tupp

When discussing depth-of-field in the "real world," the term applies only to real world optical systems. No. Re-read the "simplifications." All of those post-capture processes are ignored by the DOF formulas. Depth-of-field is an optical property -- it has nothing to do with sharpening or softening an image after the image is received by the sensor/film. Furthermore, not all of the methods that you mentioned change the resolution. Full-frame, half-frame, 16mm, IMAX, 4"x5", 11"x14" -- the size of the medium at the focal plane really has nothing to do with the depth-of-field. Depth-of-field and an image's "look" are two different things, but, certainly, DOF can affect the "look" of an image. Well, this passage that you have quoted says it all: Resolution of the imaging medium is ignored. When the resolution of the capture medium is similar (or greater than) the optical resolution, the captured image will seem more blurred throughout, making it more difficult to discern the depth-of-field. Nevertheless, the depth-of-field (an optical property) remains the same. "Acceptable circle of confusion" and DOF are two different properties. Magnification of the image at the film plane affects resolution, but not depth-of-field. Cropping into and enlarging a captured digital image can lower the effective resolution, but manipulating a captured image has absolutely nothing to do with depth-of-field. I doubt that you would notice any difference in DOF with the same f-stop on the same lens, by merely changing film stocks. Regardless, you weren't increasing the depth-of-field -- you might have been creating an image that had a coarser resolution overall, thus, making the overall image look softer and more homogeneously in the same focus. Big sensors matter, but the size of the sensor doesn't change the DOF. Depth-of-field is an optical property.

No. I do not wish to get into a semantics argument, but the definitions of depth-of-field and circle-of-confusion involve basic, well-established optical properties that apply to imaging. The resolution of the sensor/film (and projector/monitor) is not a consideration, as depth-of-field is a purely optical characteristic. The Wikipedia page on depth-of-field addresses this very point (note limitation #6). No need to get personal, but you would be mistaken if you considered sensor/film resolution as an optical property. The term "Softer" is generic. It can apply to the properties of both resolution and sharpness. I never stated that you wrote so. The focal plane/surface is part of the optical system, but the resolution of the medium at the focal plane/surface has nothing to do with optics. Huh? I am not sure what you are proposing, but it appears that you are suggesting that the depth-of-field will change if I merely vary the ISO setting on my camera while the lens and its aperture remain the same. Is that what you are saying? If so, would you be interested in a little wager?

No. Depth-of-field (and circles-of-confusion) is a purely optical property, regardless of what is receiving the image at the focal plane. Coarser resolution can make the sharply focused areas look softer (similar to the less sharply focused areas), but a given depth-of-field optically remains constant, regardless of sensor/film resolution. No. Depth-of-field is an optical property. The size and resolution of the film/sensor have nothing to do with the optical property of depth-of-field. The only exception to this rule occurs when the sensor corners creep into the optically inferior edge of the image circle. Yes. Some lenses resolve more sharply than others.

Shoot static on an old TV set.

It's definitely useful to know that there are adapters that convert most medium format mounts to Mamiya 645. However, what do you mean by "creates shadows?" What causes such shadows? Another advantage of having the tilt mechanism closer to the film plane is that one might be able to utilize more of the image circle, which possibly enables the lens to be pushed past the extremes possible with a more distant, medium format tilt/shift adapter (eventually causing the aformentioned shadows).

Consider an E-mount to Nikkor lens tilt-shift adapter. If there is no vignetting with this adapter, the tilt-shift features should work with medium format lenses, with an additional plain, cheap nikkor-to-medium-format adapter. Of course, it will certainly work as a non-tilt/non-shift adapter for the aforementioned Nikkors. There are nikkor-to-medium-format tilt/shift adapters, but then you are locked-in to a particular medium format mount, with no chance of tilting/shifting the nikkors. In regards to the rumored USD$1,800 price of the the A7s, I have always been a loud proponent of full frame sensors/cameras for video. However, it is disappointing that the best 4k bit rate from the A7s is 8-bits -- and that is only possible through the HDMI cable. The GH4 can do 4k 8-bits to an SD card for the same price, plus 10-bits from the HDMI cable. Furthermore, with a focal reducer, the GH4 can mimic a super 35mm frame with an extra stop of sensitivity.

Good point on the G6's focus peaking! Another advantage of using the G6 instead of the Forza is that there is no confusion between the ACs and electricians if I say, "Set-up the 18K!"

Not sure which to get, but the Forza 18K camera shoots full res at 60fps. However, the G6 does have wireless control. Wonder if the Forza will take my Fujian 35mm, f1.7 without vignetting.

The "One-Cam" looks like a typical machine vision camera with a recorder. The 9 stops of DR is in line other such cameras. Some rental houses offer the IO Industries cameras, and they have had booths at NAB and Cinegear for the past few years. However, one of the most impressive machine vision cinematography set-ups is this project using a Point Grey, 4K, 11.5-stop DR camera. The guy developed an encoder that recorded real-time to cDNG. He even made a touch control interface. The footage looks fairly clean, too, as evidenced from this screen cap and this screen cap. Also, the early Apertus cameras used open-source Elphel machine vision cameras. Of course, the Apertus team developed a lot of stuff years ago, including encoding schemes and touch control interfaces.

I've gotten good results with this cheap shotgun mic. The price is low enough that you still have money leftover for a more professional mic, while keeping it as a backup. I think that Audio Technica gives a lifetime warranty,

There are several DIY camera cage vids on YouTube. Here's one shown with a Panasonic camera.

A couple of points: - the same f-stop on every lens of the same focal length won't necessarily transmit the same amount light to the focal plane, which is why we have T-stops -- they account for the light "Transmission" factor; - the field of view doesn't change from one lens to the next if the (effective) focal length remains the same (barring any condensing optics behind the aperture, such as a speed booster).

Anything open source. Right now I am using Cinelerra-CV.

Thought I saw a leg move in the beginning, and an elbow move later on.

I think that you have basically guessed it, but it doesn't appear to be a "big ass" light.

They are very expensive because they take up most of the space on a silicon wafer. I am fairly sure that the original Dalsa Cinema sensors were medium format, and they yielded beautiful 4K images.

Would love to hear more about this!

What about the guy who has a

The difference between 8-bit and 16-bit might be apparent when comparing two images of the same resolution (on monitors of the same resolution and bit depth to match each image). Such a difference would become obvious if the scene contained a gradation subtle enough to cause banding in the 8-bit image but not in the 16-bit image. However, in such a scenario, if you could continually increase the resolution of the camera sensor and monitor of the 8-bit system, you would find that the banding would dissappear at some point in the 8-bit image. By increasing the resolution of the 8-bit system, you are also increasing its color depth -- yet its bit depth always remains at 8-bit. One can easily observe a similar phenomenon. Find a digital image that exhibits a slight banding when you are directly in front of it, then move away from the image. The banding will disappear at some point. By moving away from the image, you are increasing the resolution, making the pixels smaller in your field of view. However, the bit depth is always the same, regardless of your viewing distance. Such a test wouldn't be conclusive unless each monitor matches the resolution and bit depth of the image it displays. Most image makers are not aware of the fact that bit depth and color depth are two different properties. In digital imaging, bit depth is a major factor of color depth, but resolution is an equally major factor of color depth (in both digital and analog imaging). Therefore, one can sacrifice resolution while increasing bit depth, yet the color depth remains the same (or is decreased). In other words, swapping resolution for more bit depth does not result in an increase in color depth.

There are plenty of examples in which a higher resolution image has been binned to a lower resolution with a higher bit depth. The technique is mainly used to reduce noise and increase camera sensitivity and to maintain rich colors in post production transfers. Again, using such a process on a captured image can never increase color depth. So, barring and inefficiencies/inequities in the conversion process or the display devices, the resulting images should look the same (except that one has more resolution). In addition, it is usless to try and compare such results, unless there are two display devices of identical size that can be set to correspond to the bit-depth and resolution inherent in each image. Displaying a 32-bit image on a 16-bit monitor would be a waste of time when assessing the results of binning to a lower resolution to a higher bit depth.

Certainly, one can never gain color depth in an image that is already captured. However, one can increase the bit depth while reducing resolution, and still maintain the same color depth. Aliasing/artifacting is a whole other deal.

No. There was no increase in information. There could not have been such an increase in a captured image, unless something artificial was added. The best possible result would be that the color depth would remain identical, with no loss in the conversion.

As tosvus has pointed-out, they are not dithering. They are merely swapping resolution for bit depth -- reducing resolution while increasing bit depth. The color depth remains the same or decreases (due to inefficiencies in the conversion or due to the color limitations of the final resolution/bit-depth combination). With dithering, there is no change in the bit depth nor in the resolution. Pixel density (resolution) is a major factor in color depth/gamut of digital systems. Here is the relationship between color depth, bit depth and resolution in a digital RGB system: COLOR DEPTH = (BIT DEPTH X RESOLUTION)3 That's basically the way it works, barring practical and perceptual variables.

Or we have shooters with just enough knowledge to be dangerous.

If you crop "into" a frame, you reduce the pixel count, therefore, you reduce to total color depth of the image. However, if you do not resize the cropped portion, its color depth per "view-degree" doesn't change from before it was cropped.