Lintelfilm

Mattias compression is only about distance from the subject. It has nothing whatsoever to do with lens choice OR sensor size. You can test this without a camera using your eyes and your feet. Wider lenses have the ability to get more FOV in the frame but they can't magically see around or behind objects. Just as longer lenses can't magically make background objects larger.
This discussion/disagreement is about equivalent focal lengths and whether or not the same image characteristics can be recreated regardless of sensor size if the correct lens spec is used. Depth of field doesn't have to be part of that discussion but it can be and has been (I think you talked about bokeh for example).
So yes a 50mm lens at 2m from a subject creates the compression as it does on a small or big sensor. But so does a 25mm lens kept at that same distance. And therefore the only variables that influence image character are FOV, sensor size and aperture size. These variables however can't magically make background and foreground objects move in 3D space! 
Or to put it another way ...
 

I'd have struggled to understand a fair amount of the answers without the subtitles if it was a podcast to be honest
I was actually considering at one point if maybe they shot it on 5Ds because the cameras themselves would've been provided by the hosts. If this was the 'old' days of the Soviet Union (which I think Putin wishes it was), security concerns would've meant them not allowing new fangled technology in. Mind you, it was also a pride thing then too where they'd use their own versions of the western technology that they'd copied and often enhanced. MIghtn't have been a bad thing these days, imagine it :
"You use our new Canonski Shest MK DVA. It is like your Canon 6D Mark 2. But made of cast iron. And has 4K"
Putin's personal photographer also uses Canon so perhaps he felt more at ease seeing those cameras around him. Looking at his personal photographer, I'm sure I'd feel at ease too if she was around....
If I was into conspiracies (which of course I am!!!) then maybe the look was also a deliberate bit of propaganda done to not beautify the subject and his surroundings. 
You could take that one way - which was to make Putin more relatable - or the other way to make him and his surroundings all look a bit shabby and low end.
Its like whenever the BBC have a news item or documentary that includes TV adverts they always seem to get the advert, record it onto VHS, put it by a huge magnet, dub it onto another VHS where the tracking is fucked and then get a VHS camera to record it off a TV that they found in a skip. The message obviously being 'Look and behold how horrendous and grubby TV advertisements are compared to our beautiful images. Please keep giving us your license money so we don't have to sully your screen with this garbage'.
Whatever the reason though, after just starting to watch the first episode, I think the content trumps the technical for me. 

Ben, I am glad to hear you bought another one, your XC10 videos were amongst my favorite and they truly captured the spirit of this S16 digital camera. I still have the XC10 saved in my eBay search... just waiting for that price I feel comfortable with. 
I keep chasing the XC10 form factor as well. I've had two FZ2500s and the RX10ii since I've sold the XC10. Both were cool cameras, but neither  are as unique as the XC10.
The FZ2500 has solid high bitrate, all-i 1080p, shutter angle, decent Touch AF and tracking, multi strength, body selectable NDs, internal zoom, slow/quick at the touch of a button. Even with all its strengths, it just isn't worth $1200 in my opinion.
The RX10ii I really liked as well, solid 4K image, okay 1080p at hfr, good preamps, sLog2 but both feel more like camcorders than S16.
That zoom through wide angle is a cool trick. I had one for my ZR60 back in the day.
I hope Canon continues to update the XC line. As is, it's a blast to shoot with, with a few refinements, it could be epic.

Good points for 4K I like the analysis. 
 
Do do you think on a tv the average person would prefer the nx1 or a7s image versus the image from a c100 ?
my own inquiry into this was the c100 was chosen 100% of the time. 
A few said of the 4K cameras I mentioned "wow that's sharp, pretty cool" but the color rendition of c100 was desired above even the fs5/fs7 image. 
So if 4K seems to be desirable for more than image does than then mean a 1dxii is more desirable than a c100 in the same price point?
just curious, I'm learning here  
 

There is just something about that BM Super 16 sensor that is magical. I look back at stuff that I shot with the Pocket and think "Damn that was one of my favorite looking videos."

For pros turning jobs around FCPX is the bees knees. It's the Canon of the NLE world in many ways - easy to get snobby about its tech specs but in real world use its super reliable, straightforward to use and performs fantastically where it matters. For factual content and solo filmmakers it's a dream. The filmmakers you see using it are the ones consistently putting out content, not those dissecting the latest greatest tech. 
Its fast, gets out of your way and lets you focus on the storytelling. Nobody should be writing it off as a top contender for any reason now, especially not solo filmmakers.

What most people forget is that the native FCPX colour tools are for colour correction. They're not grading tools and have never claimed to be - the effect is even called "color corrector". I do correction with the native tools first (I especially love the 3 saturation sliders for darks, mids and lights 0 Colour Finale can't even do that). Then I use Color Finale (largely just for the curves and often the awesome vector tool to grade and Film Convert last for final touches.
I do think Apple should add curves to the native tools though. It would save me a lot of time in the long run as sometimes I only use Color Finale for curves

Seems to be a pattern where people hate it, dismiss it... then try it, and slowly fall in love. If I had a mac, I'd be all over this, especially for smaller gigs.

This. Those of you who are still ragging on FCPX based on the release from 2+ years ago owe it to yourself to try it again. There have been many, many improvements in a series of major releases since the brouhaha of the first release way back when. If you can get over fealty to past models of nonlinear editing tools, you may find that it's much more efficient and speedy than other nonlinear editors (especially when it comes to Pro Res codecs). And with the addition of the Color Finale plug-in, you have an amazing color-grading and LUT tool that makes up for FCPX's biggest weakness: that awful color board.
 I haven't tried the latest version of Resolve, but I will give it a go on my next personal project. But I have used Premiere and agree with Andrew. It's just a kludgy P.O.S.

Actually it's just another representation of the color range, like an earth map compared to a globe. Once you get accustomed to it, it's even more intuitive to use. I always complained about the 0-100% acuity of the sliders. In the end, if fast CC is asked for, this can be an advantage. I am defending it only to this extend. Apart from the quick wysiwyg-approach, it feels too much like iMovie. They should make the tool more precise. You probably heard that the Dashwood effects (360°/VR-tools - a hint for 10.4? - , but some other FxFactory products too) recently became free, because Dashwood was hired by Apple. I installed them and tried White Balance. Too simple. Already existed within the color board (it just doesn't tell you how much in Kelvin you had shifted the balance), like the majority of third party CC-tools. 
The color board also has the advantage of being as well an effect as a clip property. If you open the color board window with cmd 6, you can jump from clip to clip in your sequence, and the Color effect is automatically applied to every clip you changed. I see Color Finale as something in between the color board and Resolve. More precise than the first, but not as powerful as the latter.

For pros turning jobs around FCPX is the bees knees. It's the Canon of the NLE world in many ways - easy to get snobby about its tech specs but in real world use its super reliable, straightforward to use and performs fantastically where it matters. For factual content and solo filmmakers it's a dream. The filmmakers you see using it are the ones consistently putting out content, not those dissecting the latest greatest tech. 
Its fast, gets out of your way and lets you focus on the storytelling. Nobody should be writing it off as a top contender for any reason now, especially not solo filmmakers.

For pros turning jobs around FCPX is the bees knees. It's the Canon of the NLE world in many ways - easy to get snobby about its tech specs but in real world use its super reliable, straightforward to use and performs fantastically where it matters. For factual content and solo filmmakers it's a dream. The filmmakers you see using it are the ones consistently putting out content, not those dissecting the latest greatest tech. 
Its fast, gets out of your way and lets you focus on the storytelling. Nobody should be writing it off as a top contender for any reason now, especially not solo filmmakers.

Nothing can beat FCPX for me. 
So easy and fast to do what I want. Time remapping is the best of any software and I use time remapping all the time.
Who cares about Native lut support when you just need Color Finale the best grading tool ever with way better integration of LUT management than Premiere native shit. 
I am not saying Resolve is shit. I used FCPX then switched to Premiere for the After effects integration. Switched back recently to FCPX and it's just that much better. 
Tried the last year Resolve for a project. It did not work for me 

I've been using resolve on and office the last 6 months - I definitely think it's better than Premiere (which I find to feel a bit ancient in terms of it's usability and UI). 
I saw in your post you haven't tried FCPX in a few years.... do you know the version available today is much much much better now? Give it a whirl!
I like the way Resolve is evolving and some of the features are unique (grading, audio editing, CDNG), however because I find FCPX so much faster and enjoyable to edit with (like the Magnetic Timeline 2) - when I edit wth Resolve I really miss the modern fluidity you get with FCPX. 
Resolve really needs more plugin support from third parties, plus a few cool tricks on timeline editing to challenge FCPX's "scary at first, but really awesome new way of editing". 
That said, Blackmagic are probably the most interesting and exciting video/film industry product company in the world right now. Top job. 

Interesting they put a full frame lens like the 24-35mm on there, what are they trying to say?
If it were Super 35mm they'd put the 18-35mm on it, surely.

Just checked Whois - www.craftcamera.com is registered to: E.Saawadi, Mansoura, Egypt
Yep, I'm just kidding.

Just checked Whois - www.craftcamera.com is registered to: E.Saawadi, Mansoura, Egypt
Yep, I'm just kidding.

Panasonic can shuffle around their company as much as they like, but until they offer colour science on par with Canon and Nikon, a log profile that is useable and good video AF, i stand by my switch from the GH line to an 8bit 1080 camera (C100Mkii) and for small body 4K an XC10. 

Panasonic can shuffle around their company as much as they like, but until they offer colour science on par with Canon and Nikon, a log profile that is useable and good video AF, i stand by my switch from the GH line to an 8bit 1080 camera (C100Mkii) and for small body 4K an XC10. 

Just out of curiosity. Wouldn't you have rather made like a few Indie Films for that $100,000 or so you said you spent on the Canon Gear?

Resolution in C-Log on all Canon cameras (C100, XC10, whatever) is EXACTLY the same as it is in the other profiles.
Sharpening is turned off in C-Log by default, so that can be one explanation for the perceived difference in detail.
However - and much more crucially here and on the other XC10 thread I think - higher contrast is read by the human eye as "more detail". This is just a fact. It's an optical illusion if you like.
That's what this is about - perceived detail - not resolution. The resolution is the same.
If you want a "punchy" image with well defined lines/detail, you may be better capturing it in camera than trying to get it back in post from footage shot with a log profile on an 8-bit camera. 
Log footage is low contrast by nature, and therefore perceived resolution will always be lower unless you put all the contrast back in (and probably in the process sacrifice some dynamic range). You can't have it both ways  - particularly not with an 8-bit codec.
I always used to marvel at how much "punchier" graded HD images from my BMPCC were compared to my 4K GH4. This was because I would be able to put loads of contrast back into the 13-stop prores image without dropping down to an 8-stop result. Whereas I'd always try and coax as much dynamic range as I could from the GH4 and always end up with mushy detail. Of course the GH4 had far more resolution than the BMPCC, but stretching the lower dynamic range resulted in images that were less contrasty. Add the BMPCC's higher bit rate and colour depth to its superior dynamic range and you have what is arguably a more detailed image - certainly a richer one.
While I really do love 4K on my XC10, I think there is a real danger on forums like this of pixel peeping in such an analytical way that you forget to look at the image as a whole. Nobody watches films at 300% inches from their screen. 4K is largely a marketing thing pushed by TV manufacturers (yes I'm talking about you Panasonic, Sony, Samsung). It's an easily understandable number that can be stuck on a camera or a TV to sell them as "better". For high-end cinema 4K is certainly becoming an almost-necessity, but we independent filmmakers would be wise to remember most of our favourite films from the past several years were shot on the 14-stop dynamic range, RAW/prores, high colour-depth shooting Arri Alexa in HD/2K. None of us left the cinema saying "I'm going to watch a David Fincher film next time because he uses RED cameras so I can see more details in the actor's shirt."
Sorry, I'm having a ranty day. x
 

Personally I think this looks pretty awful. I haven't seen much from my XC10 that looks that bad, but if I did I'd be loathe to use it.

We all know that with the XC10 the image gets softer as ISO increases due to increasing levels of noise reduction applied by the camera. My point above is that I can retain more detail while getting a similar exposure using the method described.
Whether C-Log applies more NR at the same ISO, leading to a mushier image is another issue and I suspect it might. FWIW, sharpness was at 0 in the samples above for EOS standard although of course Canon might apply a default level of sharpness.

Yes, ghosting is less pronounced in the 3 contrasty profiles than in WideDR, and C-Log is the worst.

Personally I think this looks pretty awful. I haven't seen much from my XC10 that looks that bad, but if I did I'd be loathe to use it.