Thread: Blackmagic Camera Update July 2020

Reply to Thread
Page 28 of 40 FirstFirst ... 1824252627282930313238 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 392
  1. #271  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Portland,OR
    Posts
    373
    When do we get to see more footage?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #272  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    US - Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    138
    I think another thing that needs to be mentioned is that full frame is nice, but the push for FF has in part been due to the fact that photosites typically work better the bigger they are - they have the capability to hold more light before being saturated (full well capacity). The fact that such dynamic range can be captured with such small pixels negates some of the advantages that full frame sensors typically bring.

    All things being equal, though, even this sensor in a full frame package would be better.

    However, not all things are equal. Optics face a hard limit in that only so much light can come through a given amount of glass. On top of that, existing filtration is based on a hard limit to the front element size. There is no existing filtration framework for anything bigger than 6.6x6.6 filters.

    You can see this easily in something like the newer Angenieux 24-290mm. The front diameter is the same 162mm for the S35 and Full Frame versions of it. The only difference is that the full frame version is T4.2 - it's 1.2 stops slower.

    We are not going to see a Angenieux make a full frame 12x Optimo that is T2.8 unless you want to deal with a 240mm front diameter and have it weigh closer to 40 lbs and have to buy 10 inch filters for it. This is the reason why T2.8 zooms for full frame have a limited zoom range.

    Even primes are affected. Why aren't there a full set of T1.3 primes for FF? The newest primes are either a full stop slower (T1.8) or about a half a stop slower (T1.5). Why? Mainly due to size.

    There is no optical benefit to full frame.

    On top of that, you look at all the existing S35 lenses out there that are now going to cover, and it opens up more possibilities. S35 is such a nice sweet spot for lenses.

    So, the fact that this depth of image and resolution can be achieved in such a small S35 area is a big benefit.

    For instance, I've personally been waiting a while for a proper 4K S16 sensor so that I can use some existing glass and now we have one that's actually 6K. It's nuts.
    Last edited by Joshua Cadmium; 08-01-2020 at 09:06 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #273  
    Moderator Phil Holland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    11,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua Cadmium View Post
    There is no optical benefit to full frame.
    A bit more complicated than that if you consider optical designs, optical paths, and pixel design.

    That said, I like lots of different formats.
    Phil Holland - Cinematographer - Los Angeles
    ________________________________
    phfx.com IMDB
    PHFX | tools

    2X RED Monstro 8K VV Bodies, 1X RED Komodo, and a lot of things to use with them.

    Data Sheets and Notes:
    Red Weapon/DSMC2
    Red Dragon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #274  
    Quote Originally Posted by John Brawley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Kanes View Post
    Wild Prediction : Within 2 years we will see a full frame sensor using this architecture - it might still only record 12-16K even if it has a higher native pixel count, but the pixel "mezzanine" will be handled before the rest of the pipeline.

    Personally I am blown away by the imagery so far, and I just wish it had a full height anamorphic mode... (18-19mm tall)... but that's my anamorphic monomania speaking.
    As it is a 135 format sensor would be 16K with this sensor.

    Anamorphic full height would be very nice.

    JB
    Hahaha, I was just posting that exact request for an 18mm tall sensor on that fancy new bmdusers.com site!

    I pointed out that it worked well for Arri and that if Blackmagic can make 4x variants of production monitors and 3x variants of an ATEM Mini, surely they'd be cool with charging a little more for a proper 4-perf anamorphic option (and you can use it for those tricky projects that need 1x1 or 5:4 social delivery ancillary deliveries too - Alexa LF with 1.43 aspect ratio full gate mode was very handy for those last year!).

    Funny thing is I think Dan bought an Odyssey 7q+ that Atlas used for their first Cinegear demo from me on REDUSER. Now I'm lobbying for a sensor for him :) Man I hope to actually use an Orion lens soon.

    Bruce Allen
    www.bruceallen.tv
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #275  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua Cadmium View Post
    I think another thing that needs to be mentioned is that full frame is nice, but the push for FF has in part been due to the fact that photosites typically work better the bigger they are - they have the capability to hold more light before being saturated (full well capacity). The fact that such dynamic range can be captured with such small pixels negates some of the advantages that full frame sensors typically bring.

    All things being equal, though, even this sensor in a full frame package would be better.

    However, not all things are equal. Optics face a hard limit in that only so much light can come through a given amount of glass. On top of that, existing filtration is based on a hard limit to the front element size. There is no existing filtration framework for anything bigger than 6.6x6.6 filters.

    You can see this easily in something like the newer Angenieux 24-290mm. The front diameter is the same 162mm for the S35 and Full Frame versions of it. The only difference is that the full frame version is T4.2 - it's 1.2 stops slower.

    We are not going to see a Angenieux make a full frame 12x Optimo that is T2.8 unless you want to deal with a 240mm front diameter and have it weigh closer to 40 lbs and have to buy 10 inch filters for it. This is the reason why T2.8 zooms for full frame have a limited zoom range.

    Even primes are affected. Why aren't there a full set of T1.3 primes for FF? The newest primes are either a full stop slower (T1.8) or about a half a stop slower (T1.5). Why? Mainly due to size.

    There is no optical benefit to full frame.

    On top of that, you look at all the existing S35 lenses out there that are now going to cover, and it opens up more possibilities. S35 is such a nice sweet spot for lenses.

    So, the fact that this depth of image and resolution can be achieved in such a small S35 area is a big benefit.

    For instance, I've personally been waiting a while for a proper 4K S16 sensor so that I can use some existing glass and now we have one that's actually 6K. It's nuts.
    Yeah I have to put myself in a minority and say that I don't really get the FF craze.

    I mean I actually think LARGE format, as in camera 65 or bigger is more interesting. By the time you take aspect ratio into account, a 135 format sensor isn't all that much bigger than S35, but now you're into different lenses, often slower, larger and half the time, stills lenses are the most viable options.

    If you really want to see the true evangelicals of the 135 format religion, just google sensor equivalence.

    This guy dedicated his life (it seems like) to the idea...

    http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

    For some reason though these arguments always end with 135 being somehow the sweet spot for all things being wonderful and optimal. I've never really bought it, having been a long time S16, MFT and S35 shooter...

    Of course it's one important part of the storytelling process, but it's not the be all....

    JB
    John Brawley ACS
    Cinematographer
    Los Angeles
    www.johnbrawley.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #276  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    US - Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Holland View Post
    A bit more complicated than that if you consider optical designs, optical paths, and pixel design.

    That said, I like lots of different formats.
    By optical benefit, contextually I was only talking about the hard limit of the size of glass elements in the entire cinematographic chain of capturing photons. Not photosite design or any other optical consideration.

    Full frame of course is a larger area and can gather more light, but if, due to lens design and the hard limit of practical size, the total amount of light stays the same or is a negligible increase, the benefit of full frame is diminished or gone.

    What I was trying to say in my example is that an Angenieux 24-290 T2.8 on a S35 31.1mm sensor is the same as an Angenieux 36-435 T4.2 on a FF 46.3mm sensor. There is no optical benefit here. It is the same amount of light, so the only benefit is if the sensor design is better.

    For example, Arri, of course, needs to currently do full frame in order to get 4K. So, you have to use the slower Angenieux to get what you want, but the lens is inputting the same amount of light as the S35 version. It's not like moving to full frame means you can now use a 36-435 T2.8 that would double the amount of light you would be getting. It's still the same amount of light.

    Same thing with a T1.3 on S35 and a T1.8 on Full Frame. It's virtually the same amount of light.

    And one can very easily imagine Arri Signatures and Zeiss Supremes in a S35 flavor that would be about a stop faster. The fact that they didn't make these lenses in a S35 format has more to do with the industry moving to full frame, and basic supply and demand than it has to do with optical design.

    If going to full frame does not open up additional ways to get more light onto the sensor, then the benefit is not the lenses, but the sensor.

    In this case for Blackmagic, the sensor appears better in a lot of ways than other sensors that must use full frame to get higher resolution, or higher dynamic range, or better color.

    For instance, if the new Arri S35 4K sensor that has been rumored for years comes out and is better or the same as the LF, than what benefit would there be to shooting full frame in their infrastructure?

    At every point in a chain, there is going to be some limiting factor. The laws of physics or current optical design is one of those limiting factors that is not going to change anytime soon, if at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #277  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    US - Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    138
    Another thing that might not be apparent is that this 12K sensor has, at bare minimum, 50% more chrominance per channel than a 8K Bayer sensor would.

    If you looked solely at the red and blue photosites, ignoring the white photosites and ignoring the size of the photosites on this sensor, this sensor would have 1/3 less chrominance than an equivalent Bayer pattern. That is because this sensor is only capturing 1/6 Red and Blue, whereas a Bayer pattern sensor is capturing 1/4 Red and Blue.

    With 8K Bayer, at bare minimum (ignoring high quality debayering) 1/4 of the photosites are going to Red and 1/4 are going to Blue. So for an 8K 17:9 sensor, that would be 8192 x 4320 = 35.4 MP total. Dividing that by 4 = 8.8 MP. That is 4K worth of Red and Blue.

    With this sensor, at bare minimum (ignoring the white photosites and high quality demosaicing) 1/6 of the photosites are going to Red and 1/6 are going to Blue. So for 12K 17:9, that would be 12288 x 6480 = 79.6 MP total. Dividing that by 6 = 13.3 MP. That is actually just a hair under 5K worth of Red and Blue.

    So, ignoring everything else, this 12K sensor has 50% more chrominance resolution per channel than an 8K bayer sensor does (13.3MP/8.8MP = 1.51).

    By cramming in more pixels per area, there is better total resolution, including chrominance resolution.

    On top of that, this sensor actually has the ability to wring even more chrominance resolution out of it by subtracting color information from white photosites, as I posted previously.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #278  
    Senior Member Karim D. Ghantous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Melbourne AU
    Posts
    1,966
    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua Cadmium View Post
    It just goes to show that it isn't just the high resolution of the capture that is contributing to the fidelity of the image.
    Actually, I think that the high resolution is responsible for most of the fidelity. Shooting at resolution R is very, very different from shooting a resolution of R+n and then scaling down to R.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua Cadmium View Post
    I think another thing that needs to be mentioned is that full frame is nice, but the push for FF has in part been due to the fact that photosites typically work better the bigger they are - they have the capability to hold more light before being saturated (full well capacity). The fact that such dynamic range can be captured with such small pixels negates some of the advantages that full frame sensors typically bring.
    Low light performance is handy, I must admit. Sony has the gold medal there. But that's the only advantage.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Brawley View Post
    Yeah I have to put myself in a minority and say that I don't really get the FF craze.
    There is the selective focus angle, which I understand, but it's a PITA and I don't see the benefit. I really, really do NOT want a Noctilux. Then there is the delusion of 'compression' which no photographer or DP should have fallen for. Fake news! It's not that anyone is to blame but it needs to be put to rest.
    Good production values may not be noticed. Bad production values will be.
    Pinterest
    | Flickr | Instagram | 1961 (blog)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #279  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    US - Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by John Brawley View Post
    Yeah I have to put myself in a minority and say that I don't really get the FF craze.

    I mean I actually think LARGE format, as in camera 65 or bigger is more interesting. By the time you take aspect ratio into account, a 135 format sensor isn't all that much bigger than S35, but now you're into different lenses, often slower, larger and half the time, stills lenses are the most viable options.

    If you really want to see the true evangelicals of the 135 format religion, just google sensor equivalence.

    This guy dedicated his life (it seems like) to the idea...

    http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

    For some reason though these arguments always end with 135 being somehow the sweet spot for all things being wonderful and optimal. I've never really bought it, having been a long time S16, MFT and S35 shooter...

    Of course it's one important part of the storytelling process, but it's not the be all....

    JB
    For me, the only benefit to really large format photography (in cinema terms) is the ability to sample the signal better with more photosites, leading to higher resolutions. When dealing with equivalence (which gets so muddled) so much of it is really about the total amount of photons you are able to capture, which may not end up being that big of a difference between formats, especially in cinema where you often need to keep multiple things in focus.

    When I started college, it was as a photography major, so I was lucky to be living and breathing full frame on actual black and white film. Just being able to capture light in an analog format and do all the film processing myself and then create an image in the darkroom by myself was just magical. It was just photons interacting with chemicals and I got to be involved every step of the way.

    At the time, though, I felt so inadequate shooting full frame, because my more experienced peers were often on medium format or 4x5 or 8x10 and to me, those negatives and the prints coming off of them were even more magical. There was no grain! It was more like a window to the original image as it existed in the real world.

    So, for me, the full frame format was more of a baby step into the fine art photography world and I was wistful about being able to step up to a bigger negative.

    And one of the main reasons those bigger negatives looked better was because of the crazy amount of light hitting them, leading to higher resolution.

    An 8x10 negative has an image diagonal of 325mm - that's 7.5x bigger than the 43.3mm of full frame. That means that you would have the ability to capture 7.5 stops more light or a total of 181 times more light (2^7.5).

    Often you have to rely on an increased amount of time in order to get all of that light, though. If you're shooting landscapes you're likely going to be stopped way down with a way slow shutter speed, of course.

    For portraiture, they don't make f1.2 lenses for 8x10, though, you're practically limited to f3.5 or f4.5. In full frame terms, a f3.5 would be equivalent to about an f0.26 and a f4.5 would be equivalent to about an f0.33.

    So, when you look at large format portraiture (which is going to be the closest to cinematography since you are dealing with subject movement), besides resolution, I really think the biggest draw is that you can more easily get a super shallow depth of field, plus the built in mechanical benefit of tilt/shift. That's it.

    Tilt/shift serves a purpose, but it's also not practical to use all the time. We're also not going to see tilt/shift at the sensor level for a long time.

    For moving images, a super shallow depth of field all the time is of course not practical. So, you are naturally going to be shooting at the same equivalent stop that you otherwise would be to keep everything in focus. You can't change physics on that one - the lens is proportionally going to be letting in the same amount of light on every format you shoot on in order to keep the area of focus the same.

    So if you wanted to look at the math of that, let's suppose that you normally stop down to f4 when shooting full frame in order to keep a reasonable amount of focus. You would then need to stop down to f54 on an 8x10 negative to keep the same level of focus. That's not a typo!

    So, if you did that, you would need to then light your scene an additional 7.5 stops worth of light (which, again, is 181 times amount the light you would have at f4) in order to get the full advantage of less noise and thus higher resolution. There is no free lunch (just more G & E lunch boxes).

    Again, the lens can be the limiting factor when dealing with the entire cinematographic chain.

    So, it really is important to factor in equivalence when considering large format moving images. There really is nothing special about large format, unless you want a way to get very shallow focus, possibly combined with a tilt shift effect.

    The main benefit to large format is the same thing we see both photochemically and digitally, which is that a bigger negative lets you potentially get more resolution and less noise, but not always, and if you want that higher resolution advantage, you need more light if you want to keep everything in focus. If you aren't increasing the amount of light hitting the sensor, though, then the benefit to large format is not really there.
    Last edited by Joshua Cadmium; 08-02-2020 at 10:05 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #280  
    Senior Member Audy Erel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Jakarta-Bandung, Indonesia (Bali)
    Posts
    265
    I think I had enough of the "FF looks" (or VV or LF) during the 5Dmark2 era circa 2009. Super35mm is the real sweet spot between aesthetic & practicality, just add Anamorphic lenses to get the depth of expanded sensor area (with the added bonus of painterly oval bokeh & the beautiful waterfall focus rendering! :) #teamS35 #anamorphiclovers
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts