Відео

u should listen to episode 142 of frame & reference podcast towards the end (2:05:00)

Regardless of dynamic range human eye has much better bit depth. 16bit readout/encoding is a flagship premium spec still.

True story, the octopus has objectively better eyes than we do in just about every metric.

Why would a cinema add extra compression to the image? 🤔

EXCELLENT !

70mm with panorama mode is the answer

Man just answer the question, say 42 and thats all. No need for an 8 minutes video. Or at least give that info in the beginning and whoever wants to stay for explanations will stay for explanations

"K" is not a permission, it is not a characteristic. Stop measuring everything by "K". There are megapixels, what's the problem??????

Appreciate this. I’m relatively new to photo and found 35mm to be a relief but not quite there, and on the high end I don’t have the budget to figure out why my 135mm isn’t narrow enough, but 200mm photos online don’t do it for me either. I’ll have a better chance at finding my ideal lenses now.

Jules et Jim!

I remember I used to have a vibtage camera with a 43 mm lens. Forgor what brand it is. I think its a Canon rangefinder.

The movie is all about the cinematography and music. But it’s still a 3 hour long snooze fest.

@wolfcrow I would argue vision through both eyes is wider than one eye. And we never really do look out of one eye. The nose gets in the way of our field of view, meaning we see less with one eye unless we look slightly away from center, but with both eyes we see panoramically with a seemless transition between the eyes and the aspect ratio is much wider. I’m not sure why binocular vision would have a wider aspect ratio. Because of our nose, the field of view which has binocular vision is horizontally constrained but not vertically . So it should have a taller, less wide aspect ratio.

Um none of this matter's anyway ! going to be a tech guy or an artist ?

Id say its 85mm

On my experience, 70 mm on full frame feels just like my eye

A big thing to remember when talking about vision is how your brain perceives it. While the actual *Physical* focal length of the human eye is around 25mm, your brain take the stimulation from the cones and rods and maps it out and distorts it such that it looks to be closer to 50mm. Your vision is something your brain does a lot of heavy lifting for, like how it removes the hole in your vision where your optic nerve starts, or removing your nose when looking forward, or filling in the blanks of your periphery when you're not looking at something directly. A fun (and funny way) I found to really test out the weird things that happens to your vision when you push it to the extremes is this: Have someone that you're close to (spouse, partner, sibling, or close friend.) Close one of your eyes and, with your open eye, put your face right up against theirs with your eye centered on the very top part of where their nose starts. If you keep your center vision focused there but then try to focus on your peripheral vision, you'll notice that you can still actually see both their eyes and even past their head, but it almost looks like an extreme fish-eye effect. Your eye, even less than a half-inch away, can not only see someone's eyes and cheekbones but even past them as well. When you see do this you actually get to somewhat really perceive how wide your FOV truly is (more akin to the actual 25mm distance) but in normal day-to-day activities and with both eyes your brain reformats your vision seamlessly to look like that 49mm-73mm range. The question isn't "what is the focal length of the human eye?", its "What's the ***perceived*** focal length of human vision?"

What do you think of the Blackmagic cameras then?

Pentax 43mm 1.9 is the real deal. Pancake lens. Fast at 1.9. Not too tight like a 50mm. Almost as wide as a 40mm. Tack sharp at the centre. Such a good lens!

Small lens MFT 20mm 1.7 is the key!

The clip of DIE HARD is more of a fragmented zoom.

The field of view of the human eye is comparable to around 15mm or wider lenses on a full frame sensor. You can try this out very easily by comparing the camera image with your natural field of view.

Since the length of the human eye along its optical axis, from the front of the cornea to the retina is approx 24 mm, then I would suggest the focal length is 24mm when relaxed (i.e. focused on infinity), changing by distortion of the crystalline lens to a shorter focal length when focused on a closer object!

The revolutionary introduction of Blackmagic Design Cine cameras nearly put an end to the division of cameras into professional and prosumer categories. Needless to say, with the advent of cameras like ''pyxis'' in 2024, broken the myth that only expensive cameras can produce professonal cinema quality , It's clear that in the coming years, companies like Arri, which sell expensive cameras, will have to eliminate themselves or redesign their products with the cost out of 1/10 to maintain their presence in the market. This is a big change another example is that Panasonic has recently dropped their films from Professional and Consumer categories.

I believe it’s 50 mm

58 to 65mm is the normal FocaLength … not only in fullframe terms but any format. A 58mm lens on APSC or M43 cameras would effectively be Tele / Portrait Lens, & act as a Wide / Landscape Lens on medium format camera.

What does "160mm equvalent" mean? Equivalent to what?

Love it when videos just tell you the answer upfront..you did it even quicker, and put it in the thumbnail. Now I can enjoy your video instead of skipping around for the answer.

Holy shit it takes 8 minutes to put together a decent thumbnail. Stop using AI garbage, it just makes you look bad.

I see a 70mm perspective. I have tested this with various lenses

The normal focal lenght has the same mm as the diagonal of the frame. In a 24x36 frame it's 43mm. longer than normal lenses are easier to make. Shorter than normal are difficult to make, only in later years we had decent wide and super wide lenses.

This would explain why my 20-40mm lens feels more natural than my 18-55!

I believe it's a 55mm

The human Eye has two focal lengths. 42-43mm for the point of interest and about 24mm for the peripherals.

I don't think your conclusion follows. You just showed that the focal length of human eye is between 15 and 160mm, which I would say is pretty accurate to my experience. Instead of concluding - hey you can use anything between 15 and 160mm to represent a "normal" perspective (depending on the situation), you (for some reason) take an average of that to get a meaningless and arbitrary number of 42.

Gave up with the shit music competing with your narration, wtf do youtubers do this all the time?

With this in mind, I am imagining what a video would look like by recording with 4 cameras with different lens and filter settings and editing the videos together in concentric circles; most focused at the center, and least focused and most distorted on the outside.

You could argue that in some cases 'big budgets' are the death of the film. When truly big bucks come in to play, you start to get people involved in the story telling that should never be involved in the story telling side of things. I think this is why I personally love indi films so much. Many lower budgeted films have been so good and the smaller budget forces the story telling.

Thank You

My eyes can see almost 180 degrees so that i can look out for random ghosts around me. LOL

Video is great but the ai thumbnails are just sad

One of the worst brands Leica

You have some fair points. I also understand why many people disagree with you. You broadly define cheap cameras with a list of qualities only you deem valid. The Creator is a perfect example of why your personal qualifications for a good vs cheap camera is invalid. Ironically enough, you even conclude with your use of the R5 that a cinematographer really should consider the limits of the tool rather than the tool being too cheap to be capable to produce quality. I highly recommend you check out a video Potato Jet made with an older Arri digital camera. In summary, the camera still produced gorgeous color rendition but lacked in other areas. If I remember the video correctly, he compared it to a Canon C300 MK3 or a Sony A7S MK3. I forget. But ultimately the newer camera was better overall. I believe the fairest point you made is how a better camera is akin to a better tool to get the job done faster and cheaper. You could consider a multi million dollar project using a $100k camera to avoid spending millions in post to correct noise in footage. Though I would argue that argument is blown out of proportion with The Creator. The VFX cost the most in that movie and it wasn't to correct footage. It's a Sci-Fi movie with tons of add-in post assets. If they toned down the add-ins, such as removing the transparent wheel like things on the androids in the movie, the movie would have cost significantly less.

The main issues are indeed color, DR, black render and noise. It's called high end cinema camera for a reason.

Question: Does shooting on a crop sensor camera (such as Canon, at x1.6), with a 28mm lens, get you close enough (44mm)? or am I wrong?

4.2K likes, lets keep it that way

Very good film, very informative, light on boring stuff, to the point. Thanks!

42mm, hmm 42 the famous number You have currently 4.2K likes, what a coincidence

Alfred Hitchcock's largest payday came from the film Psycho. He deferred his salary in exchange for 60% of the movie's profits. This resulted in an estimated $15 million payday, which adjusted for inflation is around $120 million today.

I thought it is 50mm. When I look in the viewfinder of the Sony A7iii with 50mm, it matches what my other eye sees when I open it together.