Timotheus

I expect that it's a common problem, but how do you get over the 'hump' of starting editing a new project?
My most recent project is a family holiday during which I shot 1100+ clips over about a 10 day period, and I'm now procrastinating on editing it.
My process is normally:
review each clip and pull any good moments onto a timeline to create an assembly if the chronological order I pulled them in isn't quite right I'll group sections together and arrange them in chunks then I review the clips rating them into a few groups - normally "great people shots" "good people shots" "great non-people shots" "good misc" and "didn't make the cut" then cull all the "didn't make the cut" ones and start assembling little stories (sequences within locations) then I find music then I start to edit to the music and iteratively cut more and more out until I've got a tight end result The challenge I have is that step 1 takes forever and it's often quite demotivating finding that I missed shots, camera wouldn't focus, things I thought I had I don't, mistakes, etc.  Once I get the music in place it becomes enjoyable, but before that it's just a chore.
I've read that instead of the above where you touch every clip, some multiple times, that you just pull in the great clips and go from there, but I've found that often clips that aren't great are needed to complete sequences etc, and constantly playing "where was that clip I saw yesterday" doesn't sound like much fun either.
I don't know what the answer is, but maybe there's a way to think about it that helps?  I suspect my process is OK, I just need to change my perspective to make the process more enjoyable, such that I'll actually do it.  I love to shoot way more than editing, so I have dozens of projects sitting unedited on HDD..  
thanks

Then the focus or object distance is not the same.
The APD filter will decrease the apparent aperture and "smooth" it out, and increase DoF somewhat while changing it's character. That is why it's there and what it does. Darkening the edge of the lens is the same thing as stopping it down but smoother. In fact you can do exactly that, stop down by a small amount and take multiple exposures decreasing aperture slightly and then combine them for the the same effect.
 
Did you have to grab the one shot he managed to screw up. If you look at the wide open and 1.4 shot you see the bokeh being slightly smaller due to the filter which is 100% expected.
 
You could put it at front element and at aperture blades. Front element would not work as well if you use it for FF but probably decent enough for 1.5 or 2x crop. The problem would be finding a filter to begin with.

Claiming to be able to tell them apart, with the actual lens and camera data provided is bit easy, no?
Everybody agrees there can be subtle differences between different lenses, like in the example of Andrew, and also the one you provided (noting that adding an APO filter is quite the change to a lens!).
Let's keep it simple and general: using equivalence math, you can pretty precisely predict and match the results of certain lenses on certain sesnsor-sized camera's. That's the essence. For evidence: see @BTM_Pix above (and countless others).
I feel this point gets unnecessarily muddied when focusing on all kinds of specific details of rendering of a specific lens.

My dear erstwhile member can you please stop attacking John Brawley now.
I have long since given up on camera forum arguments so might not be completely up on who is right and who is wrong-evil / killed-a-kitten, but can we tone it down a bit. It's JB! We could be learning so much and having such interesting cameras talks with a film industry guy and I am sure one of the only people with a Blackmagic Pocket 2 prototype yet instead a handful of you are just bitching. It's pointless. Even if you disagree with him on certain matters, hold your tongue a bit for the benefit of the rest of us who are interested in what he has to tell.

This is the test I did for the 2017 edition of this thread
Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 on a full frame (Nikon Df), a crop frame (Nikon D500) and an MFT (Panasonic GX80).
Shot at 70mm f2.8 on the crop, 100mm f4.0 on the FF and 70mm f2.8 on 0.7x Speedbooster on the MFT.
These images show an identical equivalent depth of dirt on my wall.
 

In terms of these mics being usable for "real world" situations, I'd be more concerned about handling noise and directionality (isolation of what you're pointing the camera at) than wind noise.  Handling noise might be a reason for them being so large - if there was a suspension mechanism in there of some kind.  The capsules likely to be in there are quite small so I suspect something interesting is going on in there
The reason I'm less worried about wind noise is that I've seen YouTubers (the ultimate "real world" shooters!) put fluff over in-camera microphones with quite amazing results in some cases, so it might be something that can be retrofitted pretty simply.  Considering the location they might not get in the way much either.

Agreed ;-)
You're saying you can tell the camera's apart that took the two pictures from Andrew's original post? Nah man.

This is not true, and it would be easy to find samples that disprove what you're saying. There is no such thing as the "FF look". 
Chris

It sounds like you’re threatened by this camera so you’re making sure you point out any and all shortcomings you can. Isn’t sissy a bit emotional ? You’re reaching.
Some people will be happy with 10bit 422 as their maximum image quality as long as they have a tilt able screen and autofocus. 
Most serious image makers know that 12bit raw and 10 bit ProRes for half the price trumps the MILC features you’re desperately trying to remind everyone your precious GH5s has. Mostly because “filmmakers” don’t tend to use those features anyway. I don’t use AF.  But I shoot narrative drama.  What I need isn’t what others need.
For the majority, they will prefer the utility of the form factor, longer battery life, AF and IBIS on the GH5 and will find the bare minimum for serious work 400Mbps codec to be good enough. 
People who care about image fidelity will likely prefer what a Pocket 2 produces side by side and will also decide that they can work around the shortcomings that pertain to the way they work.
The same way others will prefer to work around the shortcomings of a lower bit depth more compressed and sub sampled image because other features are important to them. 
On board batteries on an Alexa mini on my last show were lasting about 40 mins by the way.  I guess you’re calling me a sissy. 
JB
EDIT  by the way, I don’t think it’s at all appropriate to use sissy, a word that means effeminate man or homosexual. Maybe you want to change that.

Cheers Don. Understanding equivalence was a super useful, practical insight for me. So if a thread keeps a constructive and inquisitive tone, I am glad to see people explaining and listening to each other

No, we were talking about pixel vignetting, which is caused by pixels being recessed. Oblique rays of light get occluded by the "rim" of the pixel. The farther from the center of the image, the more oblique the rays that strike that pixel. Thus, more light is occluded by the "rim" at the corners which causes vignetting. My thought was that if you simply take a design and scale it down, none of the angles will change. So the light rays passing through a 50mm on full frame will have the same angles as they would through a 25mm on MFT, if measured at corresponding points on the sensors.
Now, I just did a back-of-the-envelope calculation that implies that I was wrong, since we are measuring at equivalent DOF, which interestingly makes the diameter of the aperture equal. (Maybe that's obvious to all of you, but I found it interesting). But I don't know enough about optics to be sure that any of my thought process is correct!
 
 
True! That is why Andrew compared  a 17.5mm f0.95 to a 35mm f2.0. Halving the focal length requires an extra two f-stops wider aperture for equivalent depth of field.

Cheers Don. Understanding equivalence was a super useful, practical insight for me. So if a thread keeps a constructive and inquisitive tone, I am glad to see people explaining and listening to each other

I don't find it that great.
First of all because especially cinematographers need to know and adjust the DoF, FoV and perspective. That means then need to know the equivalent focal length for all different cameras with different sensor sizes. If you had a m4/3 camera with the 25mm @f/1.4 and you wanted to match the image with a FF camera then you would have to use a 50mm @f/2.8. You then use ISO/NDs/Lights to control exposure. 
 Second is because he was ad nauseam saying you cannot get the same look from different sensor sizes no matter what, even when people provided him with proof. He then he made a youtube video twisting the argument and saying exposure is everything. 
Lets not go back to that bitterness. 
Hopefully this is the last thread about it but lets say it one more time: Perspective only depends on the distance from the lens. You can then adjust the focal length/aperture for a given sensor size to get a specific FoV and DoF. 

I don't disagree with the fact that smaller sensors require far better glass in order to get similar performance to larger sensors. 
But the differences that are visible in that test are mostly due to perspective and not distortion, which is really a problem when shooting architecture (both stills & video). 
In any case, I believe the m4/3 still has its place. Small cameras such as the E-M5ii or the PenF coupled with tiny lenses such as the 17/1.8 and 45/1.8 are a joy to carry around your neck and shoot all day long. Something that even the A7rIII & the 35/2.8 cannot really achieve. If on the other hand you are after image quality or shallow DoF, then instead of start buying expensive & large glass for m4/3, my opinion is that a FF camera will offer a much better solution for the same price/size/weight. 
Thats why I wish Olympus & Panasonic really put an effort to keep their systems small enough but pleasurable to shoot with. For example I would really love a PenF or a GX9 with a state of the art HUGE EVF that I would want to use instead of using subpar components like the GX9 did in order to save costs  ( I would also remove at least half the buttons from these cameras  ). 

@Pedro Please do the test. This is not about opinions.
The pictures you share illustrate the behaviour of different focal lengths on a given sensor size.
The whole point is the effect of different sensor sizes trying to frame exactly the same scene from the same distance. You can shoot the exact same picture on those different sensor-sized camera's by using equivalent lenses (see my previous post for example).
This also goes for your GH2 and a6500. Tell us what lenses you own and we can help you try it out.

It can be the same. Put your m4/3 camera with a 25mm f1.4 next to a FF cam with a 50mm at F2.8. The framing and DOF will be identical. See the many examples above for more info.
As a side note: I would like to cheer everyone participating in this nerdy thread on equivalence for not getting into petty arguments (i.e. the way this subject normally ends up being debated haha).

You're like 90% of the way there.
 
See if this doesn't help:
The following examples would provide the exact same image, and therefore are "equivalent" assuming the camera is always in the same spot.
On a M34 sensor: A 25mm 1.4 lens  (and it doesn't matter if the lens was made for FF, APSC, or M43 - this is important) On a M43 sensor: A 50mm 2.8 lens, speedboosted (pretend it's a 0.5X speedbooster).  (This is because you're now actually putting a 25mm 1.4 lens on the M43 once you've added the speedbooster, just like #1) On a FF sensor: A 50mm 2.8 lens  - - - For #3 the ISO will have to be multiplied by the crop factor squared to get the same exposure. - - - 
 
 
 
I ran out of likes for today but this is very important for new filmmakers to know
I used to think this but focal length has nothing to do with perspective, only the location of the camera and the relation to the objects in frame. The easiest way to test this is to shoot a camera at a chosen focal length, say 50mm, and then shoot from the exact same place with a lens with 2X the focal length (a 100mm lens in this example). Go into an editor and compare the full shot at 100mm to a 2X crop of the shot at 50mm. They will be the exact same image. This is no different from shooting a FF camera at 100mm and a M43 camera at 50mm. This shows how the perspective never changes if you don't move the camera, no matter what lens you're using. Seriously, try it out.

@blondini No, perspective distortion is only affected by distance from the camera to the subject. No matter what sensor/lens combination you use, if the camera and the subjects don't move, then the ratio of the size of two subjects will remain the same. I did a quick and dirty test to illustrate. It's a little imprecise (the camcorder would NOT focus on the guy in front...)
For all three images the camera is in the same place. I suspect the small discrepancies in ratio (2.2% error) are mainly due to moving parts inside the camcorder when it zooms, which changes its actual distance from the subject. But this is an easy thing to test yourself.
First image is a 4mm lens on a 1/4 type sensor

Second image is a 55mm lens on an APS-C sensor

As you can see, the ratio of the figures is the same. You could even use a wider lens and the ratio remains, because the distance has not changed:
Third image is a 2mm lens on the 1/4 type sensor.

 
Quote from Wikipedia:
 
 
 
Yes, it would. As long as the camera is in the same place, the relative size of the plane compared to the people will remain the same regardless of the lens or sensor. If you don't believe me or my Legos, go try it yourself!

I go along with what Metabones says about their gear.
Oh and what do you think the difference will be if you look at (say) an M43 sensor through a 35mm f2 lens VS looking at it through a speedboosted 50mm 2.8 lens? (example not relying on exact match).
I will leave it there.

@KnightsFan Ahh right, I misunderstood his point then. Fair enough.

Assuming we're talking about the same video, he was saying that manufacturers were erroneously marketing their lenses giving equivalent focal lengths, but not equivalent apertures. Like marketing an 14-42 f2.8 as a 28-84 f2.8. His point was that IF you change one number, you have to change the other. And he did specify that he was talking about equivalent depth of field - his title card for talking about it is "Aperture & Depth of Field." He was using ISO to talk about exposure, which he explained early in the video. In his logic, once you compensate for exposure with ISO, you have to compensate with aperture as well.
It is a roundabout logic, but it does account for the lower light gathering power of a smaller surface area, and thus the need for more gain (and thus more noise or lower resolution) to reach the same ISO.
 
True, but the light gathering power of the space is directly related to its size. The SNR ratio of a smaller sensor will be lower than a larger sensor (assuming similar tech), given the same image scaled down. Hence the f0.95 doesn't actually have any low light advantage over the f2.0, if you look at the system as a whole.
 

@Andrew Reid Yeah, "directly related" isn't the correct wording, but we mean the same thing. As sensor size increases, you can either increase resolution with the same pixel size, or increase pixel size at the same resolution. You said so yourself in your disclaimer at the end: "For example you can have higher megapixel counts because there’s simply more real-estate on the chip surface to add more pixels."
That is why I said "assuming similar tech." The a7r3 has better tech. I should have specified photo-sensitive area, rather than simply "surface area" and would perhaps have been clearer.
 
Wait, you just posted an  article about how the 17.5mm f0.95 is comparable to the 35mm f2.0. If you don't have to change both numbers, why aren't you saying the 17.5mm is comparable to a 35mm f0.95?
But anyway, I'm just explaining Northup's argument. He claims there is marketing material on their websites that is misleading, idk if that's true but his crop factor equivalence works for the comparison he's making, despite being poorly worded and convoluted.

As someone less than politely pointed out on the other thread, I appear to have been a bit of a lazy arse in the almost 12 months since I tripped over and found the Cinelike d thing.
You may recall it happened because I was researching making a hardware controller and after several iterations, here it finally is.

And yes, it does look rather like a calculator doesn't it?
The different iterations (including an Android app at one point!) have been in pursuit of making something small, standalone, self powered, fast connecting, push buttons and with an integrated screen at a lowish cost and, well, here we are.
Here is the finished spec and features :
Compatible with all Panasonic Lumix cameras that can be controlled by wifi Integrated USB rechargeable battery Full colour screen 20 keys with 3 bank switch keys giving 60 direct switch operations of functions Control of Aperture, ISO, Shutter Speed, White Balance, Colour Profile, Contrast, Saturation, Sharpness and Noise Reduction. Automatic unlocking of Cinelike D and Cinelike V on GX80/85, LX10/15 and TZ10 Control of manual focus in fine and coarse steps  Control of One Shot AF Control of Record Stop/Start Store and Recall 8 focus points 4 selectable transition speeds between focus points Store and Recall 8 setup presets (each consisting of Aperture, ISO, Shutter Speed, White Balance, Colour Profile, Contrast, Saturation, Sharpness and Noise Reduction) Presets are stored in non-volatile memory so are available in any session. Boot time to camera connection and control under 2 seconds. Wifi control range tested to 20m. Optional accessories :
Interface module to support Nintendo Nunchuck controller for manual focus control (native lenses and adapted lenses with smart adapters) and zoom (integrated lens cameras and power zoom lenses only) Wireless interface module to sync remote record and stop on supported Tascam, Zoom and SoundDevices audio recorders.  The controller fits a regular cheap cellphone to threaded adapter holder so as well as being used handheld it can be mounted to anything you have a need for with the right attachment so could be on a cage or a gimbal or whatever.

I'm going to be doing some more testing of it in anger in the next couple of weeks and I'll put up a video of it in action then.
So, I have been a bit less lazy than first imagined
By the by, the controller has both wifi and bluetooth so it begs the question would anyone be interested in a version of it for the Pocket 4K ??

I see a lot of "why didn't they have this at release" or "with Fuji you're buying a half-baked camera" comments across all forums. That's complete bunk. The XT2 was a great camera when I bought it shortly after release. It is much better than the a6300 it replaced. It got a Dpreview Gold award, and lots of praise from other reviewers that weren't on Fuji's dime. Fuji is never going to be cutting edge - especially on the video side. They've addressed bugs in a timely manner. Even without the feature updates its still a great camera. The fact that we're getting stuff like continued AF improvements, 120p and focus stacking without having to buy a new body like Sony is a bonus.
Every camera I've owned in recent years had issues, including the Blackmagic Pocket, 5d2, 5d3, Samsung NX1, a7r2, a7s2 and XT2. Samsung fixed some of the problems and then abandoned the NX before sorting the obnoxious noise at 1600 and above. Blackmagic took too long to issue fixes so I sold it. Canon issued bug fixes and added 24p to the 5d2. Sony did a bug fix update on the a7's, but fixed everything else in the a7r3. Fuji has done the most, and its not close. You know damn well Sony could add PP's to the a9, improve the AF algorithms of all its cameras, or add features to its other cameras - but they do nothing except release new bodies. My a7r2 is now worth barely more than my XT2, despite costing twice as much. 
The continued refinement is one reason I'm in the Fuji camp. I buy what works for my needs, but its nice to have the camera get better over time.
Chris

I agree with him, in the photography still world the technical performance has plateaued out, with only incremental improvements now. 
When will we reach this in the video world?

I reckon the BMPCC4K could be the beginning of the end.