Great explanation! I have one question: When you showed the example of the 200mm compared to the 70mm cropped to 200mm, the background had more blur. What is the term to describe that effect? I thought that was what lens compression was. Could that also be what the lens manufacturer was referring to when talking about the anamorphic lens?
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 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
Actually love this video! Don’t agree with most of it but like how it’s brought me back to the math of photography. I tend to shoot 85 to 135 as I like how the compression allows me to Take advantage of the distance between objects in the background and their relative size in comparison to each other. To keep it simple the compression effect tends to make the background look flat and subjects closer seem more 3D. You have your studio lit with blue tones it helps create depth in what would otherwise be a flat image due to the compression. Brilliant video I take my hate off to you! It’s so easy to get caught up in gear that’s new that we forget what it is we want to achieve. Analysis of lenses and the effects they have is under rated! This video re awoke that in me.
Great video, Nick. You wouldn't believe how many arguments I've gotten in - including many on those amazing Facebook groups - about compression not being a thing. It's the distance to subject and nothing more (though obviously focal length and f-stop affect depth of field). It's also one reason I think it's so funny when these world-class DPs talk about how larger sensors render differently (they don't). Only exception, of course, being that it's virtually impossible to achieve the same shallow depth of field on, say, 16mm or M4/3 that you can on a full-frame sensor. But that has nothing to do with the actual "rendering" of the sensor.
Exactly right. It turns out some of the great artists in this field are not always the best technicians. And vice versa. Often the best DP’s do have a very good technical understanding of how things work, but no one knows everything. Especially me! I’m wrong a lot, and I try really hard to always keep learning.
You’re someone on RUclips who actually understands the science behind optics. - Compression is a myth (it’s actually distance to subject) - Crop factor doesn’t change a lens (50mm is 50mm no matter what) - Desqueeze does not change optical field of view (compression is still a myth even on anamorphic) Great video and explanation.
This really pissed me off when I was looking into gfx gear. People telling me "you'll get the compression of 110mm but you get more fov. Bruh. The 50 anamorphic has the same fov as a 25mm cropped in half. Compression just depends how you set up your shot. Great explanation. Small correction: fov on different sensor sizes and equivalent focal lengths isn't exactly the same; only on a perfect lens (with a single point where light rays are compressed, like a single element). In practice there is a minute difference in perspective, which is particularily noticeable on wider lenses.
The points you have made is absolutely right. Am an amateur hobbyist photographer and i couldn't make sense of what people are saying about focal length changing background compression. My thinking process and experiments always gave me the same conclusion as you made here. And i also believe focal legth doesn't destort visuals but our change of perspective by change in viewing distance does change and its only that with cameras and lenses we are able to get a proper distinguishable image for insoect this result closer. Am not sure how successful i can be in conveying whats in my head here, especially sisnce am not a native english speaker. For example consider two perspectives- 1) you are standing very very close to someone and your eyeball is inches close to their nose. Take a moment and look around their face, position of eyes, nose, ears etc without moving your eye position. You can see that their nose looks soo big and you probably couldn't see their eaes fully. We unfortunataly cant put all the total view into one single view. Put a theoretical camera at the same position with a theoretical extrwm wide angle lens. And the image you can capture will be almost same as the view you saw before with your own eyes. Does that mean just like the wide angle lens your eyes distorted tge vision? We doesn't notice the distortion in pther normal situation. Right? Similarly wide angle lenses doesn't distort a landscape image. Because in 'normal sistuations' we doesn't place our eyes in extreme closeup distances of things. This extreme closeup perspective which seemingly a defect or distortion in our vision was always there. Put we didn't noticed it. Wide angle lenses have a wide field of view. If we want to take portrait of someone from head to hip with them, we have to stand close to them, bringing in perspective distortion. And in situation two- we are standing 20 meters away from someone. Look how we are seeing their face. Position of their eyes, ears, nose etc(especially the distance from ear to nose and how full visible the ears are compared to the first sistuation where you were inches close to the face.) You can see that its very different. You probably won't be able to tell that good because we can't zoom in like cameras to see the face enlarged for a good inspection, which is why may never notice this before ) if we want to capture the same head to hip portrait now again from the same position, we have to use a very long focal length and this can give the same view we saw with our own eyes(but with better resolution). In both situation ls the lens was just reprodusing the same view we saw of the face with our own eyes, but in better resolution and form where we can take a good look for inspection to compare the effects. In the second situation, if we were taking the photo with a wide angle lens with a extrem high resolution camera and we could crop the image to match the longer focal length image, we can see the face is exactly the same. Hense the focal length can't distort the face, only the perspective change brought by changing camera distance from subject to create similar framing can.
@@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!
You explained a complex subject in such a easy and understandable way that i tried to do the same in the last video I posted and I think you absolutely nailed it ! The anamorphic approach is new to me but i really liked the angle you explained and was pretty exciting to learn a lot in this video, thanks !!
What a Video!... I've been Working full time as a DOP for 6 Years now and when i saw this video i was ready to call BS...im now at the end of it and am properly humbled by my ignorance. From Medium Format to Anamorphic i praised the "Lens Compression" to everyone and tried to highlight the importance of "compression". Little did I know how little i really understood. Your explanation certainly took a while to click and some help from chatgpt till i fully understood but it adds up. No my question is just...where are all the big sensors? Is it really that difficult to build these big sensors? (As far a I know only Phase one iQ4 has anywhere close to 50mm.) Anyway thanks a lot for this Video!
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.
Dude, just discovered your chanel, and this is my 2nd video watching(1st one was the "secret" amnamorphci) and I just want to say that I fucking love it!. This is the exact content i like and you are delivering it to my hearts liking. Even though the information here is not new, it's so funny that the compression this I figured out muyself when I had to fake a vertigo effect(same as youu show) and I was thinking, I must be getting something incorect, becase everyone talks abotu compression. Also on the lenses equivalence, for me using the Magic Lantern helped me a lot simply because it forced me to do calculation with all kind of weird lenses, and because the sense would have all kinds of weird cropps.
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.
I love 40mm on full frame sensors, but get whatever is the best image wide open (or don’t). Either way, share it! Thanks for preaching about the folly of lens compression. Too many people don’t understand that distance dictates the image.
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."
The entire film was shot on the Arri Signature Primes, which are made in conjunction with Zeiss. EDIT: according to CineD, it was mostly the 40mm as you say. The 47mm was used for a river sequence, and 35mm for a bunker sequence. Thanks!
@@nick_salazar In this video on the 2:15 mark your specifically said “1917” was shot ENTIRELY on 40mm on full frame. HOWEVER Roger Deakins in an Interview with Arri (on RUclips look up.. Arri Interview: The Immersive Camera Movement of “1917”) Roger clearly stated with his own mouth that 99% of the entire film was shot on a 40mm Signature Prime. He said they barely even used the 47mm or the 35mm. Next time you make a video just get your facts right.. because people believe the words you say.
Thanks for your thoughts here! I wonder if the way people use the term "Compression" is similar to how the term "Character" is used - as in, they are combining multiple technical terms into one word. I can even understand lens manufacturers using both of these terms with the public, because they're looking for a simple way to describe something very complicated. I typically think of Lens Compression as a combination of field of view, depth of field, perspective distortion, and distance to subject - specifically when the subject is kept the same size in the frame. In that instance, the background feels different (or is "compressed") with a 50mm lens than it does with a 100mm lens. So while there may not be an objective technical or physical "compression" to the background, I find that "Compression" is a solid simplifying term to describe the visual change of multiple complicated factors. Sure, it's not proper to use when diving as deep as you have been, but it's probably good enough for the layperson or novice.
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.
@@nick_salazar then the "compression" actually exists, no? maybe we stumbled upon the definition differently, but I agree with you and the poster; it's a combination of, at least, field of view and distance to subject or in your words, APPARENT distance of background relative to the foreground. as you just demonstrated at 5:20 with the dolly zoom. on a wide lens and camera close to subject (in this case water bottle), the foreground (smartphone) appear "stretched out" while the background seems "pushed away". while on 5:25 when the camera is farther from the subject and you use a "longer" lens, it changes the field of view and "compresses" the foreground and background relative to the subject. at least that's also how I understood and told about "lens compression". Or is there a more correct term to define this phenomenon?
The funny thing is that only photographers/ videographers have that warped way of thinking of "compression, perspective distortion, FOV, etc..." If you ask normal people who think of image recording as "viewing rays" similar to how ray tracing engines work, it becomes immediately clear that a single point in space can only have a single perspective and a single "compression" factor. And no matter what lens camera/ sensor/ capture format you put in that single point in space, it cannot change this perspective.
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.
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
@@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.
Unless you use an optic to concentrate the light from that large lens in the fullframe circle, the effect achieved if adapted is the opposite, the sensor will receive 10 times less light at that focal length and the focal length diameter ratio will not be 2.8, if not 9 times less, no more, it means that you will have approximately an F 18-22 transmission. In addition, the lens must be able to resolve 3 times more than a lens designed for fullframe for the size of that sensor if it comes to image quality.
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 like how you pointed out the often used anamorphic misinterpretation of width of the .. lens with the compression of a … focal length. Just wait until they find out anamorphic ovals aren’t elongated, but when compared to spherical, they are actually just slimmer. 😂 And for reference, I’m an avid anamorphic shooter and I love the look!
Yes exactly. I’ve thought about bringing that up (anamorphic lens ovals being slimmer than spherical lens circles), but some folks can’t even accept the truth about lenses they can verify for themselves! Imagine when I tell them that anamorphic aren’t quite the magic trick they had anticipated. They’ll raise the pitchforks against me.
I always tell people to stand a few meters away from a mirror, focus on their face and walk up to the mirror. If lens compression is real, the face stays the same the entire time in relation to the background, if it is the distance that makes a difference, the face and background will morph quite literally in front of their eyes. Now guess how that plays out! :D
Interesting rant. Thanks for sharing. The whole mess about lens properties and comparisons is silly but understandable: modern photography (99.99% digital cameras, including phones) is plagued by the complexity that used to be necessary with film. If there wasn't any ISO, f-numbers and focal lengths wouldn't be particularly useful concepts. Instead, we could talk about angle of view, aperture diameter, and image brightness (or even better, signal to noise ratio). From there, the answer to the question of equivalence would be trivial: 2 images are equivalent (same composition, DOF, noise, DR, etc) if they are shot with the same angle of view, same aperture diameter, same shutter speed, and same brightness compensation (assuming an appropriate image circle for the area of interest on the sensor).
Hi YT is not allowing me to answer your question! (Inline) - Not ignoring it... 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?
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.
I accidentally learned from the president of the Guild of cinematographers Ilya Viktorovich Demin that many films are already being shot in Russia on apollo. These lenses have won the competition with all kinds of cooke, which have accumulated a lot in rentals.
Yes, by the way, I specifically asked him which focal lengths would be better for filmmaking. The answer is the wider the better. He said that long 75mm does not make sense at all, they can be replaced with a spherical lens.
Hey, Nick. I’m confused about what you said at 2:04. The dimensions of 35mm film are 36x24mm. The dimensions of a full-frame sensor are 36x24mm. So there would be no difference in field of view between 35mm film and a full frame digital sensor. Right?
35mm film uses some of its dimension for gate perforations and the sound track. See en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_movie_film When people say “35mm film” they often mean the same thing as “Super 35” - although there are lots of different formats for that kind of film. See also en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_motion_picture_film_formats
40mm seems to be the perfect middle ground but that's unfortunate to hear about the drop in performance. What do you need to stop down to in order to get good performance. Honestly, I actually prefer 2.8/4 on anamorphic
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.
Pavo is a very different lens, aimed at a lower budget, with less expressive flares, and a bit less resolution. Apollo ... is something very different indeed. Stay tuned, I might have done something rash ;-)
Some sources would be nice because it's the first time I hear from someone tjat compression not existing. I would love to read more Information about the topic you get you Information from
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.
@@nick_salazar "Compression exists, but lenses are not responsible for it. It's only your distance to subject." I think this is a better sentence if you want to talk about this stuff. It's straight to the point and results in less confusion
Feels like you are nit picking here a bit. When people say that longer lenses compress the background they mean it based on the subject taking up the same space of the frame. It has less to do with your physical distance of the lens from the subject because that is determined by both wide and long focal length lenses capturing the subject at the same size in the composition. Meaning your longer lens will be a further distance away from the subject than the wider lens in order to position the subject at the same size in the composition which will give you a much more compressed look between the subject and background.
The reason I'm being particular here is that the knowledge is powerful. For one thing, it enables you to understand why my "zolly" shot with a prime lens works. Or why, for example, you could use a 50mm as a 100mm lens if your lens and camera each have enough resolution. Just cropping in will give you the EXACT same framing and compression as the longer lens, at the cost of a little bit deeper depth of field. Lenses do not compress. ONLY distance does.
I think you just got lost on semantic and forgot that to shoot a subject you chose first a framing If you want to frame say an actor to shoulder, face to camera, the choice of the focal lense will affect the distance to the subject. So yes chosing a 85mm will get more compression than a 35 for the same framing. You can't say "but at the same distance..." because you can always move the camera. The lens "compression" is the reason number one we chose a focal length : how much of the background we want to see around the subject.
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 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.
ruclips.net/video/3eKPZSUFQoQ/видео.html This is a scene from tinker tailor soldier spy where hoytema used a 2000mm lens to 'compress' the space. So that the plane seems like it has landed right next to them and is gonna run them over. Now by your logic, if I shoot on an 8 mm lens, I can crop in and get the same effect. But should I? 'Lens compression' is NOT a scientific term just like 3d pop and soap bubble bokeh. It can only be realised 'with respect to' the rest of the frame. Perspective is what defines it. Cropping in gets the same result yes, but THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT. People didnt design longer focal length for space compression. They did it to shoot stuff at a distance. And while doing that, they noticed this 'lens compression' "SIDE EFFECT" where it makes it seem like the mountains in the backdrop are at a touching distance. So a guy wanting to obtain a longer lens for that effect is completely valid. I wouldnt do it personally and I actually have been practicing this one lens method for some months now but that approach is not wrong.
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
Nick, distance does not create compression, field of view creates compression. OBVIOUSLY. If I have a 200mm lens and shoot at a huge distance, the compression is the same, whether it's 100 feet away or 1 foot away. Distance does not change the compression the lens creates! Cropping is not strictly the same as changing your field of view... BECAUSE THE BACKGROUND IS NOT COMPRESSED, YOUR SUBJECT IS SIMPLY PART OF THE BACKGROUND AT A LARGE DISTANCE... THEREFORE WHEN YOU CROP A SUBJECT SHOT FAR AWAY IT APPEARS CLOSE TO THE BACKGROUND BECAUSE ITS LITERALLY IN THE BACKGROUND. BUT YOU DONT GET SEPARATION SO... THATS WHY TELEPHOTO LENSES EXIST YA GOOF.
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*****.
If its not compression.. i want to explain to all the dumbass of me… how the background “stay the same” if i move away for the same field of view? If its’s not compression ❤
@@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?
This video and your fall off video are like those random courses colleges force you to take to graduate. Did you learn something? Maybe. Will it actually help you in your career? Unlikely.
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.
you have no idea what lens compression even is lol. You are talking about DoF, lens compression is how the ratios of closer/further object looks like, not how blurred it is. Some people have faces that preffer wider FL like 50-85 so that you compress their facial features less, while others have faces that benefit from making the distance between nose and ears smaller by using 135 or 200mm.
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
ah yes......a 24mm and a 600mm with the same relative framing will have the exact same background.....lmao. Lens compression absolutely exists, you just left out the necessary LONG distances necessary to demonstrate it. Why you lyin?
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.
@@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.
Great explanation! I have one question: When you showed the example of the 200mm compared to the 70mm cropped to 200mm, the background had more blur. What is the term to describe that effect? I thought that was what lens compression was. Could that also be what the lens manufacturer was referring to when talking about the anamorphic lens?
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
Actually love this video! Don’t agree with most of it but like how it’s brought me back to the math of photography.
I tend to shoot 85 to 135 as I like how the compression allows me to Take advantage of the distance between objects in the background and their relative size in comparison to each other.
To keep it simple the compression effect tends to make the background look flat and subjects closer seem more 3D.
You have your studio lit with blue tones it helps create depth in what would otherwise be a flat image due to the compression.
Brilliant video I take my hate off to you! It’s so easy to get caught up in gear that’s new that we forget what it is we want to achieve. Analysis of lenses and the effects they have is under rated! This video re awoke that in me.
Great video, Nick. You wouldn't believe how many arguments I've gotten in - including many on those amazing Facebook groups - about compression not being a thing. It's the distance to subject and nothing more (though obviously focal length and f-stop affect depth of field). It's also one reason I think it's so funny when these world-class DPs talk about how larger sensors render differently (they don't). Only exception, of course, being that it's virtually impossible to achieve the same shallow depth of field on, say, 16mm or M4/3 that you can on a full-frame sensor. But that has nothing to do with the actual "rendering" of the sensor.
Exactly right. It turns out some of the great artists in this field are not always the best technicians. And vice versa. Often the best DP’s do have a very good technical understanding of how things work, but no one knows everything. Especially me! I’m wrong a lot, and I try really hard to always keep learning.
You’re someone on RUclips who actually understands the science behind optics.
- Compression is a myth (it’s actually distance to subject)
- Crop factor doesn’t change a lens (50mm is 50mm no matter what)
- Desqueeze does not change optical field of view (compression is still a myth even on anamorphic)
Great video and explanation.
You got it! Many others do not, and really want to argue with me about it, haha. Thanks for the kind words.
This really pissed me off when I was looking into gfx gear. People telling me "you'll get the compression of 110mm but you get more fov. Bruh. The 50 anamorphic has the same fov as a 25mm cropped in half. Compression just depends how you set up your shot. Great explanation. Small correction: fov on different sensor sizes and equivalent focal lengths isn't exactly the same; only on a perfect lens (with a single point where light rays are compressed, like a single element). In practice there is a minute difference in perspective, which is particularily noticeable on wider lenses.
The points you have made is absolutely right. Am an amateur hobbyist photographer and i couldn't make sense of what people are saying about focal length changing background compression. My thinking process and experiments always gave me the same conclusion as you made here. And i also believe focal legth doesn't destort visuals but our change of perspective by change in viewing distance does change and its only that with cameras and lenses we are able to get a proper distinguishable image for insoect this result closer. Am not sure how successful i can be in conveying whats in my head here, especially sisnce am not a native english speaker. For example consider two perspectives- 1) you are standing very very close to someone and your eyeball is inches close to their nose. Take a moment and look around their face, position of eyes, nose, ears etc without moving your eye position. You can see that their nose looks soo big and you probably couldn't see their eaes fully. We unfortunataly cant put all the total view into one single view. Put a theoretical camera at the same position with a theoretical extrwm wide angle lens. And the image you can capture will be almost same as the view you saw before with your own eyes. Does that mean just like the wide angle lens your eyes distorted tge vision? We doesn't notice the distortion in pther normal situation. Right? Similarly wide angle lenses doesn't distort a landscape image. Because in 'normal sistuations' we doesn't place our eyes in extreme closeup distances of things. This extreme closeup perspective which seemingly a defect or distortion in our vision was always there. Put we didn't noticed it. Wide angle lenses have a wide field of view. If we want to take portrait of someone from head to hip with them, we have to stand close to them, bringing in perspective distortion.
And in situation two- we are standing 20 meters away from someone. Look how we are seeing their face. Position of their eyes, ears, nose etc(especially the distance from ear to nose and how full visible the ears are compared to the first sistuation where you were inches close to the face.) You can see that its very different. You probably won't be able to tell that good because we can't zoom in like cameras to see the face enlarged for a good inspection, which is why may never notice this before ) if we want to capture the same head to hip portrait now again from the same position, we have to use a very long focal length and this can give the same view we saw with our own eyes(but with better resolution).
In both situation ls the lens was just reprodusing the same view we saw of the face with our own eyes, but in better resolution and form where we can take a good look for inspection to compare the effects.
In the second situation, if we were taking the photo with a wide angle lens with a extrem high resolution camera and we could crop the image to match the longer focal length image, we can see the face is exactly the same. Hense the focal length can't distort the face, only the perspective change brought by changing camera distance from subject to create similar framing can.
This is great info! I love these rants, I learn so much! Thank you, yet again!
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!
I like the dolly crop demo. i hadnt thought about that before. will definitely be trying that out, neat stuff!
Thank you!
OMG I never thought about doing a dolly zoom like that! Cheers!
You explained a complex subject in such a easy and understandable way that i tried to do the same in the last video I posted and I think you absolutely nailed it ! The anamorphic approach is new to me but i really liked the angle you explained and was pretty exciting to learn a lot in this video, thanks !!
Thank you so much! I’m so glad it was helpful to you!
What a Video!... I've been Working full time as a DOP for 6 Years now and when i saw this video i was ready to call BS...im now at the end of it and am properly humbled by my ignorance.
From Medium Format to Anamorphic i praised the "Lens Compression" to everyone and tried to highlight the importance of "compression".
Little did I know how little i really understood. Your explanation certainly took a while to click and some help from chatgpt till i fully understood but it adds up.
No my question is just...where are all the big sensors?
Is it really that difficult to build these big sensors? (As far a I know only Phase one iQ4 has anywhere close to 50mm.)
Anyway thanks a lot for this Video!
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.
Dude, just discovered your chanel, and this is my 2nd video watching(1st one was the "secret" amnamorphci) and I just want to say that I fucking love it!. This is the exact content i like and you are delivering it to my hearts liking.
Even though the information here is not new, it's so funny that the compression this I figured out muyself when I had to fake a vertigo effect(same as youu show) and I was thinking, I must be getting something incorect, becase everyone talks abotu compression.
Also on the lenses equivalence, for me using the Magic Lantern helped me a lot simply because it forced me to do calculation with all kind of weird lenses, and because the sense would have all kinds of weird cropps.
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.
I love 40mm on full frame sensors, but get whatever is the best image wide open (or don’t). Either way, share it! Thanks for preaching about the folly of lens compression. Too many people don’t understand that distance dictates the image.
Wow you make a great point about distance vs focal length misconception. Best explanation I heard about this subject so far!
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."
Excellent! thks for the knowledge. 🙏
Thanks for watching!
1917 was shot on a Zeiss 40mm Prime.. as Roger Deakins has spoke about in interviews
The entire film was shot on the Arri Signature Primes, which are made in conjunction with Zeiss. EDIT: according to CineD, it was mostly the 40mm as you say. The 47mm was used for a river sequence, and 35mm for a bunker sequence. Thanks!
@@nick_salazar In this video on the 2:15 mark your specifically said “1917” was shot ENTIRELY on 40mm on full frame. HOWEVER Roger Deakins in an Interview with Arri (on RUclips look up.. Arri Interview: The Immersive Camera Movement of “1917”) Roger clearly stated with his own mouth that 99% of the entire film was shot on a 40mm Signature Prime.
He said they barely even used the 47mm or the 35mm.
Next time you make a video just get your facts right.. because people believe the words you say.
Thanks for your thoughts here! I wonder if the way people use the term "Compression" is similar to how the term "Character" is used - as in, they are combining multiple technical terms into one word. I can even understand lens manufacturers using both of these terms with the public, because they're looking for a simple way to describe something very complicated.
I typically think of Lens Compression as a combination of field of view, depth of field, perspective distortion, and distance to subject - specifically when the subject is kept the same size in the frame. In that instance, the background feels different (or is "compressed") with a 50mm lens than it does with a 100mm lens. So while there may not be an objective technical or physical "compression" to the background, I find that "Compression" is a solid simplifying term to describe the visual change of multiple complicated factors. Sure, it's not proper to use when diving as deep as you have been, but it's probably good enough for the layperson or novice.
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.
@@nick_salazar then the "compression" actually exists, no? maybe we stumbled upon the definition differently, but I agree with you and the poster; it's a combination of, at least, field of view and distance to subject or in your words, APPARENT distance of background relative to the foreground.
as you just demonstrated at 5:20 with the dolly zoom. on a wide lens and camera close to subject (in this case water bottle), the foreground (smartphone) appear "stretched out" while the background seems "pushed away". while on 5:25 when the camera is farther from the subject and you use a "longer" lens, it changes the field of view and "compresses" the foreground and background relative to the subject.
at least that's also how I understood and told about "lens compression". Or is there a more correct term to define this phenomenon?
Background compression does exist. But lenses don’t cause it. Distance does.
The funny thing is that only photographers/ videographers have that warped way of thinking of "compression, perspective distortion, FOV, etc..." If you ask normal people who think of image recording as "viewing rays" similar to how ray tracing engines work, it becomes immediately clear that a single point in space can only have a single perspective and a single "compression" factor. And no matter what lens camera/ sensor/ capture format you put in that single point in space, it cannot change this perspective.
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.
Wider field of view would make for a more versatile lens. Imho 75mm would be quite limiting for narrative or documentary style photography
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.
Unless you use an optic to concentrate the light from that large lens in the fullframe circle, the effect achieved if adapted is the opposite, the sensor will receive 10 times less light at that focal length and the focal length diameter ratio will not be 2.8, if not 9 times less, no more, it means that you will have approximately an F 18-22 transmission. In addition, the lens must be able to resolve 3 times more than a lens designed for fullframe for the size of that sensor if it comes to image quality.
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 like how you pointed out the often used anamorphic misinterpretation of width of the .. lens with the compression of a … focal length. Just wait until they find out anamorphic ovals aren’t elongated, but when compared to spherical, they are actually just slimmer. 😂 And for reference, I’m an avid anamorphic shooter and I love the look!
Yes exactly. I’ve thought about bringing that up (anamorphic lens ovals being slimmer than spherical lens circles), but some folks can’t even accept the truth about lenses they can verify for themselves! Imagine when I tell them that anamorphic aren’t quite the magic trick they had anticipated. They’ll raise the pitchforks against me.
@@nick_salazar #cancelculture 🤣
I always tell people to stand a few meters away from a mirror, focus on their face and walk up to the mirror. If lens compression is real, the face stays the same the entire time in relation to the background, if it is the distance that makes a difference, the face and background will morph quite literally in front of their eyes. Now guess how that plays out! :D
Interesting rant. Thanks for sharing. The whole mess about lens properties and comparisons is silly but understandable: modern photography (99.99% digital cameras, including phones) is plagued by the complexity that used to be necessary with film. If there wasn't any ISO, f-numbers and focal lengths wouldn't be particularly useful concepts. Instead, we could talk about angle of view, aperture diameter, and image brightness (or even better, signal to noise ratio). From there, the answer to the question of equivalence would be trivial: 2 images are equivalent (same composition, DOF, noise, DR, etc) if they are shot with the same angle of view, same aperture diameter, same shutter speed, and same brightness compensation (assuming an appropriate image circle for the area of interest on the sensor).
So in theory you could achieve the same image on a full frame camera with the 300mm f2.8 if you shoot a massive panorama and stitch it up in post?
Yes. That is sometimes called the “Brenizer method” and is worth looking up if you’re interested.
@@nick_salazar Yeah, the wedding photographer. I used to do this technique on landscapes back in 2017 with my old trusty Gigapan Epic Robot ☺️
Yeah but you can’t use that technique for video or for anything that’s remotely mobile. :-)
@@nick_salazarhaha, true 😁
Hi YT is not allowing me to answer your question! (Inline) - Not ignoring it...
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?
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
I accidentally learned from the president of the Guild of cinematographers Ilya Viktorovich Demin that many films are already being shot in Russia on apollo. These lenses have won the competition with all kinds of cooke, which have accumulated a lot in rentals.
Yes, by the way, I specifically asked him which focal lengths would be better for filmmaking. The answer is the wider the better. He said that long 75mm does not make sense at all, they can be replaced with a spherical lens.
Hey, Nick. I’m confused about what you said at 2:04.
The dimensions of 35mm film are 36x24mm. The dimensions of a full-frame sensor are 36x24mm. So there would be no difference in field of view between 35mm film and a full frame digital sensor. Right?
35mm film uses some of its dimension for gate perforations and the sound track. See en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_movie_film
When people say “35mm film” they often mean the same thing as “Super 35” - although there are lots of different formats for that kind of film. See also en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_motion_picture_film_formats
Unreal
@@nick_salazar thanks for the info
So the layman's perception that a longer lens kind of "crops in" your view is factually accurate
Exactly. It also makes depth of field shallower for an equivalent aperture.
My body rejects that title "ef zero camera". I get a computing error each time you say it.
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.
40mm seems to be the perfect middle ground but that's unfortunate to hear about the drop in performance. What do you need to stop down to in order to get good performance. Honestly, I actually prefer 2.8/4 on anamorphic
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.
I love your videos dude!
Thank you Lake!
apollo 40mm vs dzo pavo 40mm?
Pavo is a very different lens, aimed at a lower budget, with less expressive flares, and a bit less resolution. Apollo ... is something very different indeed. Stay tuned, I might have done something rash ;-)
Some sources would be nice because it's the first time I hear from someone tjat compression not existing. I would love to read more Information about the topic you get you Information from
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
@@nick_salazar "Compression exists, but lenses are not responsible for it. It's only your distance to subject." I think this is a better sentence if you want to talk about this stuff. It's straight to the point and results in less confusion
Using anamorphic on Sony is absolutely silly because they don’t shoot open gate so you just end up cropping and cropping.
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.
Your example of zooming and background, cropping no etc did nothing to win over the other camp 😂😂😂
Yeah apparently not!
Feels like you are nit picking here a bit.
When people say that longer lenses compress the background they mean it based on the subject taking up the same space of the frame.
It has less to do with your physical distance of the lens from the subject because that is determined by both wide and long focal length lenses capturing the subject at the same size in the composition. Meaning your longer lens will be a further distance away from the subject than the wider lens in order to position the subject at the same size in the composition which will give you a much more compressed look between the subject and background.
The reason I'm being particular here is that the knowledge is powerful. For one thing, it enables you to understand why my "zolly" shot with a prime lens works. Or why, for example, you could use a 50mm as a 100mm lens if your lens and camera each have enough resolution. Just cropping in will give you the EXACT same framing and compression as the longer lens, at the cost of a little bit deeper depth of field. Lenses do not compress. ONLY distance does.
This is Genius.
so you are telling me perspective matters?!?
I think you just got lost on semantic and forgot that to shoot a subject you chose first a framing
If you want to frame say an actor to shoulder, face to camera, the choice of the focal lense will affect the distance to the subject. So yes chosing a 85mm will get more compression than a 35 for the same framing. You can't say "but at the same distance..." because you can always move the camera. The lens "compression" is the reason number one we chose a focal length : how much of the background we want to see around the subject.
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 have never understood“lense compression”. It makes absolutely zero sense.
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.
@@nick_salazar you just said it. this reply right here is all that is needed
ruclips.net/video/3eKPZSUFQoQ/видео.html
This is a scene from tinker tailor soldier spy where hoytema used a 2000mm lens to 'compress' the space. So that the plane seems like it has landed right next to them and is gonna run them over. Now by your logic, if I shoot on an 8 mm lens, I can crop in and get the same effect. But should I? 'Lens compression' is NOT a scientific term just like 3d pop and soap bubble bokeh. It can only be realised 'with respect to' the rest of the frame. Perspective is what defines it. Cropping in gets the same result yes, but THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT. People didnt design longer focal length for space compression. They did it to shoot stuff at a distance. And while doing that, they noticed this 'lens compression' "SIDE EFFECT" where it makes it seem like the mountains in the backdrop are at a touching distance. So a guy wanting to obtain a longer lens for that effect is completely valid. I wouldnt do it personally and I actually have been practicing this one lens method for some months now but that approach is not wrong.
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
Nick, distance does not create compression, field of view creates compression. OBVIOUSLY. If I have a 200mm lens and shoot at a huge distance, the compression is the same, whether it's 100 feet away or 1 foot away. Distance does not change the compression the lens creates! Cropping is not strictly the same as changing your field of view... BECAUSE THE BACKGROUND IS NOT COMPRESSED, YOUR SUBJECT IS SIMPLY PART OF THE BACKGROUND AT A LARGE DISTANCE... THEREFORE WHEN YOU CROP A SUBJECT SHOT FAR AWAY IT APPEARS CLOSE TO THE BACKGROUND BECAUSE ITS LITERALLY IN THE BACKGROUND. BUT YOU DONT GET SEPARATION SO... THATS WHY TELEPHOTO LENSES EXIST YA GOOF.
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*****.
If its not compression.. i want to explain to all the dumbass of me… how the background “stay the same” if i move away for the same field of view? If its’s not compression ❤
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?
This video and your fall off video are like those random courses colleges force you to take to graduate. Did you learn something? Maybe. Will it actually help you in your career? Unlikely.
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.
you have no idea what lens compression even is lol. You are talking about DoF, lens compression is how the ratios of closer/further object looks like, not how blurred it is. Some people have faces that preffer wider FL like 50-85 so that you compress their facial features less, while others have faces that benefit from making the distance between nose and ears smaller by using 135 or 200mm.
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.
ah yes......a 24mm and a 600mm with the same relative framing will have the exact same background.....lmao. Lens compression absolutely exists, you just left out the necessary LONG distances necessary to demonstrate it. Why you lyin?
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.