Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

In development...

not the plan... stay tuned. You won't be disappointed.

Jim
 
To me, the reflex idea is a pre-WW II antique.
Click to expand...

I thought rangefinder was invented earlier than reflex.

I once had a Primarflex in my collection of old cameras, it was fun but it is now in a museum.
Click to expand...

Do you really put cameras in a museum because they are reflex?
Congratulations, you are very modern indeed.

Well, I could still use ancient cameras from 1800. I can't use a compact camera, because I am not able to focus just lookin at their display (but I don't have to use such useless cameras, anyway)
I had some digital toys, they were not fun, and now are not even in a museum. They went directly to the litter, with their displays that seemed so fantastic, but did not help focus at all. the rest of the body did not either. They just lacked the only useful thing: the mirror. A dammed mirror.

Mirrors are error-prone, clunky mechanical devices which make noise and reduce focussing accuracy unless they happen to be perfectly aligned. This is why I much prefer a Leica to a Nikon or Canon.
Click to expand...

Exactly, Rangefinder cameras have to be checked often; they need much more mintenance than reflex cameras because they get misaligned. My reflex cameras, unchecked for decades, are still aligned. Funny that you prefer Leica Rangefinders for THAT reason.
For focusing accuracy. I don't understand your point very much.

And why I really want a camera with a 1:1 display which shows exactly what I'm recording. With a DSLR, you have to guess at what the result will be like.
Click to expand...

Yes, you you can never predict if in the picture there is the tour Eiffel or the banana peel that you have just slipped on. But you can check the surroundings an istant before you clic, and find an use for the other eye when you go out with your Laica, maybe a Leica R - you are a person, not a tripod, you can move your fingers such a little bit, if it gets really necessary - and you can be perfectly right 90-100% of the time. In that 10-0% that you are wrong, you can cut just that very small portion of the picture that you don't want to see. All right, rangefindxers may have an advantage here. Never mind. In cine cameras, the best cameras have always been reflex, and they work very well. Of course, rangefinder may also be a good solution for cine cameras, but... wait a minute! Really it is possible for a reflex to cover more then 100% of the picture that will go to the sensor. Think about it. The sensor only needs to be a little smaller than the optical system, so you can check everything in your optical viefinder.
So you could have the same advantage of the rangefinder, in a reflex.
Can you imagine: a pre-wwII technology that - not differently from a bycicle - is still useful today. A technology that works.

to be more precise, I would add that with a DSLR you know exacly what you are recording, because see it in the viewfinder. Tha fact that the sensor may catch more then what you see, should not be a problem for you. Just cut it off. Crop as you like. With billions of pixels you can certainly afford it.
with a good DSRL you may crop more then with pre-french revolution rangefinder cameras.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khristian
q:Possibility of three cmos chips in camera under bayer?

Why?

Jim
Click to expand...

I know why: he wants to be forced to use the extremely cheap HD-broadcast lenses on his new still camera.
1 big sensor? NOOOO, TOO SIMPLE!
 
Tetsuo said:
They just lacked the only useful thing: the mirror.
Click to expand...

And this is my biggest fear in the DSMC... the potential for lack of a mirror (or other OVF mechanism) if RED caves in and uses an EVF...


Really it is possible for a reflex to cover more then 100% of the picture that will go to the sensor. Think about it. The sensor only needs to be a little smaller than the optical system, so you can check everything in your optical viefinder.
Click to expand...

Pro-grade DSLRs such as the Canon 1D/1Ds series cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage of the sensor area.

Lesser DSLRs (including the 5DmkII apparently) may have 90-95% or so, which is still quite good (as has already been pointed out, crop off the part of the image you don't need...)


How do these "rangefinder" cameras cope with different focal lengths of lenses, filters, etc...?

If the viewfinder is separate from the lens, I'd expect them to lose accuracy as soon as I attach a super-wide or super-tele lens, for example, or maybe put a wide adaptor on the lens, and then with filters...
 
Deanan said:
External rangefinder first, then lens coupled rangefinders, then reflex and adapted rangefinder to reflex.
Click to expand...

Nope. :bleh: Reflex first .... :biggrin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_single-lens_reflex_camera

The single-lens reflex camera (SLR) was invented in 1861 by Thomas Sutton, a photography author and camera inventor who ran a photography related company together with Louis Désiré Blanquart-Evrard on Jersey. ....

[ You're right for 35mm, of course, but them's new-fangled gizmos ]

ps -- I have a turn-of-the-century Graflex Super-B reflex.

pps -- I also have a Speedgraphic with FOUR different viewfinders:
a) Ground glass
b) Optical Viewfinder with per-lens framing insert
c) Wire-frame sports viewfinder (F8 and be there)
d) Rangefinder

ppps And the speedgraphic can focus in the dark ... an attached lightbulb shines down the rangefinder in reverse. When it's out of focus it projects two dots on the target .. in focus, the dots merge and you're framed, too!
 
Rangefinders don't use really long teles because the VF frame gets really small. Really wide lenses use external VFs in the accessory shoe. Most modern RFs have frames for a few different focal lengths.

There are some oddball RF-cams like the Voigtländer Bessa-T. It has a rangefinder, but no built-in viewfinder. The pace with it is so slow, I love it! :)
 
Normal (=clever) people don't want uncompress, with a fridge full of hard disks to carry.
Normal (=clever) people want highest resolution, high quality compressed.
This has nothing to do with budget in the first place. It's got to do with comfort and praticality. I could also have to do with budget, but the discussion it does not even reach that point, because, simply, uncompress is not practical. You want to take the camera on your shoulder? Shit, with uncompressed you are bond to external hard disks; not to mention the power that they suck: you also need a generator. Double shit.
The Red raw compression is excellent, and from build 16 it is even better, so for me this argument is over.
I find Red One is a a bit too big be for me, and too heavy for hand held work, I may switch to Epic, which looks more compact, and therefore lighter. So, do you think I would ever connect myself to external racks full of hard disks, if I can go into the nature with just this terrific machine?
 
Tetsuo said:
Normal (=clever) people don't want uncompress, with a fridge full of hard disks to carry.
Normal (=clever) people want highest resolution, high quality compressed.
?
Click to expand...

Hi,

One of the reasons Film is used so much i many people do actually want the highest quality available. For Digital solid state memory is possible & used today. Red currently does not support uncompressed which is a shame IMHO.

Stephen
 
Dear Stephen, come on, it's not necessary, and it is a big pain.
I can't believe you are not happy with Red footage. We continuously get wonderful images!
 
.. and then, after scanning or duplicating, the film high quality is not there anymore. And, you know, once it gets projected, film is about 700-800 lines horizontal resolution.
A professional HDV can intercut with a copied&copied 35mm film. I have read Clint Eastwood used Sony's HDV pro camera and 35mm film in his last war films. I have not seen them, but HDV is 1080i, which should be a bit better then 720p, once converted... So, Red, which is another planet, has certainly nothing to envy of 35mm.

But just look at the footage and tell me. Isn't it beautiful?
 
talking of highest quility, then why no one criticizes 16mm/super 16? Isn't 16mm film a dirty compromise? In fact, people are happy with the dirty 16mm.
it's flaws are much easier to see then Red ones.
With the Red, with the new build, we start to see some flaws only at situations with very difficult light situation. I don't think a 16mm camera could perform comparably. We are more then happy with Red image quality, and this is way now we concentrate on other aspects of film making. Quality is not an issue anymore for us. We fail much more easily then the camera.
 
Tetsuo said:
talking of highest quility, then why no one criticizes 16mm/super 16? Isn't 16mm film a dirty compromise? In fact, people are happy with the dirty 16mm.
it's flaws are much easier to see then Red ones.
With the Red, with the new build, we start to see some flaws only at situations with very difficult light situation. I don't think a 16mm camera could perform comparably. We are more then happy with Red image quality, and this is way now we concentrate on other aspects of film making. Quality is not an issue anymore for us. We fail much more easily then the camera.
Click to expand...

Hi,

Arri did a S16 with some grain reduction that matched 35 & projected at IBC using a 2K projector, you could not tell the difference. Digital projection has a far greater resoloution than 800 lines. It's very easy to spot HDV v 35mm projected. Some of the RED footage projected at 4k had more resoloution, the 2k RED was alot softer. Film seems to cut well wilt Red shot at 3K & 4K.

Stephen
 
Tetsuo said:
Dear Stephen, come on, it's not necessary, and it is a big pain.
I can't believe you are not happy with Red footage. We continuously get wonderful images!
Click to expand...

Hi,

I shoot film all the time, tomorrow Omega watches for the Quantum of Solace trailler. Until there is a shutter pulse in RED I could not use it at all for the application in hand. It's not a pain just very easy just me and the director. I will probably shoot 400 feet in 2 days, so there is no saving using a RED either.

I was happy with the best 4k Red footage at IBC. I don't like the 2k footage at all. I dont have access to post facilities that can get the best out of Red files, that may change but for now I can work better with film in 4k for many applications.

Stephen
 
What do you mean? You're shooting watch cutaways for a movie trailer? :)
 
Oh yeah. Gotcha.

You've got a good thing going with those Omega guys. I wonder if your spot featuring the grandpa boosting the kid to see the Olympics will get recognition at the ad awards or whatever? I wouldn't be surprised!
 
Karlgustav said:
The DSLR Thing is really interesting.

(...)

The body would use interchangeable mounts, ideally with an open protocol so extra lense controls could be adopted. Initially I suspect Red would offer a PL mount, as well as Nikon and Canon, both in 'smart' and 'dumb' flavours, prehaps partnering with Birger, ET et al. That would make the body a fantastic directors finder as well as intergrating with a massive installed userbase of standard glass. The open protocol would mean that all lense functions could be controlled in camera, withou having to revert to external controls.
Click to expand...

I'm entirely in agreement with Karl! IMHO, "all" you need is a large, "open" mount, and 3rd parties will line up to make adapters for existing lenses. Also, please please PLEASE include shake reduction in the camera body! I love my Pentax k10 & 20ds for those reasons: they accepts every Pentax lens ever made, and I get the benefit of shake reduction on even the most antique lenses. And at the time, the k10d's 10MP RAW image was the equal of those from Canon and Nikon, so it was a no-brainer.

Last comment: regardless of whether you use a mirror or not, please don't remove the traditional viewfinder, or the ability to insert third-party (e.g. Katz Eye) viewfinder screens.

Cheers and I can't wait!

[ps - yes, my nick is misspelled; I'm working on it!]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top