seanzzxx

There is no Ursa with a dual gain sensor by the way. Also all the people here touting the ML M50 as anything other than an interesting technical achievement (comparing it to an incredible workhorse camera) I just cannot comprehend. If anything I'd say the FS7 is the modem equivalent: super well priced for the time and an all around workhorse camera that is EVERYWHERE (and to be clear, I don't really like the image it produces, I'm just commenting on its position in the field right now).

There is no Ursa with a dual gain sensor by the way. Also all the people here touting the ML M50 as anything other than an interesting technical achievement (comparing it to an incredible workhorse camera) I just cannot comprehend. If anything I'd say the FS7 is the modem equivalent: super well priced for the time and an all around workhorse camera that is EVERYWHERE (and to be clear, I don't really like the image it produces, I'm just commenting on its position in the field right now).

Your terminology seems confused: image density refers to how well exposed a (film) image is. A well exposed negative will literally be denser/thicker than an underexposed one, which will be thin.

Your terminology seems confused: image density refers to how well exposed a (film) image is. A well exposed negative will literally be denser/thicker than an underexposed one, which will be thin.

Your terminology seems confused: image density refers to how well exposed a (film) image is. A well exposed negative will literally be denser/thicker than an underexposed one, which will be thin.

This is all anecdotal but in my experience the Pocket 4K is EVERYWHERE in the low budget circuit, with its entry price of 1400 dollars and great image.

Post #100000000 on this.

 ARRI/Canon/Kodak will win the majority. People who know what they're doing can make ANY of these cameras look great and poor artists can make them look bad.

Talent/lighting/lenses/grading make more of a difference than the brand. 

This is all anecdotal but in my experience the Pocket 4K is EVERYWHERE in the low budget circuit, with its entry price of 1400 dollars and great image.

This is all anecdotal but in my experience the Pocket 4K is EVERYWHERE in the low budget circuit, with its entry price of 1400 dollars and great image.

The only reason I downvoted you is because I intensely dislike your post-truth, conspiratorial worldview: I think it stands in the way of productive discussion. You calling me (a yearlong, very inactive member who has basically only posted about Blackmagic and RED during his time here) a Canon shill, instead of applying even a modicum of Occam's Razor and just assuming I'm someone in disagreement with your tone and ideas, really goes to prove my point. Anyhow.

I use the 1/8 Black Promist filter on that exact lens A LOT, and I highly recommend it. Subtle, but great.

I feel like you are kind of moving the goalposts. This guy has a use case where he has shot hundreds of shots on cameras with all kinds of film backs (for camera comparisons), and somehow this does not count because his lenses are too wide? This is based on real-world experience with everything from an IMAX down to a super 35 camera. He even admits in the article that his matching is not perfect due to practical limitations (t-stops and f-stops not aligning, lenses not matching exactly to their equivalent counterparts, etc.), but his argument is that the likeness between shots is so convincing and consistent that the sensor size obviously does not play a role in the actual image, and that any perceived difference is due to bias or particular (non image circle-related) lens characteristics, not due to the size of the film back. In fact, where you have been previously arguing about recognizing a larger format due to increased lens blur (in your examples where you are circling a number of shots), the Alexa 65 actually seems to have slightly LESS lens blur in the examples provided by Steve Yedlin, likely due to my aforementioned reasons. This, again, seems to provide an argument that any perceived differences are more likely to be due to individual lens characteristiscs or other uncontrolled variables which are not related to the film back size.

EDIT: I hope this does not come off as argumentative, as I do appreciate -and enjoy- the discussion!

Most of the test parameters are given in the second half of this post from earlier in this thread.
 
 
The format related properties are inherent in their optics, but the format and its optics are married to each other in regards to the look/sharpness.
 
I agree that a controlled test should reveal general differences in optics for made for different formats.
 
 
No.  The problem with the tests are not their degree of rigor -- the problem is that every DOF test presented so far completely misses the point of what it is that is being tested.
 
If one is testing DOF, it is sort of necessary to show the actual DOF.  Instead, almost all such tests so far have merely shown the subject and an arbitrarily soft background at some arbitrary distance.  Here is the typical set-up that we see in these comparisons;
     camera  >>  AIR  >>  sharp subject  >>  AIR  >>  soft background
 
The limits of the DOF invariably are located in the "AIR" where there is no object nor surface visible to show the location nor the transitional character of those important limits.
 
So, instead of testing the DOF, these comparisons actually just show how closely the tester can match the soft background using math along with the aperture markings on the lens.
 
Usually, these tests also suffer other significant mistakes, such as in-camera sharpening, using zoom lenses, using wide lenses with deep DOF, etc.
 
Additionally, the "soft background" in most of these tests is usually a wall or some other obstruction, beyond which no detail nor focus falloff is visible.
 
 
Obviously, the foreground limit of DOF is important in DOF tests, because that limit is a major element that determines the DOF.
 
In addition, the transitional characteristic of the foreground limit and the character of the softness beyond that frontA limit are both crucial to a lot of cinematography.  For instance, consider any focus rack from far to near (or vice versa).  When the camera is focused on the distant subject, the look of the soft near subject is determined by the DOF.
 
In regards to Yedlin's test images showing the same elements characteristics as those in the 8"x10" photo that I linked above, there is one important and conspicuous difference -- the 8"x10" image shows the rear DOF limit and its distinctive transitional character quite clearly, while the rear DOF limit in Yedlin's shots are lost in the air.
 
And, again, Yedlin used wider lenses with a deeper DOF.  Not so with my linked image.
 
 
Yes.  The parameters are:
Use dramatically different sized formats (with their corresponding optics); Use a continuously visible surface (preferably ruled) or a row of uniform objects that starts far in front of the subject and that recedes far behind the subject; Use narrow lenses; Use a shallow DOF; First set the DOF of the smaller format, then match by eye the DOF of the larger format.

PLEASE point me to that test then, because I feel like whatever magic properties that should be inherent to sensor size should manifest in sóme way under a controlled test. So far you are just shooting down any test provided as not being rigorous enough (why on Earth would foreground unsharpness matter in any way when according to your last example provided the special properties of large format are abundantly clear in a shot that has just as much elements in front of the focus point, that is a nose, as in the examples provided by Yedlin), but if the differences were significant so as to be meaningful there should be a way to test for this relatively easily right? I

PLEASE point me to that test then, because I feel like whatever magic properties that should be inherent to sensor size should manifest in sóme way under a controlled test. So far you are just shooting down any test provided as not being rigorous enough (why on Earth would foreground unsharpness matter in any way when according to your last example provided the special properties of large format are abundantly clear in a shot that has just as much elements in front of the focus point, that is a nose, as in the examples provided by Yedlin), but if the differences were significant so as to be meaningful there should be a way to test for this relatively easily right? I

The only reason I downvoted you is because I intensely dislike your post-truth, conspiratorial worldview: I think it stands in the way of productive discussion. You calling me (a yearlong, very inactive member who has basically only posted about Blackmagic and RED during his time here) a Canon shill, instead of applying even a modicum of Occam's Razor and just assuming I'm someone in disagreement with your tone and ideas, really goes to prove my point. Anyhow.

I feel like you are kind of moving the goalposts. This guy has a use case where he has shot hundreds of shots on cameras with all kinds of film backs (for camera comparisons), and somehow this does not count because his lenses are too wide? This is based on real-world experience with everything from an IMAX down to a super 35 camera. He even admits in the article that his matching is not perfect due to practical limitations (t-stops and f-stops not aligning, lenses not matching exactly to their equivalent counterparts, etc.), but his argument is that the likeness between shots is so convincing and consistent that the sensor size obviously does not play a role in the actual image, and that any perceived difference is due to bias or particular (non image circle-related) lens characteristics, not due to the size of the film back. In fact, where you have been previously arguing about recognizing a larger format due to increased lens blur (in your examples where you are circling a number of shots), the Alexa 65 actually seems to have slightly LESS lens blur in the examples provided by Steve Yedlin, likely due to my aforementioned reasons. This, again, seems to provide an argument that any perceived differences are more likely to be due to individual lens characteristiscs or other uncontrolled variables which are not related to the film back size.

EDIT: I hope this does not come off as argumentative, as I do appreciate -and enjoy- the discussion!

There is an interesting post from cinematographer Steve Yedlin talking about this exact issue. As far as he's concerned, there is no unique 'look' to larger formats unless using a different format somehow forces you to set up your camera differently. https://www.yedlin.net/NerdyFilmTechStuff/MatchLensBlur.html
 
He has some pretty rigorous testing to go with it.

I feel like you are kind of moving the goalposts. This guy has a use case where he has shot hundreds of shots on cameras with all kinds of film backs (for camera comparisons), and somehow this does not count because his lenses are too wide? This is based on real-world experience with everything from an IMAX down to a super 35 camera. He even admits in the article that his matching is not perfect due to practical limitations (t-stops and f-stops not aligning, lenses not matching exactly to their equivalent counterparts, etc.), but his argument is that the likeness between shots is so convincing and consistent that the sensor size obviously does not play a role in the actual image, and that any perceived difference is due to bias or particular (non image circle-related) lens characteristics, not due to the size of the film back. In fact, where you have been previously arguing about recognizing a larger format due to increased lens blur (in your examples where you are circling a number of shots), the Alexa 65 actually seems to have slightly LESS lens blur in the examples provided by Steve Yedlin, likely due to my aforementioned reasons. This, again, seems to provide an argument that any perceived differences are more likely to be due to individual lens characteristiscs or other uncontrolled variables which are not related to the film back size.

EDIT: I hope this does not come off as argumentative, as I do appreciate -and enjoy- the discussion!

Thanks for the link!
 
I doubt that he is talking about this exact issue.  Like most other folks who do equivalency tests, he likely limits his attention to mathematical DOF, and his tests use wider angle lenses and there is no delineation of the front and rear DOF limits with a lot of other detail thrown away or ignored.
 
 
I don't have time right now to read the linked page, but if the images shown are the extent of his comparison, his tests are invalid.  He does not show how the limits of DOF are delineated.  He seems to be using wide angles focal lengths, and I can see a difference in one of the images with just a glance.

There is an interesting post from cinematographer Steve Yedlin talking about this exact issue. As far as he's concerned, there is no unique 'look' to larger formats unless using a different format somehow forces you to set up your camera differently. https://www.yedlin.net/NerdyFilmTechStuff/MatchLensBlur.html
 
He has some pretty rigorous testing to go with it.

Today a large part of the social media comments, articles and reviews on controversial subjects are written by diverse armies of paid shills, "fact-checking", creating fake news, exposing "fake news" with fake news, whitewashing their employers and smearing critics. This was documented by The Intercept in 2014 and by political campaigners in 2016. Corporations like Google, Twitter and Facebook, powerful private interest groups (Club of Rome, climate change, global taxes, vaccinations etc) and state agencies, spend hundreds of millions for this modern and extended PR.
Canon last year spent over 400 million dollars on public relations and advertising. Almost double what the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation pays, which is in the media all the time. The latter has given over $2 million to groups such as fact-checker Africa Check ($1.48 million), media company Gannett ($499,651), and the journalism school the Poynter Institute ($382,997). In return, when you google "gates foundation fact checkers millions", the second link goes to the Poynter Institute-owned fact-checker Politifact.com, where their "factcheckers" whitewash the Gates Foundation.
The only reason we ever knew that, for example, the Clinton campaign was hiring professional shills to pose as real Hillary supporters online in order to deceive people and manipulate public discourse is because they were forced to disclose it due to FEC regulations.
https://extranewsfeed.com/media-war-toolkit-the-seven-deadliest-weapons-against-establishment-propaganda-d535c311d0eb

I really hope this and the Ursa 12K drive the prices of the Ursa g2's down to be honest.

I really hope this and the Ursa 12K drive the prices of the Ursa g2's down to be honest.

Its a huge shame that  other camera manufacturers don't follow Blackmagics example of running video via USB to a SSD drive.  This would be a better solution to the R5 than an external recorder.  You could eliminate the card and still record for longer periods on something much lighter and not battery powered than an external recorder. 
If the R5 has this function and allowed longer recording times, including even 8K RAW and 120fps 4K to it, I would buy the camera.  
As it stands, internal is too unreliable and external risky due to micro HDMI and too bulky for what I would buy the camera for.