Hasselblad H6D - Medium Format, 4K raw video
- Thread starter Jay Birch
- Start date
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
dustylense
Veteran
Good find McG.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
^ Haha, good one! XD
DLD beat me to pointing out that the perception as a luxury item with no performance benefits is in big part created by H themselves with their Sony rebrands. Of course the big boys are different, as Dusty points out, but those are too expensive for most people to actually consider.
The math for field of view equivalence is super simple: just look at the width of the sensor, and divide 36mm by it: that's the crop factor from FF. In this case, 0.66x, so a 100mm becomes a 66mm. In the one that Dusty is using, 0.80x, so a 24mm on that sensor is like a 19mm on FF. But if you look at the vertical it's 0.72x and the 24mm becomes 17mm. No wonder it matches his 17mm T/S: math says the image should have exactly the same vertical FoV, and just a bit less horizontal FoV.
But then Dusty messed it up a bit by comparing the FF-to-MF jump (a 1.33x or 1.5x jump depending on which specific sensor you're talking about) as similar to the m43-to-FF jump (a 2x jump), where APSC-to-FF would be a lot closer (it's a 1.5x jump).
Now, having said all that, my take on MF: ever watched a Photoshop tutorial where they are working on an image and they do the eyes and you think you've never shot a still where you could actually do that to an eye because there's just not that kind of detail there? That's a MF shot.
DLD beat me to pointing out that the perception as a luxury item with no performance benefits is in big part created by H themselves with their Sony rebrands. Of course the big boys are different, as Dusty points out, but those are too expensive for most people to actually consider.
The math for field of view equivalence is super simple: just look at the width of the sensor, and divide 36mm by it: that's the crop factor from FF. In this case, 0.66x, so a 100mm becomes a 66mm. In the one that Dusty is using, 0.80x, so a 24mm on that sensor is like a 19mm on FF. But if you look at the vertical it's 0.72x and the 24mm becomes 17mm. No wonder it matches his 17mm T/S: math says the image should have exactly the same vertical FoV, and just a bit less horizontal FoV.
But then Dusty messed it up a bit by comparing the FF-to-MF jump (a 1.33x or 1.5x jump depending on which specific sensor you're talking about) as similar to the m43-to-FF jump (a 2x jump), where APSC-to-FF would be a lot closer (it's a 1.5x jump).
Now, having said all that, my take on MF: ever watched a Photoshop tutorial where they are working on an image and they do the eyes and you think you've never shot a still where you could actually do that to an eye because there's just not that kind of detail there? That's a MF shot.
dustylense
Veteran
You can go by math (which is fine) or you can go by experience. I own the camera. My 24mm on the 50C back is equivalent to an 18mm on FF35. Why do I use a M43 to FF comparison? Sam, you forgot to include some other "math". That being 16bit capture. FF35 14bit is 4 trillion possible values. MF 16bit capture is 280 trillion values. Then you add the lenses. So, with the sensor size, the color depth, and the lenses, I stand by what I say in saying that the jump from FF35 to MF 50C is like going from M4/3 to FF when you factor in all those things. And that is just with their 50c back. The 100c back will be even more amazing.
I come from the stills world. Started on 4x5 and 8x10 cameras. I bought a Imacon scanner way back when to scan my own 4x5 at 16bit. Then shot better light backs for a spell (that was painful). Used Canon FF sensors starting with the 1Ds 11mp. Then spent years with Canon FF (Still shoot them on certain things with the 5DsR). Went and visited my buddy who shoots high end studio stuff and played with his Phase One. Then I bought the HD4 with the 40mp back. Since then it was hard to shoot anything less than 16bit. Then Hasse released the CMOS 50c back and it's been my go to since 2014. Why?
16bit color with 14 stops DR on large photo sites = The closest you can get to film you can get.
Then there is the file. This was a sample somebody posted as a raw on the web.
Original shot:
This was what can be done with it:
And it holds up VERY well. Why? Not because of MP's or sensor size. But because of 16bit color capture.
Next up with the Hasse system is the ability to profile the "camera". Not make a calibration in lightroom or capture one. But to actually set a true profile to the camera itself using Phocus by shooting a color checker in whatever lighting condition you have that actually calibrates the camera to your conditions. Basically changing the color science of the camera to your light source. Which is why when you see images captured on Hasse backs, the color is so true, deep and rich. Which is also why when an ad agency calls up with a critical job, they won't accept a Dlsr is LOTS of cases. They are looking for the most accurate color reproduction of the subject being shot for ad use. And the only things that deliver that are the MF backs. Even some agencies will state which back they require you to shoot.
This is why stills guys go with the MF back. It's the precision and the control (lets not forget about leaf shutters too).
Finally there is the result. Ever shot with true 16bit, Sam? Then taken that 16bit result and output to a light jet print? Because once you have, 14bit color, 12 bit color, 10 bit color and so on just doesn't cut it. Again, 4 million colors vrs 280 trillion colors. THAT, is the math you should be concerned about.
Now, if this 100c back is going to deliver 4K 30p in that very same 16bit capture as acquisition? The information that you will start off with before output is VAST!
arguing for objective measures of IQ from the cameras we use, how dare you!
100% agree on the IQ benefits and underlying quality advantages of larger sensors and 16-bit capture. And certain clients demanding MF for perfectly valid reasons (color accuracybeing one criteria). Only want to point out that it IS possible to characterize (color profile/ICC) a camera/shoot -with a DSLR - like you can with a MF back/systems. And really, producing deliverables, properly color managed, goes beyond capture and onto the rest of the production chain
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
I mentioned that my math was reference to DOF effect of a larger sensor nothing more.
Im firmly in the camp that big sensor = big pixels = good
and deep colour depth = good.
My own experience for stills was that a step down in image quality (from h1 and 22mp back) traded against other factors made Nikon a better system for my stills business. Great off centre AF, affordable 400 2.8 and 14/28 lens choices, acceptable high ISO and other factors made Nikon better for my business.. even with a hit in image quality. Now Im not on the curve with Hassy in 2016 and dont know if they have conquered those problems.
As for the video.. well if it is line skipping or filled with rolling shutter or has a max roll time of 1 min or or or .. then the thing will not be a video camera that competes with the Arri Mini or other top end video tools.
S
