in the foreground) with a wide angle lens and later crop the picture in photoshop and it would look exactly like you used a telephoto lens (except for the DOF and resolution loss)?
This is one of the questions I could never actually resolve. I never was able to come to a conclusion when I played with my HVX.
 
Barry_Green said:
If using a 35mm adapter, at the proper zoom position to replicate the size of image of a 35mm movie camera, you should have identical perspective.
Click to expand...

Thanks Barry..! I was afraid there might be something that I was missing about the way that different sensor sizes affect optics. I knew it was sort of a dumb question when I started the thread, but better to ask than not.

Cordvision, no, it would look very different due to the different perspective, which is what I was asking about. I am not 100% but I believe it is the ratio between the sizes of objects at different depths that will change with different focal lengths. It might be something else specifically or a more accurate way to describe what happens but in essence long lenses go towards making all objects appear on the same pane, or blur depth perception, while short lenses give you a wrap around image which eventually ends up looking fish-eye.

I love long lenses because they are non-human, because they confuse, because they feel like you are not in reality... great for introspective moments, confusion, shock, and more... they give a surreal feel... if used properly they can make your actors seem better, and they can help tell a story... so on and so forth.
Wides can also have some of the same effects but I most definitely love the look of long lenses.


[ranting] Herbal, no offense, I know you didn't mean it like that. But I hate it when people assume that I confusing or mixing things together... like when people (way too often) tell you your reference to a particular element helping create the "film look" is not what made a particular piece seem film-like to you... but it was instead good framing composition or something else... I think it was evident that I was asking a very specific question here. However, thanks for trying to help, as I am sure that it was your intention. Helping always seems to be your intention based on all of your posts that I've read. I wouldn't mention this if it were someone else. :-) And sorry to everyone about venting, but it is something that frustrated the crap out of me about forums and it had been bottled up for a few years.
pheeeww... I feel better :D [/ranting]
 
Last edited:
USLatinContent said:
[ranting] Herbal, no offense, I know you didn't mean it like that. But I hate it when people assume that I confusing or mixing things together... like when people (way too often) tell you your reference to a particular element helping create the "film look" is not what made a particular piece seem film-like to you... but it was instead good framing composition or something else... I think it was evident that I was asking a very specific question here. However, thanks for trying to help, as I am sure that it was your intention. Helping always seems to be your intention based on all of your posts that I've read. I wouldn't mention this if it were someone else. :-) And sorry to everyone about venting, but it is something that frustrated the crap out of me about forums and it had been bottled up for a few years.
pheeeww... I feel better :D [/ranting]
Click to expand...

[apologizing]
My bad!! Yeah, I think my own misunderstanding of what the thread was about led me to that... but also I have noticed you say a few times that you don't have an adapter and can't wait to get your hands on one so I was assuming (incorrectly, as I often do when I assume!) that maybe you didn't have first-hand experience with one, or with 35mm lenses in general. [/apologizing]

I have much to learn too, as I realize every time that Barry opens his (digital) mouth. You are right, I certainly meant no disrespect. Maybe I will try a 400mm lens soon myself :happy:
 
USLatinContent said:
Cordvision, no, it would look very different due to the different perspective, which is what I was asking about. I am not 100% but I believe it is the ratio between the sizes of objects at different depths that will change with different focal lengths. It might be something else specifically or a more accurate way to describe what happens but in essence long lenses go towards making all objects appear on the same pane, or blur depth perception, while short lenses give you a wrap around image which eventually ends up looking fish-eye.
Click to expand...

hmmm, but isn't there a contradiction. Cropping the image of a wide angle lens in post is nothing else than using the same lens with a smaller image sensor. Barry said "if you match the FOV you should have the same perspective", so no matter what focal length you use it would be possible to get always the same FOV by using a corresponding sized image sensor (or cropping the image) and therefore getting the same perspective. I think I am getting slowly confused.... do I?
 
No, the image itself will look different, think of what a fish-eye does to a face, now think of the opposite effect for telephotos... the field of vision is not what I am talking about instead the look or "rendition" of everything within that frame. The images are not only included or omitted but also altered by lenses.

What Barry meant (I believe) was that if you match the field of vision of a particular setting of the HVX's Leica zoom by using a 35mm adapter and picking a 35mm lens that has the same focal length as that setting on the camera, then you will not only have the same Field of Vison but you should also have the same, or at least extremely similar, perspective.
 
It will look the same except for DOF. I just got this confirmed by someone very knowledgeable in this field and I also saw some example pictures. Plus I can finally wrap my brain around it and it makes perfect sense ;-) (sure, if you get an extreme wide angle shot you might have a fair amount of image distortion).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top