Carlo Macchiavello

All is possible

Nikon 85mm 1.8 H series, a lady (lens) that 50 years after its birth still offers much elegance

By

On 3 January 2015

In Techinque

85mm 1.8 Nikon serie H

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the digital world, where everything has to be pushed to the extreme, where everything has to be perfect, every image perfectly sharp, contrasted, and accentuated, I find much more elegance in vintage lenses of a certain type, which offer, yes, excellent sharpness, but a taste and elegance of image that I find in few modern lenses.

I had been looking for this historic lens for some time, because it ranks as one of the best 85mm lenses ever made by Nikon, and made famous by Antonioni’s film BlowUp, where David Hemmings used f1 and this lens to capture Vanessa Redgrave. The aura of magic surrounding this lens has been amplified by the fact that many famous photographers have made it their workhorse, making it difficult to find it on the secondhand market at affordable prices in good condition.

Nikon produced this gem between 1964 and 1972, an 85mm 1.8 lens designed for portraiture but expressing light and image pleasantness in many other situations as well. The lens began life as a full manual, solid metal body as it once was, ready to withstand gunfire, and with a pleasing focus ring, smooth and suitable for video and not just photographic use.

Mounted an adapter from Nikon to Eos EF, it was immediately love at first sight, the smoothness and at the same time the detail this little lady offers is extraordinary.

Photographing a beautiful girl would have been too easy as a test, it was born for this purpose, and would have given light to it, I preferred to stress it under other conditions, that is, in the long distance, although a pp of my cat to test its detail and cleanliness, I did it to see how it behaves in the close-up plane.

A few frames extracted from a shoot done with a Blackmagic 4k in raw, so I shot 24 frames per second in raw 16 bit saved in log 12bit dng, then developed in Lightroom as if they were photographs.

Each of these frames was captured at 400 asa, the camera’s native sensitivity, with aperture between 1.8 and 5.6 depending on the amount of light available, in most cases I worked in TA 1.8, and despite this the images offer good sharpness. Of course what you see here are simple jpegs where a little of the original sharpness is lost.


BMC Black magic camera 2.5k

By

On 3 January 2015

In Techinque

Classic BMC picture

In 2012 the market was shaken by an ad, a camera that recorded on Raw with 13 stop latitude laying at less than 3000 dollars, with Canon EF attack…

Today the room is in use by several people around the world, along with the younger sister (BMC pocket) and the older sister in 4K.
Let’s understand on a practical level what this machine is and how it works, strengths and weaknesses.

I worked as an assistant director on the film “Quaffer”, with Dop Doriano Paolozza we used the BMC for the filming of the entire film in raw 2.5k format.

Thanks to 2.4 million recorded frames and about 20 tb of data recorded on HardDisk I developed a little experience on the machine and I can give some judgment on the product.

The machine in general, as value for money is great, has from its excellent quality for value for money unreachable from no room on the market. It has flaws that will be corrected with firmware updates and/or variations over time.

Highlights

  • In very high contrast situations it succeeds and saves enough information to recover a lot from RAW files
  • despite having a fan (noisy) under the car, even after hours in the sun to work did not miss a recovery or given problems of failure or overheating
  • Compatibility with EF canon format and diaphragms, focus, etc. support makes it very easy to manage optics
  • currently available with PL, EF, m4/3 passive attack
  • The sturdy body dug in an aluminum block with different holes and threads allows the use of accessories mounted directly on the camera
  • The camera includes an HD-SDI output and an audio input to record from outside
  • the use of an additional external battery keeps the external battery charging, so first you will finish the external one and then the camera will use the internal one
  • it is possible to customize the names of the clip folders quickly from the camera to avoid having folder files with names, dates, times and little more… enter metadata so that you can quickly retrieve information about the clip you’re working on.
  • the camera does not provide for the deletion of clips, which for some is a weak point, I consider it a strength, avoids the fragmentation of the support, which would involve a risk of frame loss during shooting.
  • Raw dng logging 12 logs from sensor to 16bit.

Weaknesses:

  • The camera monitor is very dark, although 100% brightness and with simulated color range, so on the outside it is unusable
  • the camera records 2.5k in raw DNG format, while in DNxHD and prores it only records in FullHD (of excellent quality, however).
  • The very small sensor (crop x 2.5) forces the use of wide-angles pushed indoors, which can limit machine movements. Although the micro4/3 passive-attack version can take advantage of the Metabone’s speedbooster adapter, which offers an extra stop and a great recovery of the operational angle.

To date the room is on sale for less than 1000 euros, and anyone who wants to make cinema in a serious way has the opportunity with this room and some lenses or for vintage s16, of excellent quality and therefore with a more advantageous crop ratio, or with lenses of various productions make products of the highest visual quality.

Many do not understand why 2.5k i.e. 2400 x 1350 pixels, the answer is very simple, you have a cinematic 1.85 format with the abundance outside the classic 2k allows you to stabilize the images, do a bit of reframing, without losing in quality and sharpness.
Blackmagic has studied both the sensor and the practical choice of formats well.


Panasonic GH3 : outstanding videos, but as a camera?

By

On 12 January 2014

In Techinque

DMC-GH3I know it is curious to title an article in this way, since the GH3 was born as a camera, but it is a very common question.

For several years now, after Nikon with the d90 launched the trend of cameras for shooting, Canon has relaunched and dominated the market with its flagships and beyond, covering with excellent cameras a very substantial slice of the video market. Canon has been established as a photographic brand for decades, and its experience and quality is known worldwide. On the video side, Panasonic is catching up very quickly, and with the GH3 they have narrowed the gap even further, thanks to many clever touches and unquestionable quality.

Most people remain puzzled by the photographic side, that is, the reason the machines were born, because compared to Nikon and Canon it has a number of theoretical handicaps.
Since by passion and work I have been photographing for over twenty years, I have used Nikon, Canon, Fujifilm and now Panasonic DSLRs, I decided to make some comparisons to understand what this Lumix GH3 Camera offers.

Personally if I want to use a digital camera, I use exclusively shooting in raw, because I want to take the best and minimize the risks of castration of quality by using formats such as jpeg, the only camera that allowed me the luxury of jpeg was the Fuji s5Pro, a camera with the body of the nikon d200 and with the fuji sensor and technology, all the others I have tried however castrate their potential in jpeg, and considering that the gb of hard drives and cards cost about 1 euro per giga and raw photos fit about 50. For those who want to take decent photos I find the temporary expense of 0.02 cents per photo to be more manageable, especially if 1500 has been spent between the camera and a decent lens.

On simple technical examination, the GH3 suffers from a number of handicaps :

  • m4/3 sensor : being smaller it collects a little less light than the nikon and canon aps-c
  • higher crop factor : depending on the same lens (50mm for example) on an aps-c the crop factor will be x 1.6 while on m4/3 the factor is x2, so the lens will provide the same image, but with the m4/3 format it will be cropped at the outer edges a 25%, this has the disadvantage that wide angles are less pushed, but on vintage lenses only the central part is used and therefore the best part, suffering less from chromatic aberrations, lateral blurring etc

here you can see some photographs taken with the gh3, with different lenses, from lumix 14-42 powerX to 20mm 1.7, all the way to vintage ones like the minolta rokkor 50mm 1.4, tokina 24mm 2.8 (mounted straight, or inverted for macro shots), 35mm and 85mm samyang 1.4.

As you can see the detail and cleanliness all comes out, most of the photographs you see around with little detail are often caused by incorrect use of noise reduction parameters (which possibly is always better to do in post, with more overall control) or by low quality lenses (I often see people who invest 1200 euros on a camera body, but want to use scratched bottoms as lenses, which is comparable to buying a ferrari and then putting the tires of the cabbage car and the carburetor of a fifty). However as you see from the list, many photos are taken with vintage or manual lenses and the results are more than good.

MkIII vs GH3Summing up, the camera has a good response to both color and density to light contrast, in fact not surprisingly the same reviewers of Dpreview tested it and verified that it has a sensitivity very close to that of the Canon 5D mark III, personally I agree on this point for video, while on the photographic side I would be more cautious, since recording a 14bit raw offers more space of action to the Canon shots and therefore to a greater recovery of information, as well as a higher resolution, but we are still talking about a camera that costs almost 1/3 of the Mark III.

Speaking of image definition and cleanliness, if you use decent optics, and so I’m thinking of the 12-35 2.8 for the Lumix or the 24-70 2.8 on the Canon you have very good renditions, very fast and efficient autofocus, and full tropicalization for the gh3 that I don’t mind for those who do more “action” photography.

Those who buy the Lumix GH3 do so primarily for video, since if their primary interest is photography and they want a mirrorless body with the m4/3 they turn to Olympus OMDs, but as a camera it defends itself reasonably well.


Full frame vs Aps-c vs m4/3

By

On 18 December 2013

In Techinque

We often read several articles and threads about how fullframe HDSLRs are better and superior to competitors with smaller sensors, but no one really explores what the differences are and especially the disadvantages of FullFrame sensors, because there are several and NOT eliminable.

The only advantage of fullframe sensors is that by using fulframe lenses there are no crop factors and therefore a lens is used as an angle for what it is, it is not reduced, but that is the only real advantage, on the contrary there are a whole host of disadvantages that most fullframe advocates forget, or simply have never had two systematic experiences…

What are the disadvantages of a fullframe sensor?

  1. The FullFrame sensor uses the whole surface of the lens, which means no crop, this is good, but on the other hand you can only mount excellent lenses because otherwise you lose definition laterally, you can find halos, fringing etc. on the edges of the images… so you have to invest no less than a thousand euros to get very good quality lenses, or a good zoom like a 28-70 2.8 that costs 1600…
    With a smaller sensor you will use only the central part of the lens, so the best part, consequently by using medium to high quality lenses, you will always be able to take advantage of the best of the lens.
  2. Cmos sensors all suffer from Rolling shutter, that is, they scan the image one line after another, which means that very fast panning and rotational movements distort the images. The fullframe sensor on fast panorama movements generates a very annoying jello effect. The larger the sensor the stronger and more disturbing the effect, while with a sensor half the size it is almost imperceptible.
  3. Fullframe sensors possess greater pixel resolution than smaller sensors (crucial for the photographic side), but that becomes a handicap for video.
    Image scaling of the large sensors of HDSLRs results in most cases in a quality loss that does not occur with smaller sensors, because they use different scaling techniques. Sony in this case uses a pixel binning algorithm for scaling its FF camera and offers good definition without moires artifacts and aliasing, but it is a white fly…
  4. Large-sensor machines tend for some reason to overheat more than those with s35 and smaller sensors. Often because being born for the photo shoot, the burst, they are not meant for continuous, steady shooting. In my own experience with varying temperatures, but especially ambient humidity, I have encountered several overheating problems, while in “drier” situations I have been able to use fullframe cameras in the midday sun without problems of overheating lockup. This means that they offered me less working reliability….

So why use fullframe sensors?
To not have the crop problem that multiplies the length of the lens focal angle, which complicates life when using wide-angle lenses in tight quarters.

Is it worth it?
Now with the release of adapters like speedboosters that reduce the crop gap with multipliers of x ,058 on the m4/3 and also give you an extra aperture of brightness, there are fewer and fewer reasons to choose a fullframe sensor camera…

Of course I imagine someone will object that with fullframes they blur more than with aps-c or m4/3, have a good laugh, then tell him to study photography again, and then think again about his statement.
The myth that the fullframe blurs more stems from the fact that when comparing the two sensors everyone uses nonequivalent lenses to have the same focal angle, so on smaller sensors they use wider-angle lenses, which are known to have a greater depth of field…

In reality the majority of lenses are born for fullframe size, but then are projected by cropping to smaller focal planes, with the simple result that the depth of field does not change, because the concentration of light does not change, but is simply discarded.
Have a doubt? take a fixed, mechanical, 50mm 1.4 nikon from 40 years ago, place it via adapter in front of a 5d/a7r/7D/gh4, with the same shutter settings such as shutter speed and aperture, then superimpose it and you will find that the images, despite the crop of cropping around the image that captures more or less information, the depth of field is exactly the same, because it is the lens, its construction, how light passes through the different lenses and their projection that define the image, it is impossible that the sensor can depending on its size alter the light a posteriori…

The deception is related to the fact that lenses used to be designed for the focal plane, while EF-s lenses i.e. frontally like ef lenses and then with a concentration of light for a smaller format, but keeping the crop (so useless to make for a smaller format if you throw away part of the image anyway) the dof remains the same.

p1010076to demonstrate just look at this photograph taken with a m4/3 gh3 camera (camera declared no dof by fullframe fanboys, but with a fullframe lens in front, 50mm 1.4 and amazingly (for them, for me it is normal) I have the reduced dof of a fullframe… like my sony A7r.


Fotga 4×4 Neutral Filters

By

On 4 August 2013

In Techinque

Very often filmmakers buy a mattebox and then it stops there, because the prices of filters often cost as much as the mattebox itself… but not always…

Depending on the products you can find decent quality filters without spending madness, but the problem with filters is the quality, if the quality is low the whole image suffers because you lose sharpness, and then to save a few tens of euros you end up worsening the whole image quality.

Today I tested neutral filters from a Chinese manufacturer found under the name FOTGA on Ebay. I started out biased, because the filters I had previously tried blurred my images, and having always used Lumix series cameras, which are known for image cleanliness and sharpness, it didn’t make sense.

The 4×4 filters are expensive basic filters; the kit we are talking about consists of 3 ND2, ND4 and ND 8 filters, which for normal lighting situations are more than enough. The kit exists of both full NDs and gradient NDs, which are useful for handling exposures of situations such as very bright skies and the like.

How did I perform the test?

  • Camera on the Lumix GH3 tripod
  • Camera set to 24p compression Intra 72mbits
  • Manual focus on fire table, which allows you to check sharpness dropout
  • White on table
  • First shot without filters
  • Shot 2 sec for each filter after redoing white for each filter

Result?

WB_ND_0
WB_ND_2
WB_ND_4
WB_ND_8

As you can verify from the images, there is no noticeable loss of sharpness even at ND8, and there is no particular dominance except below 0.1% so zero.

So I can say that for an expense of a little over a hundred euros you can have the double ND2, Nd4 and ND8 kits both plain and blurred.
If you have spent a couple of hundred euros for the Mattebox with filter holder, you can invest on these filters certain that they can help you in controlling the light without losing quality on the image.

Update 2015 :

I tested these filters with a canon 17-55 2.8 IS, downstop lens at 5.6 with a BlackMagic 4k camera.
Surprise: they turned out to be sharper and better than I expected, I shot in 4k raw of the focus charts and from filter nd2 to nd8 I did not lose in detail, they exceeded my expectations.

PRO :

  • cheap, but good optical quality, even at ND8 the color distortion is in the normal range, like other ND filters without IR filter
  • lightweight and supplied in double packaging with transparent films to protect them during transport
  • being made of resin a possible fall, if you are not unlucky that it lines, does not shatter them as with glass filters
  • the shading is soft enough that you can use them to often exploit the full dynamic range of the camera

CON:

  • they are made of resin, so they have to be cleaned every time you take them out of the package because by static electricity they attract dust and lint of all kinds.
  • resin does not have a coating to reduce reflections on the filter, so care must be taken, but it is also true that a quality glass ND with anti-reflection coating costs 2-3 times the whole 6-filter kit.
  • are more delicate and easy to scratch against the classic glass filter, but if they fall out they are more likely to be saved.

In conclusion a good value for money as a product.

Update 2015B:

When you place a very strong ND filter in front of a modern sensor, there is a risk of dominants and color changes, these arise not so much from the color of the filter, but from a phenomenon called IR Pollution, that is, by not filtering the Infrared rays correctly, but by altering their frequency, the filter alters more or less significantly the color of the light in certain areas, causing dominants colored red, brown etc on dark colors.

To avoid this problem when placing a very strong ND filter, one must also place an IR Cut filter, or use ND filters that are treated to cut those frequencies.

Depending on the sensors, photographic and film, you have to cut different frequencies, so an ND filter that is good on one sensor may not be suitable on another, so the ND filter that is good on Red may not necessarily go on Alexa or BMC, and vice versa.

I did a test related to this very problem with the bmpc4k, and surprisingly, the dominance becomes evident only when you stack multiple filters together. In common use, on the other hand, the various filters seem to introduce no obvious dominance to worry about in common use of these filters.

Let’s start from the principle that that minimal dominance introduced was a problem, it means we are working at a very high level for images, so there will be the budget to buy both a serious IR filter and high-level ND filters, which will each cost at least a dozen times the cost of the entire kit.

In this video you see the images compared directly, and if you want to experiment on them you can do the download of the original dng.

Page 15 of 18

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén

error: Content is protected !!