User

I'm 99% certain Steve Yedlin, without mention the article or the author, is talking about this article when he once again has to whip out his explanation of large format fallacies:
http://www.yedlin.net/191106.html
Here's his visual explanation:
http://yedlin.net/lens_blur.html

Mic drop. ?
 

It's all good.  Even if information is wrong (or incomplete) then it's worth talking about.  There's a chance we might learn something, which is basically the only thing that is actually worth anything in the long run  
Super-shallow DoF is an interesting one, as the forums are full of conversations that go:
"I've got to get that FF look...  BOKEH!!!" "You're an idiot, real cinematographers rarely shoot wider than F2.8 - lots of cine lenses are only that fast, go get an education you moron" "Yeah, but....... BOKEH!!!!!" "I'm done with you...   <block>" but in reading a lot about cine lenses for my cine lens deep-dive thread I found quite a lot of references of people using the Zeiss Super Speeds (T1.3) or Master Anamorphics (T1.9) wide open for one reason or another.  Think about that - S35 sensors being used with 50mm or 85mm lenses at T1.3!!  
And people make snide remarks at me for wanting a Voigtlander f0.95 lens - that's only f2 equivalent.
DOF falloff is a very interesting topic and I found references to that on my cine lens deep-dive.  Apparently people like it when the falloff is more gradual.
In terms of what is going on here, I'm at a loss to understand it.
The way that a lens works is this:
the light coming into the lens is projected onto the sensor for any (sensible) setting of focus on the lens there will be a place you can put something in the FOV of the lens that will be "in focus" on the sensor "in focus" has to do with the Circle of Confusion Circle of Confusion essentially says that any point in front of the lens will either be a perfect point of light on the sensor (ie, perfectly in focus) or it will be out of focus and in the shape of a circle (which is actually the shape of the aperture blades, but circle works well enough as an analogy).  Therefore, in theory, the DoF of what is in focus is infinitely shallow.
This isn't true in reality though, because pixel size matters.  Let's imagine that we have a sensor with pixels that are 1um across (for ease of maths).  If you get an object with an infinitely sharp edge and put that edge at the exact focal distance then the circle of confusion will be 0um across, and therefore will only hit one pixel, and in the final (RAW) file that point of light will be in-focus as it's only putting its light onto one pixel.
Now let's imagine that we get that object and move it towards (or away) from the camera such that the circle of confusion is 10um across, that will be 10 pixels wide, and will probably hit 11 pixels.  Obviously this is going to be seen as out-of-focus in the output files.
The interesting part is where we position the object such that its circle of confusion is 0.3um across.  It's technically out-of-focus, but 0.3um will probably only hit one pixel and so in the output file it will still be perfectly in focus.  
What this means is that we have a DoF greater than zero because the size of the pixels is a limitation.  This means that the larger the pixels, the deeper the DoF for any given lens.  Which is why the DoF calculators ask you for the sensor size and resolution.  A 500MP MFT sensor will have a lot shallower a DoF than a 12MP S35 sensor, even with the same lens.
The maths of this really doesn't care about what sensor you're using - for a given FOV and the same number of MP on the sensor the fall-off should be identical.
The tricky part is where we position the object such that its circle of confusion is 0.99um across.  It's technically out-of-focus, and if that 0.99um happens to like up perfectly with one pixel then it will still appear perfectly in-focus, but all probability suggests that it will fall across 2 or more pixels, making it a bit of-of-focus.  This will also be true for the detail with 0.3um circles of confusion.
What we're getting into here is maybe the gaps between the pixels (larger gaps will mean that more stuff looks in-focus) and maybe it's also the sharpness of the lens as in just the same way that the sensor has a maximum sharpness (it can't tell the difference between 0.001um circles and 0.01 or 0.1 circles) so do lenses.  A lens with lower resolution will have a deeper DoF despite having the same FOV and aperture as another higher resolution lens.
I guess this ponders the question, does a lower-resolution optical path or a higher resolution optical path have a gentler roll-off?
A higher resolution optical path will have a shallower DoF and therefore have a deeper area that is almost in focus, and a lower-resolution optical path will have a deeper DoF and a shallower area where the transition occurs.
Can anyone confirm this?  It would require having two lenses with different resolutions that are the same focal length and can do the same aperture.  @BTM_Pix has a bunch of lenses but might be too busy working on his 127 projects..  I'll have a look through my lens collection.
Certainly if you have a larger sensor camera then the gaps between the pixels are likely to be smaller and the glass you're using is likely to be more modern and higher resolution, so both of those would mean a deeper area of things almost in focus, so the logic fits.

We've had heated discussions in this forum on the DOF equivalency principle and on the difference in the looks of different size formats.
 
I am on the side that there is definitely a difference in the general look of different size formats.  I also maintain that the DOF equivalency principle does not account for the rate that the focus "falls off" outside of the mathematical DOF range and that this DOF falloff rate differs between different formats.
 
Keep in mind, that the assertions above apply not to the size of a sensor nor emulsion, but to the optics made for a particular size of sensor/emulsion.
 
If one compares the images from a 16mm camera to those from, say, an 8"x10" camera, the difference in look and DOF falloff is striking.  Here is footage from a recent 8"x10" camera:
 

The author of this article does not understand perspective. It's the kind of thing I used to think until I took the time to understand that for instance a 50mm has no magic powers to change the way light works over for instance a 25mm. 
"...specifically a shallower depth of field and more compressed rendering of space. In other words, the large format allows you to see wider, without going wider, as you can see in the example below."
? This is false. It's 100% false. There is no such thing as lens compression, only perspective. If you're standing in the same place, perspective will be the same, and as @kye is pointing out, within reason, you can mimic the look of any size sensor by matching the FOV and using an equivalent aperture (and then compensating the ISO).
Having said that, there are certain things that are hard to do, like super shallow depth of field on wider lenses on MFT, or mimicking the look of a 50mm 1.2 FF on MFT, etc.
You can just get a wider lens though... for instance a 12mm on MFT is the same as a 24 on FF in FOV

That’s what I was thinking too, that it’s basically false.
I didn’t want to say so straight out because of two reasons, the first is that I don’t think I understand this stuff well enough to say things like that (and i’ve been wrong before!) and secondly that although I can’t find any tangible reason that a larger sensor should be better I have seen enough videos shot with larger sensors (FF and also larger) that had some kind of X-Factor that I just couldn’t place, so they always left me wondering if there was something to these urban legends....
 
It may well be colour science though, that’s entirely possible.

No way. Bar Iakwe! ? I always said I wanted to retire and start a diving school at Bikini Atoll. Bikini (of which its existence I found out by randomly placing a finger on a spinning globe as a little kid), of course known for a couple of things, like the two-piece bathing suit, Godzilla and Spongebob Squarepants. The latter two of course greatly affected by nuclear bomb tests (by now the radiation ain't too bad). There's also sunken boats and planes which has made a great home to marine wildlife and made it a great spot for diving.

I thought that this was part 2?
 

Right, Emanuel requires from each (one and every)one entitled to here, gentlemen of a single Lady! : -D

@User, it appears that you need a lens support -- but not a big one.

So, I defy a new one from each other of us... hey guys and the only gal I am aware amongst us nowadays @kaylee, deal ? ; -)

Have another bump from me

I watched the Werner Herzog course on Masterclass.com and it was fascinating.  He's not short of an opinion, that's for sure!
I'm not sure how many things I agree with him about, but two of them are definitely the importance of perseverance, and also the concept that you have to do something different to what you normally do.  He does things differently to what most other people do (making up quotes, forging paperwork, etc) but he is remarkable because of his uniqueness, and we all have this potential for uniqueness, but it requires experimentation and persistence to find it.

The T-stop of a lens is often just a little slower than its F-stop, so I would suggest these are the cine version of F2.8 lenses.


Maybe this one rehoused 16-35/2.8?  The extra space and size would allow for the power-zoom functionality which doesn't seem to be present on the still lens, as well as equalise filters and weight across the range.

This isn't something I do much, but I know that if you get a hollow sound then it's likely to be phase cancellation.  Phase cancellation works based on the wave-length, and lower frequencies have a longer wavelength so tend to cancel easier / under more circumstances, which is why a hollow sound is a common side-effect.
I'd suggest that using the in-built features might be useful because either they will get it right and you're done, or if they get it wrong they might get it almost right, then you can zoom in and just fine-tune it by lining it up by eye.
Happy to hear from others if there's a better way though!

Guys (Tony Stark mainly), look, I truly appreciate all the replies and wanting to be helpful, but I'm not looking for advice on (or to talk about) framing, lighting, the history of cinematography, sound editing, pulling focus, video shooting 101, or whatever else you may assume I may or may not need to know before getting a decent cinema camera. I've discussed my background briefly and some other things early on in this thread as they pertain to the question I posted originally. I also discussed what I will be filming and plan/want to. I went over the fact that shooting with my DSLRs is a headache and described why. So no real need to keep at it, as it's not complicated really. Some of the analogies made don't quite work, but I don't need to go into details because it's pointless and time consuming. 
Yes, I'm "obsessing" a bit about the details, because as I've said, I like to do my research before investing in something. And I've learned a lot in the past few weeks since starting this thread. There are a lot of questions I don't need to ask, because I know the answer to them. The Canon 1080p threw me off, because although I've come to somewhat understand it, it should have been more clear. As you move on up the line, things should improve (which they do for the most part), and basic things should not get worse! Like I said in a prior post, I still use the single, AF point in SERVO mode for my sports photography (heck for ALL my photography), even with all the fancy AF modes the 1DXMKII has. For me it's the simplest way to work, and I'm glad Canon didn't remove it if you get my analogy. 
For what it's worth, I finally rented a C100MKII and a C200 yesterday morning and did a lot of testing. I shot in low light, in harsh and bright light, played around with all the settings, internal vs. external to a Ninja V, imported and played around in Premiere, etc. I spent about 10-12 hours doing all of this. Basically dedicated my entire day and night to it. I went to a track meet to see how the DPAF would work, and to have real things to film instead of brick walls, cats, and trees, etc. I wanted to see which camera would also feel best in my hands for a long period of time in terms of weight, ergonomics, etc. For the latter, I prefer the C100MKII. For 1080p, which was my big question, I was surprised that the C100MKII is pretty much up there with the C200 in terms of acuity and detail if not better in some cases. This is from external Ninja V ProRes 422 HQ. Internal to SD @ 24Mpbs is pretty damn good, but not as good in post as external to the Ninja - no surprise there I suppose. I wish the C100MKII would have more ND stops than 6, like the C200 does with the 8 & 10, but it's OK. For the C200 I compared internal UHD 420 8bit downconverted to 1080p in Premiere and also external 1080p 422 10bit to Ninja V. To be honest, it was hard to see a difference between the two methods - with the C100MKII it was more clear that external is the better way to go for IQ. I was also surprised that the 4K is kind of soft on the C200. In terms of the sensor, yeah, the C200 has more latitude for exposing, less high ISO noise, and a different color to the files (though I can't say it's better - just different). I did also shoot RAW for a bit out of curiosity, and yes, indeed that looks exceptional. For the other things, I don't think it's worth it over the C100MKII. So yeah, I confirmed a lot of what was said or what I thought - the C200 is great, but if you don't plan to shoot mostly in RAW, for me it's not worth 2x+ the cost over the C100MKII for the 1-1.5 stop more DR, less ISO noise, etc. And I suppose this should be obvious - it's meant for people that want to shoot RAW. I was just wanting to see if the C100MKII could do as good in 1080p. I didn't rent the C300MKII, but that's what I would use if someone wants to pay me extra for 4K shoot/delivery. Otherwise it's overkill for me now, and the C100MKII is the cheaper/safer bet until I wear it out. I was honestly surprised at just how good it really is, so many years later. 
EDIT: Oh yeah, I forgot to talk about the DPAF. Yes, on the C200 it's a lot better, but not worth it in the end for me. The screen is also nicer on the C200, as are the audio inputs on the body, etc. But since I'll be using the Ninja V most of the time (and not just for recording, but for having a larger screen to monitor, to see framing, focus, outdoors in bright light, etc.), the Canon screen is not critical. I actually like that I can move the C100's screen off to the side or even close it when shooting. Simpler and more compact.
 

@Michi Thanks for the input, I appreciate it. But I'm ready to bite the bullet on a C100MKII and start shooting. I just think for me it makes the most sense given what I said in my last post (and initial post really). I think the C100MKII does 1080p extremely well, but I don't think the C200 does 4K very well at all, unless you shoot RAW, which I don't plan on doing for reasons stated. I do think RAW is the future on more and more <$10K cameras, as I've said,  but I don't want to get into it yet and not with the single slot / Cfast card that is on the C200. 1080p isn't changing, it's proven/known, and it's still most of what's out there. So getting the best 1080p camera for relatively cheap (C100MKII) makes the most sense now, even if the camera is old. I'll wait for a <$10K proper 4K camera from Canon in the next 1-2 years. Until then, as I've said, if a client requires 4K, I'll rent. I do plan to use my DSLRs in conjunction with the C100MKII, and they can do 4K and HFR, gimbal, etc. So I have a good mix. C200 would overlap too much. The DPAF is very good, but my 1DXMKII is better I feel. And for when I need that, I can use the 1DXMKII in 4K. This would be mainly for sports, where I have to track an athlete for example, or other special cases. For most use, the DPAF in the C100MKII is plenty fine for me. I'll use a lot more MF anyways on the C100MKII / for video work, because well, it's nicer looking and I have total control. Yes, the C100's monitor is not in the best place, but at the same time it sort of is because I can tuck it away and be more compact. As I *do* plan on using the NINJA V most of the time, it makes sense. I know what you mean, but I cannot use any of these C100/200/300 LCD for critical focus, framing, bright light conditions, so yeah, I like the 5" NINJA. I'll put it on a small ballhead cold shoe mount and move it around as needed. I shot this way yesterday and loved it. Loved having the larger screen, brighter screen, with aspect ratio markers, focus peaking, waveform, etc. I can see people hating it, but to each his own. I can shoot in ProRes 422 HQ for like 12hours on a 1GB $340 SSD. And I'll have backup files to both SD slots too. And it will all be sensible in terms of file sizes but at very high quality on the ProRes side. This C100MKII can shoot forever and battery lasts long too. So I do understand and appreciate your points, but for me yeah, the C100MKII is a bit more special. More importantly, it's the right tool for me, now. I don't think I'll ever sell it. I think it's going to be one of those cameras that you keep. I still have my original 5D, my film 1V, and some others. 
Anyway, again, this thread has been super helpful and informative, even if we have different opinions. I did learn a lot, and will continue to. Thanks to all, especially @kye, @User, and @IronFilm!
 

I am using the Sanken CS-M1 for a few days now and my first impression is..WOW! Just..WOW!
Low self noise, hot output, very controled handling noise, great tonal characterestics.
I am using Bubblebee Spacer kit for indoors and very light stuff and Cinela Cosi for outside.
For non professional sound men, this can be the only mic they need. Just 103mm long, so it can be excellent for on camera placement as well.
I need some more time with it as I am using a lot of other microphones at the moment, but it definitely is a heavy weight production tool of 55grams!

This posts sounds like you're getting a little obsessed with seeking out "the best" image quality, and forgetting that this is but one aspect of the overall big picture. 

What does it matter if one camera has 1% better image quality over another if you give up a million other things? (features that might lead towards a better image in the long run... far exceeding that 1% theoretical gap)

Plus there is the tricky problem of how do you even define what is "the best" (which in itself is very subjective), the best SOOC when perfectly shot? The best looking image after you've fv%ked up everything possible on the shoot day then spend a hundred hours in post trying to "save" the image? The best image under circumstances somewhere between those two extreme scenarios?
 

Happy to be of service!!

Video files are just data.  Every operating system has a software tool that you can enter in any machine language data you like.
So according to your logic, I don't need a camera, crew, lighting, sound equipment or anything - I should just start typing away, then hit save on Masterpiece.MOV and I'm done!
What's that?  Having to understand and memorise the MOV container is cramping your ability to get convincing dialogue?  Understanding the header flags on codec container formats in HEX when converting from long_integer binary encoded data shells distracting you from getting good wardrobe?  You said it yourself....
You are forgetting that film-making isn't just about using a camera.  It's about many many many things, and if the camera can do something for me then maybe that means that I can take my finite capacity and concentrate on something I wasn't able to put my attention to.
I understand your sentiment, but randomly assuming that limitations you're able to compensate for should be accepted by other people just because you say so is pretty arrogant, and also pretty ignorant and just tells me you don't know shit about real film-making or how other people do it.

@kye Yes, you are correct. In your post you had said 150Mpbs for the 4K, but yeah, the 4K should be 4x the compression of the 1080p to look properly better. I say in general because there are other things at play in compression, but yeah. Perhaps it would have been better to have a 400Mpbs 4K and a 100Mbps 1080p on the GH5, because if done right, 100Mbps 1080p is quite excellent and no need for more really unless 12bit 444.
It's always a trick what to use, how to implement the compression, etc. And I believe it's also a marketing thing, in the case of Canon, a way to separate their model lineup. This is why the C300MKII is attractive, as it has many options. And the C200 is really meant for RAW/CRL, which I also believe is the future as @mrtreve also believes. But the future is not Cfast cards unfortunately, so that was not a good decision. C500MKII got it right with the cards.
In the end, I may just get the C100MKII and wait things out, as I believe now the next C300, will have CRL and even perhaps FF - two of the things where the industry is heading, as I said in my post above. FF and RAW for the "masses", meaning at $10K and under. Yes we'll have the Arris and others, and also the smaller Super35, M43, etc. sensors, just like we still have FF and APS-C in DSLRs, but FF needs to be more affordable in cinema cameras, and RAW the norm. 
 

Think about it like this, to get the 200Mbps 1080 file, what happens is:
Camera captures a 5K image Camera downscales the 5K image to 1080 Camera compresses 1080 to 200Mbps That's not that different to this workflow:
Camera captures a 5K image Camera downscales the 5K image to 4K Camera compresses 4K to 200Mbps Person downscales the 4K to 1080 in post Both of these image pipelines start with 5K, both are limited to broadly similar levels of compression.  We know that a 200Mbps 4K image won't be as great at 100% as a 200Mbps 1080 image at 100%, but when you downscale the 4K to 1080, it takes 4 pixels from the 4K image to make 1 pixel in the 1080 image, so the amount of data per 1080 pixel is broadly the same.  There's also the point of diminishing returns with this stuff - try encoding a h264 file at something decent and then try at double or triple that bitrate and see what differences there are.   You may find they're less than you think.

I did look it up, and for those interested this is a great place to read about it with links to sources: 
https://www.provideocoalition.com/can-4k-4-2-0-8-bit-become-1080p-4-4-4-10-bit-does-it-matter/
What it comes down to (besides the math and all) is that it's always best to shoot in the highest format your camera offers, and downsample later in post if needed. I think we all know and agree on this.
My question has to do with Canon and their 1080p internal downsampling algorithms, that seem to make it soft on several of their cameras. In this case, is shooting 4K YCC422 10bit on the C300MKII and converting to 2K/1080p in post better than shooting in 2K/1080p RGB444 12bit? I will assume shooting in 2K/1080p RGB444 12bit should be better. Just as I assume the 2K/1080p RGB444 12bit from the C300MKII should be better than shooting 4K YCC420 8bit on the C200 and converting to 2K/1080p 444 8-10bit in post (in theory per the above) .
 

I think it depends.  Partly because the compression may not treat each mode equally (4K has 4x the number of pixels as 2K, but may not have 4x the bitrate), plus other factors.
I shoot with the GH5, which downsamples everything from a 5K signal, so I've played in this space and recently did a resolution/detail comparison on that camera between the 5K 200Mbps h265, the 4K 150Mbps h264, and the 1080 200Mbps ALL-I h264 modes (all 25fps and 10-bit) and I found that there was no visible differences between the 5K and 4K, and when downsampled to 1080 there was no visible differences between the three modes.  This test was with real-world lenses and wasn't in lab conditions, so it was imperfect, but it was of a real person in real conditions so it was applicable to what I do.
In the end I chose to shoot 4K because h264 is easier to edit than the h265 codec (my main computer is a laptop), the framing on the 4K is easier to use for me in-camera, and even if posted in 1080, it would still be advantageous to me to shoot in 4K because I do a lot of stabilisation in post, so the extra resolution can help with this.  Also, if I'm recording in 4K and processing in 4K then I might as well publish in 4K so that I'm kind of future-proofing my projects.  As I record my family history there is a chance that these videos will still have some usefulness in years or decades, when 25K-3D-VR-AI-recreation-immersion-whatever will be a thing, so 4K won't be a "but can you see any difference" question anymore.
I'd suggest just trying them and seeing what you see.