Видео

Thanks! I put on my Wireless Backpack plates, they snap together and stay put nicely.

@@nick_salazar when I get my camera, I’m going to get your top handle and your low profile monitor hinge system for sure!

@@nick_salazar gotcha, thank you!

Thank you so much Josh! I'm so glad you're enjoying it. People forget how new this art form really is. A lot of the "rules" are just conventions. They are definitely helpful to understand, but by no means are set in stone.

It's F-Zero Camera. Because the camera shoots at effective apertures of f0.4-f0.6. I'm sorry you don't like it, it's just descriptive of the function.

Well, sometimes people mean different things when they say that they like one image versus another. In my experience, the biggest difference image wise is that the V-raptor has a very strong OLPF, which is a piece of glass in front of the sensor that reduces high frequency light, and results in a slightly softer but smoother image you might say. In my mind that is the largest difference you’ll see between those two cameras. Yes, the dynamic range is more on one than the other, but if you shoot properly on each camera and color match the images, the biggest difference apart from the OLPF effects is that there should be more noise in the deeper shadows on the mirrorless. Each camera’s “color science” can make a difference, but if you properly color match then those differences will be minimal.

@@nick_salazar Thanks for the reply bud 👍

You’re welcome! Take with a grain of salt though - I am still learning like everyone else :-) don’t be afraid to tell me I’m wrong.

Thank you so much! I’m so glad it was helpful to you!

Compression exists, but lenses are not responsible for it. It's only your distance to subject. Then the lens dictates your field of view, but NOT the compression. If you watch the video I show examples demonstrating this clearly.

Lens Compression Doesn't Exist - Here's Why ruclips.net/video/_TTXY1Se0eg/видео.html

Wide Angle Lenses do NOT DISTORT FACES ruclips.net/video/kpRqgPDdCVc/видео.html

Lens compression DOESN'T REALLY EXIST - But it doesn't really matter either... ruclips.net/video/kxAdMSQdbBY/видео.html

Dude, YOU are the hero here! There are so many people who take that “ready to call BS” instinct and just run with it into the comments, without taking a moment to learn. Maybe it’s my fault and I need to explain more clearly. But either way, thank you for taking the time to explore, that’s what this channel is all about! About larger sensors, there are definitely issues. Processing power, heat dissipation, readout speed, to name a few. Plus there aren’t a lot of lenses with large imaging circles still being produced. But then again, if people demand it, they will come! Personally I’m pretty happy with 8k VV, but there’s always room to play.

You got it! Many others do not, and really want to argue with me about it, haha. Thanks for the kind words.

Not quite. If a lens can project a larger image circle, then it’s still the same light per unit of imaging surface area. That’s why this 300mm f2.8 has such a massive barrel, it’s collecting a LOT of light. With the F-Zero camera we do lose some transmission due to the sensor components, not the lens. The effective T number is lower (about T8), but the effective f number is f0.4. Definitely worth it to study the equivalency of lenses concept. Check out the link in the description, it’s super helpful.

@@nick_salazar This will depend on the area and number of pixels of the sensor. It is seen that if one uses, for example, a fullframe lens on an APS-C camera, the lens does not resolve in the same way as on a fullframe camera, that is because assuming that the fullframe camera has a 24 Mp sensor and the APS- C Also, the lens designed for Fullframe has to resolve on a smaller surface area 1.5x times more than a lens that covers the entire circle since the pixel density is greater in APS-C by that factor.

How much light lens transmits does not depend on the sensor it is transmitting to. It is true that different sensors performed differently. But I don’t think it behaves the way you imagine in this context.

@@nick_salazar IIf you have a lens that covers more than the size of the sensor, there is light that is lost therefore the transmission is less, if in addition in that smaller sensor the pixel density is greater than that of a larger sensor it means that the pixels are smaller and therefore receive less light, in addition the next effect is that being smaller the circle of confusion, which is what determines whether something is in focus or not, causes more pixels to be in focus than the equivalent of a smaller sensor. Larger therefore equates to a more closed diaphragm. That is why when one uses a 2x teleconverter an F2.8 lens becomes the equivalent of F5.6.

I’m sorry but this is not accurate. Teleconverters reduce f number because you have a longer focal length divided by the same entrance pupil. You are also confusing f numbers (a division of focal length over entrance pupil) with t numbers (actual brightness of projected image) with image circle (size of image projected). Those things are not always codependent. You can have a 50mm lens that is f2.8, T3, and covers super 35, and another 50mm which is also f2.8 and T3 but covers full frame. It just depends on how they are designed.

I never said different focal lengths are irrelevant. I'm trying to illustrate how they actually work, to better understand how to use them, how to cheat one look for another, etc. You're right that an 8mm lens will not be a substitute for a 2000mm lens ... if both lenses are on the same format. But if the 8mm lens is on a tiny format (like a cell phone), and the 2000mm is on a huge format (11x17 ultra-large film), they will actually give a similar field of view!

​@@nick_salazar Yes of course. I'm just saying this might be a limiting way to go about it in the sense that 'lens compression' still is valid as a concept even if not an actual scientific phenomena. I don't disagree with anything you've said, scientifically. It's a different perspective and I appreciate it

Absolutely focal length matters! But, when we properly understand why and how, we can better understand why and how we can “cheat” the ideal focal length, either via cropping to frame, or in more wild examples like my fake zolly shot. Funny how the comments are in three categories: 1-this is obvious, 2-I just learned something, or 3-you’re completely wrong and nothing you show me will change my mind. I’m surprised by the third category, but alas this is RUclips.

Then why doesn't the 200mm compress any more than the 70mm lens from the same position? I don't think you're grasping the example. There is no such thing as "part of the background" ... there is just distance of each object from the camera. "Compression" is when the ratio of distance of one thing to another is small. Longer focal lengths just change your field of view, but not those ratios.

​@@nick_salazar So lenses don't create compression.... distance does. And yet, you had to crop in on the 70mm shot to make it match the 200mm shot (and they don't really match). ....but it's not the lens doing that.... it's the distance. Bro, you're ability to fuck your own brain is impressive. And, I also learned that you always think you're right even when someone is telling you you're wrong. Because, there's no way in hell you could be wrong right? I mean, there's a huge blatant difference in those shots isn't there? The size of the subject. Because, surprise, if the subject is the same size using different focal lengths, then the background will appear closer with the longer lens, even if the subject is the same distance from the background. And remember Nick, that with the longer lens, you're actually going to be further away for the same framing, and the background will STILL. LOOK. CLOSER. And that's what compression is you stupid motherf*****.

Exactly. That’s spot on. And yet a good chunk of people in the comments here are convinced of something different. No accounting for marketing, I guess.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I've personally gotten a LOT out of these concepts, especially Equivalency of Lenses. It led to the F-Zero Camera, which is something I consider to be pretty darn special. But everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Perhaps this information won't make you better in your career, but it has helped me in mine, so I'm sharing it.

When you say "with the same relative framing" then you mean you're moving the camera relative to the subject. That's exactly how I'm describing it in the video. See the "zolly" example.

@@nick_salazar lol, no. I think you think it doesnt exist, because you have no concept of what it is. It absolutely 100% exists

@@nomadikmind3979 if lenses have "compression" by nature of their focal length, then why can I get a "zolly" shot with just one lens? Again, see the example.

@@nick_salazar youre attributing compression to places its not generally attributed. Compression is not making a zolly shot, compression is bringing the golden gate bridge, the moon, the mountain range right up behind the subject. Again, like i said, you think it doesnt exist, because you dont understand the concept or use it in your world. Youre like a chef saying "motor oil doesnt exist" simply because youre ignorant of its uses

@@nomadikmind3979 so do you believe background compression only begins at a certain focal length? We see "compression" in zolly shots because the camera's distance is moving. Then the background appears to move relative to the subject, because we either crop in or zoom in to keep the subject's relative size consistent. That is the same "compression" as when using a much longer lens to do the examples you reference. Again, compression exists, it's just not the lens which is responsible for it.

I think I describe exactly what you're saying here, but maybe I didn't say it in a way that made sense to you. So to be clear, if your goal is to have a certain amount of background compression, ONLY your distance to subject matters. Then if you want to have a specific framing, you can either shoot wider and crop in, or pick a focal length that gives you the framing you want. Regardless, it's only your distance to subject that controls the background compression.

@@nick_salazar I'm not sure what you are trying to tell! That you can shoot the same portait with a 24mm than a 85 by croping it 4 time? How is this usefull in any way. Yes you get the same compression because of distance but context matters. If you want to take a portrait you usually don't use a 24mm because you WILL HAVE to get close to the subject. So ok sure lenses don't have natural compression. But it's just a langage shortcut, the same way crop sensor don't magnify they just use less of the image circle... But in practice they magnify. And in practice for the same framing, a wide lens has less compression than a tele! That's all

The point is to understand the difference. If you hear someone say “135mm is so superior to 85mm because of its superior compression” you can just use your 85mm and crop in 50% and have the same compression. Or if you don’t have a zoom lens, you can still achieve a “dolly zoom” with a prime. The point is once we understand the principle, we can be better shooters, and not simply a slave to “common wisdom” which is wrong in this case.

@@nick_salazar i use the 6k on my lumix s1 to do dolly zoom with prime since several years. For normal use i don't think it's good advice to say "you can just crop". There is 0 professional out here shooting with the inappropriate focal and just say "i can just crop it 2 times". Because if you can crop 2 times, just chose the right focal and get a better image quality right from the start. Bro i'm realy not sure what you are trying to advocate with your rent, i think it's more confusing for amateurs and professionals already know that, and use it daily. We chose focal length and framing and move to the appropriate location on set to make the framing match what we want. Wide lens have a dramatic effect on portrait shot and that's a tool to be used, it's not better or worse. I'll not discuss more on the subjevt however, i think you know pretty well all of that, but you are just making a video with a strange approach of "debunking" "you are doing it wrong" "the myth of" just to get more views and i respect that

I’m not trying to tell anyone how to shoot. I’m exploring the concepts and I want to understand how this stuff actually works. So in fact, lenses do NOT cause compression. Distance does. If you don’t care about the difference, that’s fine. But I do care.

I'm not sure I understand your question - what are you asking?

@@nick_salazar you said.. that lens compression is not real.. and you also said that the only thing that changes the background “compresion” is the distance from the subject.. that all test creators did is just changing the distance along with the focal length. So… how do you explain the same background size on moving away from the subject if its not compression? ^^

Compression is very real. But it’s not the LENS causing it. It’s your distance to the subject causing it. Then your LENS just determines the field of view. Does that make sense?

Yeah apparently not!

Depends on what image circle your lens can shoot! But I do tend to agree with you that it's nice to use as much of that circle as you can.

I think it's the concept of "background compression" or "make the background look bigger relative to the foreground" and it got conflated with longer focal lengths. And not without reason - with longer lenses you do tend to shoot farther away. But I'm just reminding people that it's that distance which is responsible for the compression, not the lens.

I’ve only ever heard “compression” used to describe the apparent distance of the background relative to the foreground. Perhaps you’ve heard it conflated with other ideas, but I haven’t. I’m just trying to illustrate that compression (at least as I just defined it) is only a consequence of distance and NOT focal length as commonly understood and repeated.

Thank you so much! For some reason half the audience feels the way you do, and the other half tells me I'm an idiot and have no idea what I'm talking about ;-)

@@nick_salazar You just have high expectation for attention span of your audience.😅 Probably those who didn't get your point just wasnt listen closely. I worked at technical support for quite some time. So I know exactly what the problem is. "Lots of people dont like to think when they listen."

Also the creator was very effects heavy which is probably why they stuck w one focal length so that the perspective could be consistent in all of the VFX. And also they were shooting on sets so they could probably remove the walls to get the camera placement (and compression 🫢) they wanted. Nice video. Made it all the way thru

Yeah I tend to agree with you. But on the other hand, limits can tend to make for really interesting art!

⁠@@nick_salazar interesting topic! I thought that the greater the field of view (lower focal length) the more the perspective converges. So shooting on a telephoto or wildlife type of lens 500mm and above the vanishing points are almost parallel giving the optical illusion of “compressed space” as the lines don’t quickly converge and the relative size of objects receding into the background appears to be the same. Cheers! Good topic and more of that tasty XRaptor footage please 🫰🫰

You seem to be describing perspective distortion, which is how subjects can appear differently on very wide angle lenses. But again, the phrase “wide angle” only has meaning with respect to the image circle and the size of your capture format. Refer to the above video example of the 300mm lens on 8x10, giving the same field of view as to the 35mm lens on full frame. They exhibit exactly the same field of view, and therefore at equivalent distances would have the same perspective distortion. The same is true for any focal length relative to its capture format. Now, it’s not always possible to find an equivalent focal length and capture format that will match a given combination, for example, we don’t have any 32mm F0.4 full frame lenses. So we have to adapt the 300mm F2.8 on 8x10 if we want that look. But field of view, perspective, distortion, line convergence, it is always a matter of distance, focal length, and capture format working together. There is nothing particular to the actual focal length or the actual lens itself.

I still see ALL of your comments, don't worry! I think maybe something is up with your browser - try clearing your cache/cookies/history and reloading. All of your comments are here, and thank you for the feedback!

​@@nick_salazar I've had a similar issue trying to comment on your videos as well. I would post a comment and it would disappear. Specifically your channel. Not too sure why.

That’s odd. Do you see all of cogmission’s comments? He has two threads in this channel with various comments.

To be clear I haven’t touched any settings related to comments etc.

@@nick_salazar I do see all of his. Let me try again on your video re: IMAX / Arles

Thank you!

even in your example at 3:57 you can see the kids face looks vastly different. That's why you are wrong when you say lens equivalency exists

What you’re describing is called perspective distortion, and yes that is a real phenomenon. But I’m not sure the rest of what you’re saying makes sense.

@@nick_salazarperspective distortion is towering lines when you use low down angle, and it’s what you are playing with on tilt lenses. What I described is lens compression. It might be better described on google since english is not my 1st language

@@nick_salazar I’m down for content creation but most things you are saying are either wrong terms or lack of knowledge in the subject. You should inform yourself better and make corrections accordingly

Thanks for your opinion! Maybe it’s a language issue. And I’m happy to be proven wrong, I just don’t think I see you doing that here.

That’s not compression at all. It’s just a depth of field difference, and the reason it happens is entirely described by the “Equivalency of Lenses” concept. When we crop in with the 70mm lens, we are using less of the sensor, and therefore essentially creating a smaller capture format. If you run the numbers, we learn that since we blow up the 70mm about 3x to achieve an effective 200mm (70 x 3 = 210, close enough), we need to be 3 stops faster to have the same depth of field. Therefore we would need a 70mm at f1.0 on our "cropped format" to have the same depth of field as 200mm at f2.8 on full frame. Or alternatively, if we closed down the 200mm three stops to f8, it would look exactly like the cropped 70mm on the 3x smaller format at its current f2.8. I realize I didn’t properly describe this in the video, so I’m going to pin your comment and this answer. Thanks for asking!

@@nick_salazar Thank you for the explanation!

@@nick_salazar the explanation is wrong in both video and comment though and your example shows it perfectly. On the 70mm that is cropped you can clearly see the face is less compressed than on the 200mm. Nose-ear lengh looks to be less on the 200mm than the 70mm. That is lens compression, and it’s both real and know feature of lenses since humans started to make focal length lenses (when photography moved away from pinhole cameras)

@@eldengard23 I'm not seeing what you describe. I think my cropping isn't perfect, and my son is slightly more magnified on the "70mm cropped" version. But you can clearly see that the play structure in the deep background doesn't move at all relative to his body. No "compression" of the background. Just shallower depth of field.

@@nick_salazar i mean if you don’t see it im not sure how i can prove it but look how the swing seams wider on the 70, how the face is bit more plum (these are minute differences since only a small difference logarithmically speaking, not nominally) and how that red thing is the back is different. I can understand you think them to be movement of your lovely son, but its not. These small differences are proof of lens compression, but your video 100% stands if you are only talking about depth of field

Thank you! So what do you think ... do I take the plunge on a Xelmus 50mm?

@@nick_salazar There are so many factors that would go into this purchase decision - a lot of them, very personal? If I were going to isolate the peripheral factors and just look at the value of the lens on its own: 1. Will it have long-lasting inspiration (like I would imagine owning the V-Raptor X has) ? 2. Does it occupy a place in your vision of what your “repertoire” of lenses will inevitably turn out to be? 3. Is the timing of the purchase such that you are compelled to act at this time? 4. Does this meet your quality criteria in such a way where that consideration exceeds the opportunity cost otherwise gained with that money. 5. Does your project call you forward to buy this lens as part of your vision for its aesthetic? Overall, so much of the decision seems intensely personal - I can only act as a sounding board? Additionally, your video is the first I’ve even heard of the Xelmus lenses - so I can’t even make an isolated assessment of their value apart from everything else.

@@nick_salazar Sorry Nick, I wrote a looooong reply but now I don't see it! As opinionated as I am, I don't really have the background to advise you on the merits of Xelmus "optics", actually I had never even heard of them before your video! LOL. Personally, I would like to target specific lenses that meet my aesthetic/performance needs, and visualize the portfolio that I will eventually wind up with - and it sounds like the Xelmus is that lens for you? Does your current project call for it?

@@nick_salazar I wrote 2 loooong responses and YT refuses to allow the posts to be permanent? Sorry, I'm not ignoring your question! Very frustrating...

@@cogmission1 I still see both of your replies! Not sure why you don't see them on your end, but I appreciate all of it and I think they're great food for thought for me. Yes, thank you for being a sounding board as you say!

Thank you! It was so much fun to make 🙂

Thank you Lake!

Yeah I think 2.8/4 is where the 40mm starts to bite. And I think a lot of folks would agree with your choice to stop down there. Wide open the 40mm is T2.1, but not super usable. The 50mm is T1.7, and starts to be usable around T2, as far as the test footage I've seen seems to indicate.

So kind of you to notice! Thank you so much for the kind words, and for being here 🙂

Also, you were right! 1000 subs celebration!!

@@nick_salazar awesome man, can’t wait to see your film keep it up

My understanding is that they do fit most/all speed boosters. They don’t protrude very far back, but you may need to consult some specs to be sure.

Glad to have you here Matt! Thanks for the kind words!

I do use a single-clip setup for shorter runs. But if I put two VB212's on a belt for very long, and those pants are gonna start to sag!