Django

Imperfection doesn't necessarily mean less...
EAG :- )

Lol... and what other hybrid camera's CS better competes with the $36K Alexa Mini or $150,000 Alexa 65?
You have to be somewhat realistic in your expectations.
I also feel your judgement is clouded by comparing Canon footage shot with a kit lens and a quick grade vs Hollywood movie shot on $30K cine primes and professionally graded by a pro colorist.
When you take the same lens and apply a simple primary grade the difference isn't as big as you may think.
 
This actually means a lot coming from an actual ARRI Alexa owner.
Sorry, but that's such a backwards way of looking at things.

I think Canon color science is lovely, right behind ARRI. However they've never really made serious cinema cameras. ARRI is certainly the best with RED, kinda. Most people doing high end work look down on RED. Honestly the Sony Venice seems to have a much better rapport than any RED camera with high end stuff. I've heard a ton of good things about the Venice while RED is constantly hated on.

 I was kind of warming up to the R5C. One big benefit of the camera is the fast readout for low rolling shutter effect in 4k. Dynamic range isn't as good as the C70 though and the micro HDMI makes it a no go for me. How can you sell a $4,500 camera with micro HDMI.

 I still have yet to see a camera that can really do anything against my Arri Alexa, besides resolution. I just don't give a damn about resolution. The Netflix 4k thing is pretty dumb IMO. Almost all big hollywood stuff is shot in 4k anyways and Netflix productions are big money. Renting an Alexa LF or other 4k cine camera is pennies and dimes compared to the cost of the entire production.

Of course not, I can understand you and this has been 'a new normal' with smartphones massification towards the content published on social media today but...
...why should we professionals or knowledgeable enthusiasts be unable to know how to properly shoot to begin with?
 
I come from film school where we had 2-3 takes per shot and no more than a full hand at best rate(/ratio) to further selection. Do you think when digital arrived people, used to such discipline, left and simply abandoned the norm?
 
Technology exists to improve and bring an increase of our potential skills range. To open them wings and fly, not to kill anything we got already earlier. The same way we sell our house for something bigger, we don't start from scratch or move lower, unless we fail. Don't blame technology but the human being behind, either on lacking something or the whole world around lacking all, if any.

Right but don't take as a resolution example that re-graded screenshot from a 4K graded compressed YT image.
The crop and grading possibilities from actual RAW 8K footage is on a complete other level!
Again those are just screenshots from a 4K YT video.. wasn't really trying to make an argument for 8K there, just a regrade for fun..
Netflix is where it's moving tech wise and their requirements are +4K with most popular shows/films shot on RED (Monstro/Helium/Weapon) 8K, Venice 6K & Alexa 65.
Hollywood cinema has much lower requirements as the majority of theatres still use 2K projection hence Alexa's long withstanding popularity.

Maybe I'm alone here but I totally embrace 8K. Can think of quite a few practical uses for it. If you don't need it you always got oversampled 6K/4K.
That 8K50p RAW is something else. I've been working with (R5) 8K RAW footage recently and I'm loving it. It's that same effect of going 4K from FHD. It can't be unseen (even though I'm on a 5K monitor) and now regular non-oversampled 4K almost feels too soft. 
The really nice thing about R5C is you can jump from 8K/6K/4K/3K in all codecs with FF/S35/S16 crop factors. 
That just gives you so many options. Slashcam article also reveals 4K60p is no longer line skipping and 4K120p also takes a leap forward in IQ.
I'm really starting to warm up to this camera, I was all set on C70 but I'm sort of GASing harder for R5C now.
Couple grades from that video just for fun.. (model deserved better)
 
 

Maybe I'm alone here but I totally embrace 8K. Can think of quite a few practical uses for it. If you don't need it you always got oversampled 6K/4K.
That 8K50p RAW is something else. I've been working with (R5) 8K RAW footage recently and I'm loving it. It's that same effect of going 4K from FHD. It can't be unseen (even though I'm on a 5K monitor) and now regular non-oversampled 4K almost feels too soft. 
The really nice thing about R5C is you can jump from 8K/6K/4K/3K in all codecs with FF/S35/S16 crop factors. 
That just gives you so many options. Slashcam article also reveals 4K60p is no longer line skipping and 4K120p also takes a leap forward in IQ.
I'm really starting to warm up to this camera, I was all set on C70 but I'm sort of GASing harder for R5C now.
Couple grades from that video just for fun.. (model deserved better)
 
 

As far as I could understand, not every shots are handheld despite the information there...
In any case, it's quite promising to those who only need it for shaky hands and use a gimbal when for camera movement shots:
8K 50p is pretty handy to replace a stills camera too ;- )

Z9 & R3 are indeed the current flagships at D6/1DX3 equivalent prices.

 
..very nice specs on both but again on video side, you're not going to get WFM, false color, LUT support, dual ISO, time code, magnify during record etc. These are very important cine features imo.
That is where R5C beats both, for much cheaper. But yeah no IBIS or instant photo/video switching.
So yeah, there is no perfect hybrid. Always a compromise somewhere!

"camcorder gimmicks" lol... I guess it depends how you shoot. I think exposure/focus tools can be very useful, especially at +4K and for fast turnarounds when you're not shooting raw. I also like to be able to have shutter angle & gain measures. the anamorphic desqueeze can be clutch. the LUT support is probably my favorite cine cam feature. YMMV of course.
Z9's EVF is actually not that high res at 3.69 m-dots (which is kinda mid-range A7IV/R6 level) compared to R3/R5's 5.76 m-dots or A1's whopping 9.44 m-dots. E-shutter only, there are pros/cons to that. N-log's a bit dated (not the best DR, they need Nlog2/Nlog3). But overall though, I agree Z9 on paper has the better specs in most areas. 
Like you were saying earlier, the biggest problem with Z9 will be getting a hold of one.
Canon I just read have managed to get around the chip supply shortage and that may very well turn out to be a great advantage at this time and point.

It's all fine in theory but it ignores the reality.
In reality you simply have different lenses designed for different formats.
You cannot mimic the look of a Canon 50mm F0.95 Dream Lens from the 1970s on full frame by taking a different lens with equivalent focal length and aperture on another size sensor because:
A) One doesn't exist
B) If it did exist, it would not be a Canon from the 1970s
C) The hand of the original optics designer matter
D) The rendering is unique to that original lens. Not even the Leica Noctilux 50mm F0.95 looks anywhere near close to it.
Also there are certain lenses that don't even fit a Speed Booster. There is simply no room for a focal reducer between Leica M mount lenses and any of the mirrorless mounts of today.
If I have a special lens that is only at its best on the sensor size it was designed to match then I am stupid to use it on something else.
Equally if I have a LOMO anamorphic that simply doesn't cover full frame, how exactly would I try to mimic the look in any other way on my full frame camera without cropping?
So Yedlin's theory can go and do one to be quite honest.
There's a lot more to the look of a large format than matching DoF.
What exactly does he define as the look?
Of course the look is not just shallow DOF.
Far more depends on sensor size and format than that.
Yeah well different lenses were used weren't they?
So hardly surprising... Even if you go crazy about matching everything with equivalence you will need to use different focal lengths and apertures, and if you are using prime lenses that means you need different lenses for different camera formats.

Z9 & R3 are indeed the current flagships at D6/1DX3 equivalent prices.

 
..very nice specs on both but again on video side, you're not going to get WFM, false color, LUT support, dual ISO, time code, magnify during record etc. These are very important cine features imo.
That is where R5C beats both, for much cheaper. But yeah no IBIS or instant photo/video switching.
So yeah, there is no perfect hybrid. Always a compromise somewhere!

No, I asked you what does CS have to do with sensor size, not lenses. Simple question, you seem to be the one not following. 
By the way, the Yedlin quote you took was from his essay on color science. Again, off-topic. 
If you wanna quote Yedlin, at least try do it from one of his essays on format sizes which would then at least be relevant to this discussion:
ON COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT LARGE FORMAT OPTICS
MATCHING LENS BLUR ON DIFFERENT FORMAT SIZES
(btw you'll notice CS never gets mentioned. wonder why?)
Now while all that Yedlin says is factually true, I can't say I necessarily agree with his conclusions that lean on the Chris Nichols side that there is no Large format look because DoF & FoV can be matched by equivalencies and that the audience won't know the difference:
Since the audience can see only the final blur circles and neither the f/stop nor the sensor size, they can't see in the final image if blur circles are increased by a larger format size or by a larger aperture. Those two things are interchangeable in the final image, so this is not a "look" that's discernable in the final image. (It may be easier for the the filmmaker to achieve a certain size blur circle in one format or another but the audience also can't see how easy or difficult it is -- they only see the final image, so again, it's not a "look.”).
This is where the MINI/65 comparison video comparing the 35mm to the 70mm shows a huge difference in look/aesthetic and imo contradicts this conclusion.
His example of matching a 50mm at F11 to a 18mm at F4 is certainly not conclusive either imo. Shoot that LF 50mm at F1.3 and good luck finding an equivalent 18mm f0.5! Yet his response to that is again that the audience will never know so there is no look:
Even in an unusual edge case where a filmmaker has a specific model of large format lens at an extremely wide aperture and the only lens model available to him/her for a smaller format camera can't open wide enough to get the same size blur circles: anyone who only looks at the final image and wasn't there when the image was captured can't SEE that the aperture was at its endpoint, so that's not a "look" -- it's just something that the filmmakers are aware of during production (that the aperture and not the sensor was the limting factor in this particular case). 
Let's keep in mind though that Yedlin is talking from a digital cinema perspective where S35 is still the standard and hence the format with most lens choices (vs 65mm LF). So this subjective point of view doesn't necessarily fully translate to our hybrid world where FF is the longstanding widespread standard and most people here invest in an according lens format system.
So you color matched a lomo to a samyang shot in post. Congrats, but that still has nothing to do with sensor size.
I strongly suggest you start another thread to discuss CS or even lens emulation in post, which are both interesting side topics.

Z9 & R3 are indeed the current flagships at D6/1DX3 equivalent prices.

 
..very nice specs on both but again on video side, you're not going to get WFM, false color, LUT support, dual ISO, time code, magnify during record etc. These are very important cine features imo.
That is where R5C beats both, for much cheaper. But yeah no IBIS or instant photo/video switching.
So yeah, there is no perfect hybrid. Always a compromise somewhere!

From my experience with C200 & R5 CRL the footage is considerably sharper with finer detail. and of course 12-bit color.
Should really unlock that DGO sensor and be an IQ game changer. If you've been underwhelmed by C70 up until now, be prepared for a significant IQ upgrade with the firmware update.

Oh I totally agree with you on that, different pairings yield different results.
I also have the EF 50mm F1.2L and find it too lacking on crop sensors, but also have a FF 85mm Zeiss that looks great when adapted on my FS7's S35 sensor.
There is no rule of thumb, its down to personal preference and look you're trying to achieve. 
Must admit I'm curious about how FF lenses must look on MF. Plenty of vignetting I'm sure. or are you using the 35mm crop mode on the GFX?
 

@BTM_Pix You've surely seen this already but I guess it deserves being posted as its basically identical project (VP with VIVE/UE and short-throw projector):
 

Step 3 - Start your engines..
So, a few days on and where are we up to ?
I'm happy to say that we have moved forward but, obviously, its a very long journey so the extent of that movement is all relative.
I'm happy to see though that @majoraxis has put together a good primer regarding the projectors for when (or if 😉 ) I get that far.
First step forward was installing Unreal Engine and the first decision there was whether to use the current version 4 (4.27 to be precise) or the early access version of the upcoming version 5.
Both versions are free so the choice for me really was to stick with the current v4.27 release version as its more of a known entity so the learning resources are more plentiful, which is important whilst I'm just paddling in the shallows.
There is also less of a resource requirement in terms of the machine to run it on which, as I'm using a MacBook pro that is really long in the tooth, is a big factor.
Going into this, I am well aware of the limitations of the 1.5gb built in Intel graphics of my MacBook so there is no point trying to explore what v5 brings to the table as judging by the hovercraft noises coming from it when I'm running v4.27 then I'm guessing running v5 would require a fire extinguisher to be at hand.
You can have both versions installed on your machine though so if you have a suitable machine then go for it.
Just to briefly touch on why v5 is a big deal, the primary aspects are two elements called Nanite and Lumen which offer huge advances in terms of detail and lighting control as discussed here :
 
Obviously, v5 will be the ultimate destination but thats some way off yet, particularly considering that a wallet damaging computer upgrade will be required.
As what I'm interested in doing first is applicable to both versions then it can wait anyway and I'll be working in v4.27.
OK, so just circling back to the fundamentals of what the hell Unreal Engine is and using very broad brush strokes to discuss it... (apologies for the baby steps)
It started as the engine used to produce a game called Unreal back in the late 90s (the clue was always in the name 😉 ) and was then licensed to other game developers over the subsequent years using various licensing models to its current status where it is free of charge in terms of royalties for products grossing less than $1m.
Which means its definitely completely free for us !
You can read more about its history here 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_Engine
Such is its longevity, ubiquity and support of all gaming platforms, its fairly likely that if you have played any games more graphically challenging than Pong in the past few decades that you have already experienced something created with Unreal Engine.
If, like me, you have been playing more recent titles such as those that have had you running around Midgar lashing Materia at anything with a Shinra logo on it then you will have noticed how much more cinematic everything is.
There have always been the pre-rendered cut scenes that have always looked cinematic of course but now the real time in game content is also taking on an increasingly cinematic look thanks to the simultaneous advancement in machines we are playing them on with the tools in Unreal Engine to simulate the aesthetic.
Bringing this down to two very basic elements, Unreal Engine offers you the ability to build and light the set and then provides you with the camera with which to capture it.
In real time.
And of course, as this emulates the exact paradigm of real world production, the advancements in those two elements is what has sparked the interest in using it for virtual production.
From my point of view, the creation of the set is secondary at this point as I don't have the skills or the time at the moment to be creating the assets but, fortunately, I don't have to as there is plenty of starter content that is freely available from the Marketplace for Unreal Engine that we can use to get going.
For me, this is all about the virtual camera as this is what we will see the scene through and what we will be looking to match to a real camera so all the initial work I've been doing is using very simple sets and seeing what I can do in terms of operating the virtual camera.
The virtual camera has all the same elements of a real camera in that you can not only move its position, change the lens focal length and aperture etc but also control its processing elements such as white balance, ISO and shutter speed.
In the parlance of Unreal Engine, this virtual camera is referred to as a Cine Camera Actor and here is an example of how you see it within the editor.

So as you can see in this example, we have the Cine Camera Actor pointing at the figure inside the set that has been created and in the bottom right you can see its generated viewport of the scene based on its current settings.
The Cine Camera Actor has all the same elements of a real camera in that you can not only move its position, change the lens focal length and aperture etc but also control its processing elements such as white balance, ISO and shutter speed and all these changes that you make will be reflected in the generated viewport in real time.
So, if we change the focal length to be wider then we will get the matching field of view, if we move the position of the camera we will see a different part of the scene, if we open the aperture we will get a shallower depth of field and so on, exactly as it would with a real camera.
How we make those changes in real time as we would with that real camera will be covered in the next enthralling episode 😉 
 

Fascinating stuff! As an occasional gamer who recently acquired a PS5, i can only say games using UE engine and other next-gen engines (Detroit, God of War etc) are simply mind blowing with the realism of the environments and real-time rendering of bokeh, rack focusing, lens flare, lighting etc.
Also having recently produced a filmed project with augmented 3D assets done in Blender/Unity, this topic is of interest. It was fascinating to me how seamlessly my VFX unit pulled the metadata from the RAW filmed footage to recreate the scene environments respecting focal length, aperture, WB etc. 
VP is complete next-level, here's another ILM promo from season 2 where they took things even further:
Mega-million budget for sure but it would sure be interesting to see if/how this tech can somewhat trickle down.. 
 

Not to criticise, however that can't really be done, but they are absolutely 100% linked.
If you only see the centre crop of a painting, the composition is different, the brush strokes are different, you're not able to discuss the aesthetics of the whole thing
So you can't discuss a lens without adding sensor size to the discussion, or at the very least the sensor format it was designed for.

Simply making observations made on a real-life comparison test video.  Not even arguing about the thousand hours you put in post to emulate the look of the 65+DNA Prime by adding vignette, barrel distortion, grading ETC. 
No disrespect to your skills but again sorry, you're being off-topic. 
(Personally, I think I'd rather use a speed booster to achieve any bigger sensor lens look than muck around in post all day with bigger sensor reference footage you never get irl to emulate it, but to each their own.)
That is not what I'm saying. What is even a "nice" lens? That's so subjective. Some like modern tack sharp, others soft with vintage flair. What is for sure is that FF has the biggest lens selection 35mm being such an old & popular format.
But again, your deflecting to an entire other side conversation. 
I'm saying a FF/MF/LF lens will give its full characteristics on it's native sensor size, regardless of how "nice" a lens is. 
On a crop sensor, only the center of the optic will be used, losing some of its inherent characteristics.
Its pretty basic stuff really, not sure what you are arguing about.
And of course I'm talking about lenses, I thought it was established pages ago that sensor size AND lens pairing go hand-in-hand. 
Anyways I kinda feel you're being purposely dense and obtuse for the sake of argument winning, I've noticed this in many other threads that seemed to aimlessly go on forever, so let's maybe save up some bandwidth and just agree to disagree on this topic? 😉 
Cheers

From my experience with C200 & R5 CRL the footage is considerably sharper with finer detail. and of course 12-bit color.
Should really unlock that DGO sensor and be an IQ game changer. If you've been underwhelmed by C70 up until now, be prepared for a significant IQ upgrade with the firmware update.

Yeah it gets even more confusing in digital cinema as "Super35" isn't even a standard within camera manufacturers.
Quick search reveals that:  the ARRI Alexa has a sensor that is 4:3, 23.8 x 17.8mm. The Canon C200 uses a 16:9 sensor at 24.6 x 13.8 mm. Panasonic gave the EVA-1 a 4:3 sensor at 24.89 x 18.66 mm. Blackmagic with their 23.1 x 12.99 mm in the BMPCC 6K. All of these are marketed as Super 35, but if you put the same lens on each of these cameras you’ll end up with a slight variation in the image crop.
With FF its 36x24mm all across.
That's a S16 lens though. I was talking about adapting FF lenses to crop sensors.
I wouldn't go that far, both cams are using top-notch ARRI lenses!
I think it's a wonderful test, depending on what you're looking for. The second clip with the 35mm vs 70mm shows such a huge difference. It's whole other feel/look. 
Disregarding FoV/DoF comparisons, the clearest variable is resolution difference (6K vs 3.8K). That kinda flaws the comparison if trying to be objective but it's actually pertinent to the original discussion considering medium format usually has about double megapixel res than FF. and as we were saying one could argue higher resolution enhances the lens rendition.
The vignetting on the 65's wide sensor vs the center crop on the mini also shows how you're getting the full characteristics of the lens circle. That alone is huge imo (especially on a $30-40K ARRI prime lens lol). You can fake vignetting/edge blur etc in post but as you said it's going to be approximate.. and fake. 
The 65's bigger sensor also does much better in lowlight, even though the mini has pleasing filmic noise. 
Haven't done a deep dive with the footage as you have so I'm sure a bunch of other details/variables are present but resolution/low light aside I may prefer the Alexa on some shots. Guess I'm also conditioned/biased towards the overall look & feel of its IQ. 

Prince Andrew should have hired that Rep for his PR team.. Good at dodging bullets & sweatproof.
 

Of course its about lenses.. AND how they interact on a sensor size.
Going FF for the Ozark DP allowed him to rehouse and use Leica R glass with the same feel as on 35mm film. 
No need to hunt down an impossible to find 23mm f0.95 equivalent just to get the standard 35mm f1.4 FoV/Dof look.
And yes I know all about Voigtlander but that is just one speciality lens maker.
Speedboosters are another common trick to achieve FF but then we're really talking "faux-full-frame".
Going FF opens you up to fast wides from all popular lens makers from all periods of time.
And like I said earlier it's not just about DoF. A 23mm has more distortion than a 35mm. Both in FoV & perspective. 
In the end it's subjective, again I am not a FF elitist when it comes to video/film. I also love Super35 and the thousands of modern classics shot on Alexas, REDs, Varicams etc..
But there is a convenience of just popping on any FF lens and the focal length aperture is what it is. no math involved.