Other: Camera and lens testing - need your opinion

I figured it was likely tongue in cheek, but then again you do have a history on these pages.:smile:
 
Last edited:
Okay, for anyone who is interested, here is another test. This time I got the mannequin out of storage (BTW, her name is Mary) and shot three 7-second 4K test clips. I'd be interested to hear anything anyone has to say about them regarding DoF or anything else. I have converted them to ProResHQ simply to strip off all the metadata. The white camera tape on her face is just to provide a white reference for exposure and white balance.

I will tell you that Clip A is ungraded S-LOG3/S-gamut.cine. I'd be interested to see what kind of grading someone else might apply to it to create a finished image if you want to take a crack at it.
Thanks in advance to anyone who wants to give me some feedback.

https://vortexmedia.cimediacloud.com/mediaboxes/b767c843ec7f407cbbd2f438c148eaf8
 
Doug - sorry just saw your updated post (#27 above) today.
I prefer C over B. B seems to have a bit more contrast and (maybe) therefore noisier on the right side of frame - but it's certainly still acceptable / useable.
 
And I also had a quick play with grading Clip A as well..
File is here if you want to take a peak... it's my usual warmed up skin tones with less green cast (perhaps a bit too much??).

Doug Test Grade
 
I'm just seeing this most recent post (#27) as well.

I think I prefer B, although both look nice. There seems to be a bit more noise in B (or it's more noticeable) but that doesn't bother me. I like some noise in an image, but that's just me.
 
The three clearly have different colour but DOF wise ther is not enough in it to choose or reject a camera/lens.

If this is 2/3 vs FF then its worth also trying a $100 50mm at 1.8 on the FF camera.. that look/price is not easy to replicate (if you want it) in other formats.

To me FF has been a good choice, not because it is specifically unique (it's not) but the slew of old lenses on the market designed for that format make it unique for the money. That difference has slipped over the years as various indy lenses have presented a good look/value ratio on other formats (vedra samyang etc?)
 
A:
PMW-F55
Camera 10' from subject
Ungraded S-LOG3/S-Gamut3.cine
Schnieder Cine-Xenar 95mm
f/4.5


B:
PXW-Z750
Camera 10' from subject
Scene file: Neutral-Interview
Fujinon UA24x7.8 zoomed to 40mm
f/2.0
ND Filter: 1/4


C:
PXW-Z750
Camera 10' from subject
Scene file: Neutral-Interview
Fujinon UA24x7.8 zoomed to 40mm
f/2.0
ND Filter: Clear (key light dimmed to match B exposure on face)
 
Its a great test to 'prove' / 'show' equivilence.

Equivilence exists and at a mild tele an ENG cam with a $10k+zoom lens will look the same or probably better** than a DSLR with a $1k zoom lens.

My personal concept is that simplified equivilence exists between any lens/sensor combination with a lens of a certain size of front element. $20k eng lenses typically have a bigger front elelement than a $1k stills general purpose zoom.. and tend unsuprisingly to outperform them.

But there is a mild undertone that the whole big sensor thing has been a 14 year con. It should be remembered that FOV DOF and all the rest work on logarythmic curves and once one is viewing a subject at 10 odd feet, one is close (ish) to infinity where all the differences go to nothing. I dont think a viewing distance of 10ft is intimate or oft used in cinema*. Its a distance the ENG boys learned to create a nice looking interview shot. Im guessing much cinema is at half of that.. at which point the DOF differences start to grow (exponentially more difference when one closes on the subject).. is this the case?


*apart from cinema that imitates ENG shooting (Jarhead, Bourne or whatever)
**certainly functionally a mile better
 
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
. I dont think a viewing distance of 10ft is intimate or oft used in cinema*. Its a distance the ENG boys learned to create a nice looking interview shot.
Click to expand...

I suppose that's true, but I don't fancy myself a "cinematographer". I am definitely an ENG boy and that's what clients pay me to be.
 
LennyLevy said:
What was the difference between B& C supposed to show?
Click to expand...

Good question. It wasn't necessarily supposed to show anything except two different ways of exposing the same shot. In B, I used an ND filter to keep the background dark in relation to the face. In C, I took the ND filter out and reduced the exposure on the face by dimming down the key while keeping the aperture nearly wide open. Just two different variations of the same shot to compare to A. The DoF between A and either B or C was the real purpose of the test.
 
There is other light in the room on both B& C so dimming only the key would course comparatively bring up the fill and other light. Pretty predictable.
 
LennyLevy said:
There is other light in the room on both B& C so dimming only the key would course comparatively bring up the fill and other light. Pretty predictable.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your point. Didn't I just say that already?
Of course it is predictable, that's why I did it. Two different looks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top