Full Frame v. Med. Format digital images side by side

[Soocom1]

At 1;39, they are talking about the f16. Carefully look at the image from the 35mm (r-h side) and then the image from the med. format. Dont focus on the truncation of the image, look at the triangle itself. It shows a more skewed image.

It shows that the two cameras were in different places taking the two photos from different points of view. They made no effort to set that up so the camera positions would be the same. It's also being done with digital images in which software processing to compensate for lens distortion is active. To claim any distortion variation due to aspect ratio you have to run a valid test. This isn't close to being such a test.

Joe

And you know that how?

 

[Derrel]

For a pragmaticaly oriented comparison of the difference between shooting medium format and full frame I remember pretty well-written article done by Internet photographer Ming Thein, and as I recall he was comparing The actual shooting experience using a medium format camera as opposed to using a full frame Nikon.

It has been two or three years at least, since I read that article. To briefly summarize, let me say that he found the speed and ease of shooting with a modern auto focus Nikon digital single lens reflex to outweigh The advantage of the medium format camera's somewhat larger capture area and more limited selection of lenses. Today most medium format camera's do not have more than a few lenses available, But the two leading single lens reflex makers each have about 70 Auto focus lenses available, And the cameras are relatively small and easy to operate, with really good automatic focusing, and lenses that can cover a wide, wide range of shooting environments, from nature to sports to weddings etc.

 

[Ysarex]

At 1;39, they are talking about the f16. Carefully look at the image from the 35mm (r-h side) and then the image from the med. format. Dont focus on the truncation of the image, look at the triangle itself. It shows a more skewed image.

It shows that the two cameras were in different places taking the two photos from different points of view. They made no effort to set that up so the camera positions would be the same. It's also being done with digital images in which software processing to compensate for lens distortion is active. To claim any distortion variation due to aspect ratio you have to run a valid test. This isn't close to being such a test.

Joe

And you know that how?

Shadow positions -- the medium format camera is higher than the FF camera -- enough to account for what you're calling aspect ratio distortion. As for software interference -- a more than a fair assumption.

Joe

P.S. Because the medium format camera was higher it was also likely tilted down more than the FF camera. Look at the bottom circle template in the medium format shot and how badly those circles are distorted. It must that medium format aspect ratio distortion we're seeing -- wow that's awful.

 

[smoke665]

At 1;39, they are talking about the f16. Carefully look at the image from the 35mm (r-h side) and then the image from the med. format. Dont focus on the truncation of the image, look at the triangle itself. It shows a more skewed image.

It shows that the two cameras were in different places taking the two photos from different points of view. They made no effort to set that up so the camera positions would be the same. It's also being done with digital images in which software processing to compensate for lens distortion is active. To claim any distortion variation due to aspect ratio you have to run a valid test. This isn't close to being such a test.

Joe

And you know that how?

And my question would be how do you know they were shot under identical circumstances/perspective?

 

[Soocom1]

Now for fairness and to further the point, I projected the images to as close to each other as I could get.

The image below you will see multiple target points. the attempt is to align as closely as possible the two images (which requires a fair amount of distortion) with a total Root Mean Square value (RMS) value of 5.98301.

 

[Soocom1]

AND I am willing to bet that is someone goes through the trouble of doing a heavily controlled alignment photo using a FF and MF or whatever combination, the same effect will occur.

 

[Ysarex]

Now for fairness and to further the point, I projected the images to as close to each other as I could get.

The image below you will see multiple target points. the attempt is to align as closely as possible the two images (which requires a fair amount of distortion) with a total Root Mean Square value (RMS) value of 5.98301.

Meaningless -- the two photos were taken from different positions. You want to do a controlled test then do one. What you have done here is worthless.

Joe

 

[Soocom1]

Now for fairness and to further the point, I projected the images to as close to each other as I could get.

The image below you will see multiple target points. the attempt is to align as closely as possible the two images (which requires a fair amount of distortion) with a total Root Mean Square value (RMS) value of 5.98301.

Meaningless -- the two photos were taken from different positions. You want to do a controlled test then do one. What you have done here is worthless.

Joe

No its not.
is comparing the reality that the images will be diff.

 

[Ysarex]

Now for fairness and to further the point, I projected the images to as close to each other as I could get.

The image below you will see multiple target points. the attempt is to align as closely as possible the two images (which requires a fair amount of distortion) with a total Root Mean Square value (RMS) value of 5.98301.

Meaningless -- the two photos were taken from different positions. You want to do a controlled test then do one. What you have done here is worthless.

Joe

No its not.
is comparing the reality that the images will be diff.

Yep, take two different photos from two different places and the photos will be different.

Joe

 

[vintagesnaps]

This is starting to sound like something out of Monty Python. (I'll go to the Leaderboard to waste time with that!)

By the time they get to smaller apertures and more of the images become in focus, I can see a little difference in the triangle; where I see it more is the wrench to the right which seems more perpendicular and the one to the left is at an angle.

I think the one to the left seems more like I'm looking down on the subjects and the one to the right seems like I'm looking more directly at them.

This seems to be more about the perspective used by two different type cameras set up at a bit of a different vantage point and/or angle.

 

[Ysarex]

This is starting to sound like something out of Monty Python. (I'll go to the Leaderboard to waste time with that!)

By the time they get to smaller apertures and more of the images become in focus, I can see a little difference in the triangle; where I see it more is the wrench to the right which seems more perpendicular and the one to the left is at an angle.

I think the one to the left seems more like I'm looking down on the subjects and the one to the right seems like I'm looking more directly at them.

Exactly. The left photo was taken from a higher camera position and then the camera was tilted down from that higher position. That accounts for the difference.

Joe

This seems to be more about the perspective used by two different type cameras set up at a bit of a different vantage point and/or angle.

 

[Ysarex]

It is not easy to put two different cameras in the same place! I did the best I could in these two photos using an APS-C format camera and a 1" sensor format compact. I did pretty good getting them the same height but the compact's tripod socket wasn't in line with the lens. I was able to compensate some with a slotted tripod head but in the end the compact is slightly to the right of the APS-C camera (didn't dare move the tripod). In addition the film plane and lens center positions are slightly different.

The two photos aren't identical partially due to the slight right shift of the compact but more due to the software that in both cases is compensating for pretty extreme barrel/pincushion distortion in both the lenses. These are digital cameras in which the manufacturers know damn well they don't have to fully correct their lenses because they can do it in software later. Very few of us are in a position now to run a test like this and avoid that problem -- so.....

With the above qualifications appropriately considered, these match up pretty well. The differences I see are obviously the result of the software corrections and there's nothing going on here that's a distortion caused by the format difference.

Joe

 

[vintagesnaps]

Fiestaware? or other midcentury piece, and an Elvis Pez. Oh, got too distracted and forgot for a minute what I was supposed to be looking at, but they look about the same to me.

 

[Ysarex]

Fiestaware? or other midcentury piece, and an Elvis Pez. Oh, got too distracted and forgot for a minute what I was supposed to be looking at, but they look about the same to me.

The table was cleared except for the books so I knew I needed some stuff there. Wife says it's a Hall's sundial casserole dish. The Elvis pez dispenser is mine.

Joe

 

[smoke665]

. The Elvis pez dispenser is mine

Joe you are like an onion, peel off one layer and there's another unseen layer waiting to be revealed. LOL