denoir Posted March 6, 2011 Share #241 Posted March 6, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) The differences on screen jpgs of 960 or 1024 wide are minimal compared to those in print. Or are you going to watch your videos at 100% crop? 100% crops tell you much less what lens you are using than 1024 on screen jpegs. A sharp lens is a trivial thing. A lens with a beautiful rendering style is not and there are definitely some M lenses that produce a unique look. The average person should be able to tell the difference between the look of a Noctilux @ 0.95 from the look of a non-descript 50 f/1.4 @ f/1.4 from a 100 pixel wide thumbnail. Video is 1920x1080. I did an experiment not long ago where I presented identical scenes shot with a variety of Zeiss and Canon lenses. The images were 1200px wide. Over at the alt gear form at FM after 25+ responses the accuracy of telling them apart was around 90%. When I repeated the experiment at POTN, which is dominated by newbies ("why does my polarizer filter rotate?", the accuracy was 80%. So people can definitely tell these things apart. The rendering style of a lens is very important for the final look that the image gets. Incidentally, in video per-pixel quality matters much more than in any other media, including print. The reason is simple - when the camera produces the 1920x1080 image it does so not by some weighted bicubic algorithm like photoshop, but simply by dropping lines. So in effect you are looking at the actual pixels - the same as in a 100% crop - in a video. Lens quality is far more important in (large sensor) video than for still photography. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 Hi denoir, Take a look here Video mode on future M . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Rick Posted March 6, 2011 Share #242 Posted March 6, 2011 Jeez Nikkor, I hate to be agreeing with you (actually I don't), but can you imagine the narrow DOF from that lens if it was used at nighttime with some tea candles in the background and in the foreground was some starlet. Try to shoot that with a 2/3 or a 4/3 sensor video camera. They shot an entire episode of House and they use the 5DII routinely on 24 and Lucus films claims they can't tell the difference between the 5DII stuff they shoot and the $250,000 Sony Cine Alta stuff when they are in Post. Imagine if they used the Nocti 1.0. I bet they would wet their pants. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 6, 2011 Share #243 Posted March 6, 2011 So Leica should produce a dedicated video camera. Simple solution and I would welcome it. No Swiss Army Knife type of thing. Plenty of those around. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted March 6, 2011 Share #244 Posted March 6, 2011 Kubrick was shooting with <f1.0 lenses in the 70s Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted March 6, 2011 Share #245 Posted March 6, 2011 So Leica should produce a dedicated video camera. Simple solution and I would welcome it. No Swiss Army Knife type of thing. Plenty of those around. Yes and No. Yes, they should produce a dedicated video camera. And, no, they shouldn't limit us from being able to record the video off of the sensor of our hypothetical M10. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted March 6, 2011 Share #246 Posted March 6, 2011 Kubrick was shooting with <f1.0 lenses in the 70s That was on film... 35mm film... FF glory and DOF. Nothing on a video camera has touched that until the 5DII. George Lucas shot 2/3 sensor and he is no Kubrick. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
denoir Posted March 6, 2011 Share #247 Posted March 6, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) So Leica should produce a dedicated video camera. Simple solution and I would welcome it. No Swiss Army Knife type of thing. Plenty of those around. How many amateurs do you think could afford a Leica M10 and a Leica video camera? One of the main points of DSLR video is that it's affordable. If they do not mess up the simple elegant interface of the M series to accommodate it, there is no rational objection one can make against video capabilities in future versions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted March 6, 2011 Share #248 Posted March 6, 2011 Luka, your site is very cool. Who are you? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted March 6, 2011 Share #249 Posted March 6, 2011 First off there not "film" they would be video's. Sorry film is shoot in... wait for it ... film:p. Ahh, so Sin City (shot primarily with a Sony HDC-950) is not a "film?" Just checking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_City_(film) As to the f/1 examples - about what I'd expect from someone who thinks narrow DoF alone makes a picture. I hope the videos have more going for them than "f/1." Note that I'm NOT saying narrow DoF is not a useful technique (for either stills or video). But it is JUST technique unless coupled with other qualities - such as good sound and a steady camera. Simply shooting hand-held video at f/1 is not in and of itself going to improve over what a cell-phone can produce. One outhouse may have a slightly different bouquet (or bok-eh) than another - but they are still both outhouses... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 6, 2011 Share #250 Posted March 6, 2011 The S2 would be far more suitable, I think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikkor AIS Posted March 6, 2011 Share #251 Posted March 6, 2011 Adan, yes according to "me" if it's shot in video, it's a video. Call it whatever you want. I am sure we both can agree that "Sin City" was "a good movie". As for your little digs about my photography:p., Gee I didn't know that limited depth of field is "all" these images had going for them:rolleyes:. I better check that and make sure it up to "your standards". And here all along I thought shallow depth of field was the only link in the image chain needed for photography/videography. Thanks for setting me straight. Perhaps there is place you can suggest you might suggest where I could get learned in the fine art of photography. As for you, there is a place I might suggest you can go:D Andy Barton, Tell me if I am wrong but Kubrick was using an even faster lens, I think it was .95 that he had modified for that period piece film he did? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
-ph- Posted March 6, 2011 Share #252 Posted March 6, 2011 I moved from an Olympus E-P1 to the M9 and love it dearly. However, I keep the E-P1 for those situations, where the M9 does not work. Which are those situations? a) live view: Focussing in live view is a bit slow - and that was one of the main reasons I got the M9, for standard situations the rangefinder works better. However, there are quite some situations where the rangefinder does not work at all and here live view shines. E.g. real macro work, "exotic lenses" which don't transmit focus information, very wide or long lenses (telescopes!) or just 100% accurate framing (which completely does not work with a rangefinder) video: I am not a videographer so I cannot afford a separate video camera. However being able to switch to video is a very nice addon (and comes at no expense). And I can use lenses which most video cameras can only dream about. There are a few videos around shot with the Voigtländer 25/0.95 lens, they are stunning. As mentioned in the thread before, video shooting with the Leica lenses would be simply awesome. The biggest backdraw would probably be, that the M10 would even be more difficult to get than the M9 and lens waiting lists would double... better buy a Noctilux now, if the M10 has video the waiting times will multiply! Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
denoir Posted March 6, 2011 Share #253 Posted March 6, 2011 Luka, your site is very cool. Who are you? Thanks Rick. I'm Batman, but don't tell anyone, it's sort of a secret Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted March 6, 2011 Share #254 Posted March 6, 2011 This thread is getting funnier and funnier... M10 with video a Canon killer, creating longer wait times for the Noctilux... Has anybody here attempted to shoot video with a D-Lux 4? You could not zoom while shooting, you had to stop, zoom, start. So imagine a script with the phrase Pan, and Zoom on actor. And the videographer starts to Pan, and says, stop let me change lens, ok continue. Right... Canon and Nikon both have extensive sets of Zoom lenses, and every picture of a DSLR being used for Video that I have seen is using a Zoom lens... Yes, some classic directors used fixed lens and zoomed by mounting the camera on a movable platform, but only a zoom lens will give you smooth control of background relationship to foreground, and amateurs will give up in frustration, because they cannot follow there kids with out tripping over the toys, as the kid moves. I have done a fair amount of amateur video, with Canon GL1, XL1, and the like, also attempted to video with every still camera placed in my hands with the capability. I have come with only one conclusion, No Zoom, No Video. I would rather use a V-Lux 20 with a slow zoom, than a D-Lux 4 with no active zoom. An M10 with no zoom.... Forget it! S3, with the coming Zoom Lens, Yes . This thread is also based on the premiss that Leica will embrace a technology that will support Video, and so far Leica has not in it's "Flag Ship" products (DMR, S2, M8/9). The future of course is unclear, but Leica has consistently not supplied Video even when it could (X1). Does Leica have to support Video, in the future, No. Will Leica, who knows... I guess a few care, If it comes... Good Luck. You had better plan your shoot well... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted March 6, 2011 Share #255 Posted March 6, 2011 Yeah, this thread is pretty funny. Reminds me of when the grumpy old guys got all huffy over Leica putting A mode in the M7. Of course, it's there, and you DON'T HAVE TO USE IT. But of course it did no one any harm, just sitting there, that pretty little A, and it was soon forgotten. Okay, they have moved on from that and now it would be the horror of horrors, video functionality. I say if Leica can bring it, without compromising the M's integrity, it would be a welcome addition, if even used for basic documenting purposes, and no reason to worry about shooting big budget films with it. An example: (and yes, I'm a pro but also a new-ish father) I take my two year old to a soccer "class" and while running after him shoot a few pics with my M9. Now no way am I going to pull out my iPhone as well to shoot some video as most of the time I'm trying to wrangle him. It would be great with the flick of a switch to shoot some video. No, it's not going to grace the big screen, but will be great for Facebook, my wife who is at work, etc. Same as 99.99% of M pictures shot don't end up in Nat Geo. Personally there are other things I hope the M10 is/has (quieter shutter with instant wake up is #1) but I will embrace any modern functionality they can bring as long as it's still in the traditional package. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted March 6, 2011 Share #256 Posted March 6, 2011 But it's also funny that there are threads in this forum that say that the M, is inferior to DSLRs for sports (people moving) and this thread which wants to use it for video ( people and objects moving). I am afraid that on the M it would be just a cheap gimmick. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotoism Posted March 6, 2011 Share #257 Posted March 6, 2011 So Leica should produce a dedicated video camera..... A digital Leicina!! Wonder what caused the demise of it, though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted March 6, 2011 Share #258 Posted March 6, 2011 For me it would be simple. If the M10 had video I would not buy it. I dislike bastard products. This is a bit like saying: - My car drives really fast. If they put a radio in the dashboard, I will not buy the next model of the car. I don't want the feature bloat. Why don't people just buy a separate radio that does that job really well? - My computer is great for writing books. If it comes with an email program, I will not buy the next model of the computer. Why don't people just buy a separate email device that does that job really well? - My phone is excellent for making calls. If it comes with a calculator application, I will not buy the next model of the phone. Why don't people just buy a separate calculator that does that job really well? Bastard products! Also, it seems that some people are making the presumption that if a video-capable M wouldn't be used for scripted commercial motion picture production, with dollies, cranes, Steadycams, a sound crew, etc., then it would be silly to include a video function. But why would it be silly to use the camera for personal & family video? Isn't a lot of M photography non-commercial, personal & family stuff? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
-ph- Posted March 6, 2011 Share #259 Posted March 6, 2011 But it's also funny that there are threads in this forum that say that the M, is inferior to DSLRs for sports (people moving) and this thread which wants to use it for video ( people and objects moving). I am afraid that on the M it would be just a cheap gimmick. The DSLRs are great for sports because phase detect autofocus is very fast. However for video it cannot be used, so the playing field is different. Contrast detect is slower and "pumps" around the focus point when searching for it. So it is basically useless inside the clip. That leaves manual focus, or not changing the focus in a shot. Zooming during a shot is also only possible if the zoom lenses are parfocal or the lens would have to be refocussed. And the M lenses allow for very nice manual focus action. Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted March 6, 2011 Share #260 Posted March 6, 2011 SLRs have been preferred for sports even before autofocus, just read some of the old Leicaflex articles in Leica Fotographie. If you look around this forum you will see many, many comments saying you need to keep a DSLR for action, wildlife, etc. Just search for threads on switching from a DSLR to an M9, and that is a common recommendation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.