i freaking spent thousands of dollars at institutes and they could not teach me any of this properly, you teach everything millions time better and also for free !!! love your videos man, keep it up :)

@SchardtCinematic

8 жыл бұрын

Even if I could afford to go to film school I would probably fail. I have always been a slow learner. So I've always taught myself or if someone could teach me hands on. I could understand stuff faster. With John's teachings. I maybe have to watch his video maybe 3 times and I understand what he is saying. I love it.

@gabrieltonatiuandrade8941

6 жыл бұрын

This is so true. I've been studying film production for 3 years now and nobody ever explained to me this so didactically.

@abhishekpahal1803

4 жыл бұрын

Photoshop Tutorials | Photo effects impactguru.com/s/uxZ0zQ support us donate

@dipaldesai6956

4 жыл бұрын

This is because this person is a true TUTOR and a true TUTOR teaches everything keeping in mind Education as a Mission and Not as a Business

@dogeongreenscreen

Жыл бұрын

yikes

This is one of those videos i regularly come back to watch...

Nicely done! I'm glad to see these concepts are becoming more widely accepted! Even just a year ago, this was a really controversial topic. I'm constantly switching between 35mm, Super-35, MFT, and BlackMagic's mini-MFT sensor sizes for video, and this math has been critical to choosing the right lenses and settings for different scenes.

@FilmmakerIQ

8 жыл бұрын

Hi Tony! Your video changed how I perceived sensors size in relation to DoF. I really had to work hard to wrap my mind around it with physical experiments. There was a lot of myths that I needed to let go and at first I was hesitant to discuss this topic because of the confusion it can cause. But after I dug deep enough, I felt I could explain it my own way. Anyhow, Thanks for having the courage to stand up against an often ornerly photography crowd on this subject :)

@omarquintana3481

6 жыл бұрын

Tony & Chelsea Northrup i am confused here, please some assistance: 2x crop factor on focal length for a 50mm 100 (2x 50); 2x ISO is ISOxcrop factor^2... ISO 160 x (4) 640. But... what about of 2x aperture for f/4 is f/8 (2x8) or f/5.6 (as 2x(f/4)=f/5.6).

@FilmmakerIQ

6 жыл бұрын

It's a straight multiplication, not taking in consideration of stops. So 2*f/4 is f/8

@omarquintana3481

6 жыл бұрын

mr john: i really really appreciate your fast answer. So the four cases ( focal, focus, aperture and iso^2] are straight multiplication

@FilmmakerIQ

6 жыл бұрын

Focus does not change. Remember these are equivalents... What would be the equivalent on a full frame sensor.

As usual, fantastic stuff. Personally, I love the in-depth coverage - sent many a person over here when they have questions. Thank you.

@abhishekpahal1803

4 жыл бұрын

Kevin - The Basic Filmmaker impactguru.com/s/uxZ0zQ support us donate

This was BRILLIANT... your demonstrations and re-wording of the concepts in multiple ways makes the concepts more easily accessible to everyone. This is quickly becoming a favourite channel--thank you so much for taking the time to do this!!!!!

"I can see clearly now" ...... Thank you Mr Hess for this sweet video! I love the work done on this channel!

All your content is superb, but you went to even greater heights with this one.

I'm so happy every time you upload a video that I thumbs up it within the first couple of seconds.

This type of videos are like The Bif Short of Internet. You don't understand the details, but you understand the big picture, and that's the most important thing and the most difficult thing to explain. Well Done Filmmaker IQ.

Brilliant! Kubrick would be proud. He was obsessed with tack sharp images.

Your method of teaching is insanely solid John! I think im going to use your stuff to start off some ACs!

You truly are the master of the photographic math!!! I really enjoy your show, as there isn't anyone else out there (that I am aware of) who explains the math and logic behind all the aspects of photography that well!! Keep it up!!

I bought my 5D mark III because I was used to my 50mm lens being 50mm not 80mm. Although I like using my T3i to get that extra reach with my 300mm zoom lens once and awhile. This is one of my favorite videos you have done John. I understood depth of field from my 35mm photography days. But had trouble understanding it with my APS-C sensor on my T3i. You really brought it to life for me on seeing the difference now and I will be better at using both cameras more creatively now.

Thank you for these videos! They made me see the process of 'taking a picture' in a whole different perspective. Keep doing these videos! :)

Your videos are amazing and every photographer should watch them!! Wonderful explanation!! :)

Thank you! After all these years... I never realized that crop factor effects *everything*, not just "equivalent" focal length.

This is seriously the best video on DOF and sensor size in the world.

Your videos are amazingly interesting. Even the CGI videos which I probably master more than you do are absolutely brillantly explained and accurate. Well done

Thank you so much again. Best on KZread truly.

Great explanations of very complex subjects. Very well done!

Just fantastic video, explaining this whole concept with good examples.

YES!!! FInally a video where it is said that smaller sensors give actually a shallower DOF, if all the other variables are the same!!!! FINALLY!!!!

@storysupport

5 жыл бұрын

That's not correct because the scene composition is the most important variable. The field of view is the most important factor because the entire point is to create and image of a given THING. The field of view can't possibly be the same if the other factors are. Think about it, when using a camera, its to photograph something, right? The subject is the reason for the photo, not the camera's settings. If the field of view is different, then that "something" is not the same. Therefore, for a given field of view (with matching, lens, aperture and ISO) the larger sensor will have a shallower depth of field. He says this at 15:48

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

Yes it is... it is an apples to apples comparison. it's just different which apples you want to compare.

@storysupport

5 жыл бұрын

@@FilmmakerIQ You may be responding to an incomplete comment. You wouldn't mind looking at what I wrote above and confirming if we have the same understanding, would you?

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

KZread is so screwy it's only showing me the most recent comments. It's not even showing your earlier comment. Basically everything in the video is correct. Same focal length same aperture... the smaller Sensor will have a shallower DoF AND a smaller FoV

@storysupport

5 жыл бұрын

It is @@FilmmakerIQ. I was speaking to what the commenter mentioned saying that for a given field of view (with matching, lens, aperture and ISO) the larger sensor will have a shallower depth of field as you mentioned at 15:48 or so. I just recently came across your page. These concepts are explained pretty well.

Excellent again! Familiar stuff, but great demonstrations! Thank you

Filmmaker IQ is always solid content! Thanks John :) The whole depth of field discussions will never stop. There are 2 ways to compare it both are right both are opposite :)

@FilmmakerIQ

8 жыл бұрын

+victorbart Not sure what the other way is, but this is the right way :P

@zukaka84

8 жыл бұрын

+Filmmaker IQ I am still confused. I don't understand how the depth of field calculated from the pixel size is related to the depth of field coming from the blurred back lights (or so called bokeh).

@FilmmakerIQ

8 жыл бұрын

Go back to the animation of the single point of light. If the point is in focus (6:08), it will be a point in the final image... Once it goes out of focus, it becomes a ball of light... Just like bokeh... The bigger the spot, the more out of focus it is.

@zukaka84

8 жыл бұрын

+Filmmaker IQ This is clear. But my confusion starts at 13:50 when you talk about bokeh of out of focus lights. Their sizes will not depend on the pixel size, they will depend only on lens focal distance and aperture. So everything you say after 13:50 using crop factor, focal length, field of view and aperture is clear but I cannot relate it to the pixel size and circle of confusion. Let's say we have 2 full frame sensors, one with 12mp and another with 48mp resolutions. If we use the same lens with same focal length and aperture settings we will get two pictures with identical bokeh even though 48mp sensor has the shallower depth of field.

@FilmmakerIQ

8 жыл бұрын

+Zuriah Heep The problem with your paradox is you're comparing apples to oranges ;) Two prints - one from a 12MP one from a 50MP camera, identical dimensions. They look identical right? What's the difference between the two? The Pixel Density. The pixels are much smaller on the 50MP than they are on the 12MP. But that's cheating ;) What happens when you match the pixel density - so that each pixel from the 12MP camera is exactly the same as the 50MP camera? Now the 50MP print will be much larger - about 2x larger. If you compare pixel to pixel, bokeh on the 50MP will be 2x bigger than the bokeh of the 12MP camera! That sounds stupid... but follow me here ;) This is exactly what's happening when we enlarge the image from a crop sensor. If we were to print out an 8x10 from a 12MP FF and a 8x10 from a 12MP crop sensor - we would have to enlarge each pixel of the Crop sensor so that they'e the identical size to the FF. And if we enlarge the image - the bokeh blooms will enlarge as well. :) Bokeh is affected by focus distance, aperture, AND the size of the sensor. Now to come back to try to explain why two images from the same FF sensor have the same bokeh even though _theoretically_ the higher MP count has a shallower depth of field. I may have been a bit quick to tie resolution to circle of confusion - there is obviously a link. But Circle of Confusion isn't defined by pixel size, it's defined as CoC (mm) = viewing distance (cm) / desired *final-image* resolution (lp/mm) for a 25 cm viewing distance / enlargement / 25 In the case of Full Frame they use d/1500 (d=diagonal of the lens) as short hand giving us 0.029mm as the CoC. Rough math puts a 12MP pixel at around 0.008mm and 50MP at 0.004mm - both of them are well below the CoC using d/1500 standard. Using that standard the 12MP and the 50MP FF sensors have identical DoF because both pixels are _smaller_ than the CoC. But if we continue to enlarge the image (the third variable in the CoC equation)- the CoC will get smaller and smaller. It's only when we enlarge the image so much that our CoC is inbetween 0.008mm and 0.004mm that we can start to say that that the 50MP FF sensor is shallower than the 12MP FF sensor. Until then, as long as the CoC is bigger than the pixel size, both cameras have identical Depth of Field.

Thank You, Sir,,, I would say This is one of The most informative and well-presented videos I have seen...

excellent examples and explanations! Congratulations for your work!

You are magnificent, I've been so confused about focus vs depth of field for so long

Nice work!!! The experiments are super interesting and show perfectly what you want to tell!!

I'm definitely going to have to watch these videos on lenses and sensors a few times before I fully understand them but these are really helpful. thx.

Another great video! This one had to take a while to make! Thanks!

Finally somebody who knows and explains the subject very well not is not from the manufacturer side(who wants to market us).

John, Once again your wealth of knowledge and the way you breakdown everything is by far one of the best I have ever seen. Thank you so much I love your classes, truely educational. BTW where did you find the cartoon b-roll at 10:44 that is hilarious!!!! LOLz

This is great! The visuals are a big help (cameraman banging his head on the keyboard was hilarious) Thanks!

I Salute you! I honor and respect you and all you have gone through to get you to your levels of intelligence, wisdom and skillfulness in communicating (teaching) so effectively. I am new to photography and self taught. I did not know what I did not know. Inasmuch I remained niggled by a prompt to remove this ignorance of the physics you so eloquently explained / demonstrated. I now know what I do not know. I will avail myself of your body of work. Thank you!!!

Perfect explanation! :)

What an excellent and informative video -really well spoken and laid out. I found this interesting and incredibly useful as someone who is moving from using only 120 & 35mm to 4x5 film. Your examples are grounded in digital sensors but everything is totally applicable comparing film formats as well (except for pixels vs grain). Great instruction, thank you for including the math.

@FilmmakerIQ

4 жыл бұрын

I've started to shoot 4x5 and it's so fun but intimidating

@mgamm1

4 жыл бұрын

@@FilmmakerIQ Yeah I think there are a lot of things that can go wrong! I have ordered an intrepid camera system with all the bells and whistles including the enlarger. I think the key with 4x5 is to plan how you are going to use the camera, write down all the steps and absolutely never rush. I am pretty careful and meticulous, but we will have to see how quickly I make my first mistake and toast some expensive film :) ** also if you are getting into 4x5, I highly recommend looking into Caffenol-C-L development if you haven't already. It's quite a game changer, and now how I exclusively am developing any BW film at home.

And this concludes as the only valid demonstration of DoF, focal length and crop factor hysteria on YT. Thank you for a coherent and scientific explanation!

Thank you so much for making these videos mate. They are incredibly insightful and they make me better at my job ;)

Bloody awesome series, I hope you're getting some rep out of all this hard work

i got many many many thing to learn in this video. it was a full of information and this video clears my lots of confusions. thank you so much sir i just love the way you describe.

Always informative and entertaining! This is the only channel I watch long videos on YT. BTW, I still believe Mr. Grady was the real caretaker. :)

@stefanosk27

8 жыл бұрын

+DAVIDSDIEGO He's always been the caretaker..

Hi John, I love this video, finally someone explained this so clearly and with plenty of evidence. I just wonder if you would expand the topic at the end of the video a bit, which is about different sensor sizes have different looks, I'd love to see if you could make a comparison between the look of different sensor sizes AND analyze them through a scientific way, for example IMAX, Alexa 65, Alexa LF, Super 35, and Super 16 etc.

John, you are awesome man!!! Thanks very so much for these lectures!

Have just watched 10 seconds and already know it's gonna be something great! ;)

I wish I had stumpled upon this video (and channel) in 2016. Thank you sir! Very plain language, beautiful demonstrations 😊

Great content!! Tnks for all the support for the photography community!!

Ironically this is the first tutorial you've ever made which is out of focus. ;-)

@meta1884

8 жыл бұрын

+Symon Says TV I noticed that too, glad to know it wasn't just me. I wholeheartedly believe he did it on purpose.

@deBurrows

6 жыл бұрын

same here, hope this was on purpose.

@motogee3796

5 жыл бұрын

its the nature of the subject material...circle of confusion

Thanks, John. Brilliant videos.

NIce Shining reference on the sample photo.

Best explanation for this subject ever!!!👍👍👍

Your last point is the best summary. It is not about the sensor size, it is how you shoot.

I have already praised this video. But I feel I need to again, I just had to share it to a few individuals that were arguing with me on the DOF sensor size issue. Your video explains it really well and helped me make my point perfectly.

@FilmmakerIQ

8 жыл бұрын

+biscuitsalive I was afraid to tackle this subject about a year ago because there was a point in my life where I would have been arguing with you on this matter. I had to make sure I was armed mentally for what this subject meant and how to explain it. This video has been one of the more controversial ones for sure. Thank you for sharing!!

@biscuitsalive

8 жыл бұрын

+Filmmaker IQ it's excellent! I occasionally make camera related videos. And if my videos were half as well thought out and delivered as yours I would be very happy indeed.

@biscuitsalive

8 жыл бұрын

+Filmmaker IQ can I get your opinion on something please? It may help settle an argument. I did a test video a couple of days ago. See "can you spot the camera sensor size from the shot" On my channel if you have time. Ok, so the point of contention is- the speedbooster is only changing the FOV allowing me to keep the same distance and framing. (Simulating a wider lens) (Others were arguing the booster was narrowing the DOF) But if you actually break it down. The booster is technically widening the "apparent" DOF. Just as it is widening the FOV. ( as the circle of confusion is reduced due to the widened FOV) The actual DOF of the lens is not changing. As I'm keeping the focal length. The distance. And the aperture the same throughout. Would you agree with my thinking here? Hopefully. Have been having a 3 hour argument over it. :D

@FilmmakerIQ

8 жыл бұрын

+biscuitsalive The technical name for a speedbooster is "Telecompressor" You're taking the image circle from the lens and making it smaller. So let's say you have a spot of light that's slightly larger than the sensor's Circle of Confusion. When we compress the image - we're make that spot of light smaller - therefore what was previously "slightly out of focus" will now be inside the tolerance for focus. Following that logic - the booster is widening the Depth of Field regardless of what sensor you use. What might be confusing is people would jump to the idea that a speedboster increases the fstop and therefore reduce the depth of field. The problem though is that ignores the relationship between the focal length and f-stop ratio. A speedbooster shortens the focal length but does not change the diameter of the aperture. So a 1.4x compressor would take a 50mm F4 down to a "real" 35mm F2.8 - it's no longer 50mm so you can't just look at the F4->F2.8 and make that conclusion. Actually if you look at depth of field charts - the depth of field widens exactly by the power of the compressor.

@biscuitsalive

8 жыл бұрын

+Filmmaker IQ great stuff. It seems I have the physics in my head working roughly ok now. But you explain things better than i can. (I'm a typical artist, visual based thinking, and can not write down my thoughts as well as I can draw them. :) ) So essentially the speed booster (metabones call it a "focal reducer" ) is widening the FOV, hence shortening the focal length. AND increasing the f stop due to how the maths works out with the new shorter FL. So in terms of apparent DOF on sensor, these two things cancel each other out don't they? So the "apparent" DOF we see in the captured the image remains the same. (As the shorter FL makes the COC smaller, but the new f stop also makes it wider... So the scales are balanced... No increase or decrease to the COC size) (Note- I realize the DOF of the actual lens does not change.) In which case the description of what the speed booster does on their site is very misleading, regarding allowing narrower DOF.

Man, your videos are just awesome! Thanks so much!

Your practical examples with the magnifying glass are just insane! Thanks a lot for the video, helped my life out, hahahaha

Great explanation, those examples really helped!

This is great! I've been seeking this kind of photography content.

Spot on facts, simply explained - You, Are, GREAT!!

This was super, thanks John.

Awesome knowledge! Really helped me a lot.

As always! awesome clip - liked

I really appreciate the experiments you set up, thanks! I also thought dynamic range as it relates to sensor pixel size would be good to mention in the context of what is covered in this video. Take the a7r, a7 and a7s for example. Each one has the same sensor size but a different pixel size. Would be interesting to compare the dynamic range of the three (or the circle of confusion)

Great explanation

Thank so much, this is the best explanation about lens !

Simply perfect lesson! Thank you)

Just amazing content again. Big THX.

Small correction: You can never get the same field of view by moving the APS-C camera back. You can match the framing on your subject, but the angle (field) of view stays the same so your foreground and background will be different (i.e. the perspective is different). The only way to match field of view is by using the equivalent focal length.

Another awesome video, thank you!:)

great info. best channel on YT. j.

Excellent video!Thank you!

great video! informative and well explained.

very nice lesson! Thanks, John.

I love these videos.

Great work, thanks!

Excellent explanation.

Thank you so much for this great video!

indeed a wonderful teacher, respect

Another perfect video. Thank you very much indeed.

Nice video, thanks for sharing!

Thank you for this site, it is great.

I always wanted to go to Film School, and this is the best option I can find! Thanks for the great videos! Have you ever thought about, (or done and I just missed it) a video on how they clean up footage? That process seems fascinating!

@FilmmakerIQ

8 жыл бұрын

+Jon Roop If you're asking about Color Grading - we do have a introduction to color in the digital realm: kzread.info/dash/bejne/qGuBxrKDoai1hZc.html

@roopjm

8 жыл бұрын

+Filmmaker IQ I mean more of cleaning up dirty film and making it look so crisp and clear

@FilmmakerIQ

8 жыл бұрын

Jon Roop Oh like Restoration? Yeah that's something we'd definitely to look at one of these days :)

@roopjm

8 жыл бұрын

+Filmmaker IQ Restoration maybe? I'm talking about dirty film that you sometimes see in Unused Footage / Deleted Scenes where there are the imperfections in the film, dirt, etc. It maybe covered in Color Grading, I'm watching that one again today :)

I won't go to film school. I just watch all your videos :)

Love it, another informative awesome video!

Thanks! Great explanation!

It's just perfect and what I was looking for, thank you so much!!!! =) BUT, one little point still needs to be cleared - perspective distortion in regard to the focal length, distance and crop factor for portrait shots e.g.

@FilmmakerIQ

6 жыл бұрын

Watch our forced perspective video for more on perspective distortion kzread.info/dash/bejne/oqBow8qYeNm9m8o.html

Best explanation ever!!!

Awesome....like every video!

I'm not even involved in filmmaking. I just watch this channel because the videos are extremely well made and entertaining

Your videos are truely fantastic! Not only can a b*tchslap my fellow photo-nerds with science (lol), I also learn more of the fascinating aspects of my beloved hobby. Thank you for your great work! Btw. Nice Shining-carpet ;D

excellent explanation

It was simply amazing sir.

Loving that Overlook Hotel carpet!

This is the first video I've seen of yours and it was so interesting! I know it's a little older at this point but very relevant as I just bought the Panasonic GH5. I'd love to see a video (maybe just a quick one) about how using lens adapters like the metabones affects the image, and how to calculate equivalency. (which I know you said not to worry about as much, but it helps when purchasing new gear and you're used to a different size sensor) I think you'd do a good job explaining it :)

@FilmmakerIQ

7 жыл бұрын

It's really simple with the telecompressors like the metabones. You just multiply the compression factor into the crop factor. So a 0.64 Metabones Speed booster would make your GH5 have a crop factor of 1.28 instead of 2.

@themustang181

7 жыл бұрын

Filmmaker IQ gotcha. One more question, for native MFT lenses, you double the aperture to find the full frame equivalent. When using say a canon EF lens and the adapter, does the same rule apply? That's more what I was getting at. Should have specified. Thanks for the reply though!

@FilmmakerIQ

7 жыл бұрын

+Tyler Penrod: the crop factor math applies regardless of what type of lens. A 50mm EF lens has the same magnifying power as a 50mm MFT lens. The only difference is how much sensor they are designed to cover. When using a telecompressor like the metabones, you would no longer double it but multiply it by 1.2 or 1.4 depending on which speed booster you get. You may also want to check out this video for more basics on lenses kzread.info/dash/bejne/dXt7t7p6fc_PobA.html

somebody give this man a tv show

I love your teaching

Nice and funny Shining reference! :)

awesome explanation again like your other videos....

I am still circling in confusion here although i do appreciate the time you took to explain this. Thanks a lot and will rewatch to try make it stick

Amazing!

Finally I came somewhat close to understanding this topic.

Love science - thanks John!