Liam Hall
Veteran
I get some weirdness (sometimes I call it character
with my 16-35mm f/2.8. But yeah, it's good to take it off, every now and then...
FS7: Zeiss Milvus
- Thread starter Liam Hall
- Start date
I get some weirdness (sometimes I call it character
with my 16-35mm f/2.8. But yeah, it's good to take it off, every now and then...Lenilenapi
Carbonite Member
Funny I got rid of a Sigma because it was wildly unparfocal so they seem to be uneven.
Where is the CA on this video. Hard to tell because the image remains small.
Where is the CA on this video. Hard to tell because the image remains small.
Lenilenapi
Carbonite Member
What he said
Liam Hall
Veteran
Nice job Martin. Who cares if there's some CA. If folks are pixel peeping, they ain't watching.
Ironicly a 50mm is a 50mm is a 35.5mm
I think you can think of it in two easy ways depending on what you prefer:
1. multiply focal length of lens with focal reducer effect (like x0.71) and add one f/t-stop
2. Rate your camera as having a larger sensor (like from S35 to FF35) and one stop higher sensitivity
I prefer 1 because It seems easier on a forum and feels more correct towards what is actually happening. I think its easier if we refer to 1 in general and keep 2 for ourselves. 2 can come in handy when dealing with stills guys though.
I think you can think of it in two easy ways depending on what you prefer:
1. multiply focal length of lens with focal reducer effect (like x0.71) and add one f/t-stop
2. Rate your camera as having a larger sensor (like from S35 to FF35) and one stop higher sensitivity
I prefer 1 because It seems easier on a forum and feels more correct towards what is actually happening. I think its easier if we refer to 1 in general and keep 2 for ourselves. 2 can come in handy when dealing with stills guys though.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
How about a third way:
3. A 50mm f/2.8 is a 50mm f/2.8 no matter what.
The camera or adapter does not change the lens. If you tell me the focal length and speed of a lens I can instantly envision how that lens will perfrom on my camera(s) and with my adapter(s) of choice.
Last edited:
Lenilenapi
Carbonite Member
Suggest we drop the speedbooster stuff and go back to topic. This always hopping when crop factor comes up.
Yes, which I why I repeatedly used the term FOV.
Come on folks, the math is pretty simple. And MANY FS7 users came from DSLR video and full frame stills shooting. I was establishing a baseline which is what we do in science and tech. And FOV is technical.
There's a lot of S35 arrogance around. Not aiming that at Doug, btw.
And I'll bet many(most?) of the S35 crowd shot a 35mm full frame camera before ever picking up any type of ENG or movie camera.
Not to mention that one or more posters did misunderstand what FOV to expect.
BTW, for those unaware, take my full frame equivalent and multiply by 1.5 and you will get what the full frame lens plus speedbooster on the F7 is in s35 FOV terms.
The math is so easy a producer can do it
Y'all take care,
Robert
Liam Hall
Veteran
Yes, which I why I repeatedly used the term FOV.
Come on folks, the math is pretty simple. And MANY FS7 users came from DSLR video and full frame stills shooting. I was establishing a baseline which is what we do in science and tech. And FOV is technical.
There's a lot of S35 arrogance around. Not aiming that at Doug, btw.
And I'll bet many(most?) of the S35 crowd shot a 35mm full frame camera before ever picking up any type of ENG or movie camera.
Not to mention that one or more posters did misunderstand what FOV to expect.
BTW, for those unaware, take my full frame equivalent and multiply by 1.5 and you will get what the full frame lens plus speedbooster on the F7 is in s35 FOV terms.
The math is so easy a producer can do it
Y'all take care,
Robert
Robert, there is no need for rudeness in this thread.
You are making assumptions about people here and that in itself is really unhelpful in a discussion like this. The fact is FS7 users come from a wide range of backgrounds and experience. Some people will be hard wired into 135mm format, others not so - there are lots of camera formats around these days. Labelling those that don't agree with you as the "S35 crowd" and "arrogant" just makes you look silly.
When it comes to using the SpeedBooster, all I need to know is the MAGNIFICATION FACTOR. In the case of the SpeedBooster sitting on my FS7, it is x0.71. It's exactly the same as if I was using a teleconverter. I'd only need to know the MAGNIFICATION FACTOR, 2x or 1.4x for example. For me, there is no need to introduce crop factors into the equation. YMMV.
If you want to discuss this further please start your own thread, this one is for discussing Zeiss lenses.
Ben Scott
Veteran
I'll shut up about this now and get back onto lenses but my last thought on the subject is...
What does it matter if you came from DSLRs or you have experience before that? Or if you once shot on a stills camera. You think Roger Deakins talks about his Alexa framing in relation the stills frame he worked with early on?
If its the language of the industry you are in, or aspire to be part of, why would you wilfully ignore it?
Fair enough language evolves but all of these different attempts to explain a very simple subject just confuse the issue. A 50mm is a 50mm is a 50mm and always will be, then exterior to that lens and its focal length you're either only going to show a bit of the middle of the frame or you are going to use optics to squeeze a wider image circle onto your frame. Angle of View/Field of View changes. Not focal length.
What does it matter if you came from DSLRs or you have experience before that? Or if you once shot on a stills camera. You think Roger Deakins talks about his Alexa framing in relation the stills frame he worked with early on?
If its the language of the industry you are in, or aspire to be part of, why would you wilfully ignore it?
Fair enough language evolves but all of these different attempts to explain a very simple subject just confuse the issue. A 50mm is a 50mm is a 50mm and always will be, then exterior to that lens and its focal length you're either only going to show a bit of the middle of the frame or you are going to use optics to squeeze a wider image circle onto your frame. Angle of View/Field of View changes. Not focal length.
Liam Hall
Veteran
All this BS is ongoing because it appears my 21mm hasn't shipped yet and I have nothing else to talk about until it does
I was told five days shipping for my set.
Nirv
Carbonite Member
The ‘crop factor’ discussion is really one about ownership of language, like all good PC inverted snobbery the intent is to determine who has the rights to common parlance, it’s more about censoring the use of words than any technical merit.
In an age of digital sensors of many different physical sizes which can also be electronically cropped to varying degrees and with the rise in popularity of focal reducers there needs to be a term that defines what a particular lens ‘looks like’ on a particular sized sensor. ‘Crop Factor’ seems as good a term as any. I see Liam has tried to introduce another term, Magnification Factor, into the discourse presumably because he’s to uncomfortable using a phrase so unprofessional in its etymological roots as ‘crop factor’ but it’s essentially the same thing.
Consider this example. A reasonably sized film project is shooting a scene with two cameras a RED Weapon and a Scarlet Weapon. The DoP instructs the camera assistant to match the 50mm FOV on the RED Weapon with an appropriate lens on the Scarlet Weapon.
Does the Camera Assistant…
A) …think, that’s easy. I’ve read some very clever people on DVXUser and they regularly say 50mm is a 50mm is a 50mm so I’ll just whack on a 50mm job done?
or
B)…think, ah right, the Scarlet sensor is a good bit smaller than the RED so I’m going to have to ‘factor’ this in when choosing the lens focal length to put on. Wow, it’s almost like the Scarlet sensor is a ‘cropped’ version of the RED…
I’ve never met a photographer or camera operator who thinks in terms of AoV or FoV for their lenses or have a library of FOV numbers to pull out of their heads when working with cameras with different sized sensors to their norm. Of course there’s no such thing as ‘crop factor’ to a stills photographer who only uses FF35 so too for a cinematographer who only works in S35 land but each of these people have their own idea what a 50mm looks like in their VFs. It’s when these worlds collide and we need to discuss what one focal length looks like on various sensors we need a term that people understand to help in the arbitration, if it isn’t ‘crop factor’ what the hell is it?
Unfortunately for the PC crowd the stable door has slammed shut long after the horse has bolted, Crop Factor has entered the zeitgeist, it’s here to stay...
In an age of digital sensors of many different physical sizes which can also be electronically cropped to varying degrees and with the rise in popularity of focal reducers there needs to be a term that defines what a particular lens ‘looks like’ on a particular sized sensor. ‘Crop Factor’ seems as good a term as any. I see Liam has tried to introduce another term, Magnification Factor, into the discourse presumably because he’s to uncomfortable using a phrase so unprofessional in its etymological roots as ‘crop factor’ but it’s essentially the same thing.
Consider this example. A reasonably sized film project is shooting a scene with two cameras a RED Weapon and a Scarlet Weapon. The DoP instructs the camera assistant to match the 50mm FOV on the RED Weapon with an appropriate lens on the Scarlet Weapon.
Does the Camera Assistant…
A) …think, that’s easy. I’ve read some very clever people on DVXUser and they regularly say 50mm is a 50mm is a 50mm so I’ll just whack on a 50mm job done?
or
B)…think, ah right, the Scarlet sensor is a good bit smaller than the RED so I’m going to have to ‘factor’ this in when choosing the lens focal length to put on. Wow, it’s almost like the Scarlet sensor is a ‘cropped’ version of the RED…
I’ve never met a photographer or camera operator who thinks in terms of AoV or FoV for their lenses or have a library of FOV numbers to pull out of their heads when working with cameras with different sized sensors to their norm. Of course there’s no such thing as ‘crop factor’ to a stills photographer who only uses FF35 so too for a cinematographer who only works in S35 land but each of these people have their own idea what a 50mm looks like in their VFs. It’s when these worlds collide and we need to discuss what one focal length looks like on various sensors we need a term that people understand to help in the arbitration, if it isn’t ‘crop factor’ what the hell is it?
Unfortunately for the PC crowd the stable door has slammed shut long after the horse has bolted, Crop Factor has entered the zeitgeist, it’s here to stay...
Ben Scott
Veteran
If you have a camera assistant that doesn't understand how lenses work I'd get another camera assistant. You can talk about crop factor all you like, and of course it has a place and helps people coming from stills and FF35/APSC world understand things, but I've never met a professional DOP that didn't understand that the focal length of a lens doesn't change and that what DOES change is the gubbins you put either side of it and the sensor size you're recording to. A 50mm is a 50mm is a 50mm. A 50mm on a Speedbooster is not a 35mm. It's a 50mm on a Speedbooster.
Working on the idea that if enough people get something wrong we should automatically say they are right is an intellectual race to the bottom.
wtf are you on about with a PC crowd? What does this even tangentially have to do with that?
As far as I'm aware the Scarlet isn't a cropped sensor unless you punch in on it.
Working on the idea that if enough people get something wrong we should automatically say they are right is an intellectual race to the bottom.
wtf are you on about with a PC crowd? What does this even tangentially have to do with that?
As far as I'm aware the Scarlet isn't a cropped sensor unless you punch in on it.
Last edited:
Liam Hall
Veteran
No, it's not. It's about avoiding confusion.
Nirv, there is absolutely no need to be presumptuous. You don't know me. You don't know what makes me comfortable or uncomfortable. This isn't a new phrase. It's been used in optics for hundreds of years. What do you think "0.71x" written on your speed booster refers to or 2x on your teleconverter?
As for your example using Red. Given I could be shooting 6k, 4k, or 8k on the Red, I'll stick to Angle of View. Then, I only need to know, wider or tighter and won't have to do any maths.
You don't need a library of numbers. You use terms like "wide" or "tight" to describe shots and choose lenses accordingly. It's not difficult.
I will repeat, if using crop factor works for you, fine. No worries. I'm happy for you. But be aware it does't make sense to everyone and some people don't like the term at all. Certainly, there's no need to get upset about it. I don't.
Last edited:
icarusfilm
Veteran
Can we maybe agree that a 50mm on s35 is a 50mm and that a speed booster will simply reproduce the full frame coverage of a FF 50 on a super35mm sensor without changing the perspective that this focal length?
Ben Scott
Veteran
Yes, with the following caveat:
In cinema and larger scale production S35 is full frame. Has been for years.
FF35 stills is basically a Vistavision sized frame or (I guess) somewhere in the region of Weapon 8K / Arri 65.
So in a sense the common language is important unless you have no intention of working outside your group or circle because different things mean different things to different people so it makes more sense to adopt the perfectly practical and sensible nomenclature of the industry.
And yes people making youtube videos can be a valid industry. And yes people making wedding videos is a valid industry and production companies doing branded content with teams that have gone straight from college and never worked with other people and who do very well for themselves thank you very much is a valid industry but semantics aside, you know what I mean, right?
In cinema and larger scale production S35 is full frame. Has been for years.
FF35 stills is basically a Vistavision sized frame or (I guess) somewhere in the region of Weapon 8K / Arri 65.
So in a sense the common language is important unless you have no intention of working outside your group or circle because different things mean different things to different people so it makes more sense to adopt the perfectly practical and sensible nomenclature of the industry.
And yes people making youtube videos can be a valid industry. And yes people making wedding videos is a valid industry and production companies doing branded content with teams that have gone straight from college and never worked with other people and who do very well for themselves thank you very much is a valid industry but semantics aside, you know what I mean, right?
icarusfilm
Veteran
Like it or not these standards will start disappearing in the next decade. With the end of 35mm film and the introduction of digital sensors.