Otago

If only I shot on imaginary productions..  then I could use my imagination to get rid of all the problems!!
Anyway, got home from my travels today and I'm inspecting my strategy for the Single Soviet Prime Lens Challenge...  fun fun!

For my personal photo stuff I am using 35 and 90 summicrons, with the vast majority being on the 35 ( both on an M6 so full frame ), I find anymore choice than that and I get a bit of decision paralysis. It also helps that the photos don't really matter - if I get the shot I get the shot and if I don't I don't have a client asking why. I used to use a 5D and zooms but found I wasn't really present for the event that I happened to be photographing because I was thinking about it too much, it just wasn't fun anymore - I had become a bad event photographer. 
My "professional" work is training videos that I am in and I use a GH3 and 12-35 but probably soon to be a C300 with something like the 24-105 and 16-35. I like having lots of options when I'm doing videos that are a pain to reshoot and my performance is far more important than the cinematography in this case. The zooms really help because I shoot in a workshop and often can't get the camera where I would like it so the zoom really helps to get the 
So I suppose my strategy is to limit my variables so I can't get too distracted, in the first case the lenses and in the second limiting what is important to me.  It seems to be quite a common theme in this thread to limit the variables, which is encouraging!
Pretty sure I'd curl up in a little ball with a full set of cine primes with a new focal length every 2mm !
I think it's interesting that the professionals who have to get the shot and can't control all the variables need technology to help them with RAW, higher dynamic range and, for some, autofocus. I have read a few things recently that joke about how the people who can afford cameras with RAW and massive dynamic ranges and amazing autofocus are often exactly the people that don't need them because they have a crew that can control all the variables and a focus puller.

So the 4K raw is full frame and down sampled 6K ? I haven't seen anyone confirming that the RAW is full frame.
Any word on the ISO 6, 25 etc ? Does that give you full dynamic range in video or does it just move middle grey for exposure ? If it really does ISO 6 with fulll dynamic range either side of middle grey then that would be huge for me, never need another ND filter ever again and I can shoot video with M lenses and almost put it in my pocket. 

I was trying to figure out why we were wrong, the optical system hasn’t changed so the depth of field hasn’t changed - this is pretty fundamental in optical systems I have worked on.
 
The bit that we were missing, as Kye says with the circle of confusion, was that while the optical system hasn’t changed, the viewing conditions have. The depth of field ( effective to the viewer of the output ) is the same for any size sensor as long as the output is scaled similarly to the input I.e. FF35 is viewed twice the size of M43. The circle of confusion is related to both the input and output size and scaling that changes the visible depth of field. I think of it like zooming into 100% , I can see whether something is actually in focus but I couldn’t tell when scaled to fit the screen, the difference won’t be as apparent as that example though.
 
This is interesting to me because it explains why FF35 looks so good on a phone but can be too shallow on a big screen, and may explain some of the rush to the bigger sensors - as the images we view get smaller we need shallower depth of field to match the depth of field we see ourselves or are accustomed to in media.
 
What I haven’t quite wrapped my head around yet is whether it changes the absolute level of blurriness of the out of focus areas. My initial thought is that it doesn’t, it just changes the rate of transition between acceptable sharpness and out of focus but not the absolute blurriness ( I’m sure there’s better terms for this ) Anyone got any pointers on that ?

Yes, it's pretty obvious when you state it like that ? 

Let's cut to the chase with an example.
If I set up a lens and adjust focus so that the blur on some writing is just enough to make it unreadable, then it doesn't matter which crop factor or how much resolution I digitise the projection from that lens at, the text will remain unreadable.
If I then adjust the lens so that text is just readable, then it will be readable regardless of crop factor and resolution (except if the resolution is too low to resolve the detail in the text).
Does that make sense?

I was trying to figure out why we were wrong, the optical system hasn’t changed so the depth of field hasn’t changed - this is pretty fundamental in optical systems I have worked on.
 
The bit that we were missing, as Kye says with the circle of confusion, was that while the optical system hasn’t changed, the viewing conditions have. The depth of field ( effective to the viewer of the output ) is the same for any size sensor as long as the output is scaled similarly to the input I.e. FF35 is viewed twice the size of M43. The circle of confusion is related to both the input and output size and scaling that changes the visible depth of field. I think of it like zooming into 100% , I can see whether something is actually in focus but I couldn’t tell when scaled to fit the screen, the difference won’t be as apparent as that example though.
 
This is interesting to me because it explains why FF35 looks so good on a phone but can be too shallow on a big screen, and may explain some of the rush to the bigger sensors - as the images we view get smaller we need shallower depth of field to match the depth of field we see ourselves or are accustomed to in media.
 
What I haven’t quite wrapped my head around yet is whether it changes the absolute level of blurriness of the out of focus areas. My initial thought is that it doesn’t, it just changes the rate of transition between acceptable sharpness and out of focus but not the absolute blurriness ( I’m sure there’s better terms for this ) Anyone got any pointers on that ?

I've heard that, inspired by RED's old 3K for $3K scheme, Canon UK are planning a paid upgrade and will be doing a 24p for 24p offer.

You would need a separate clock circuit for true 24.00p. However, the 23.976p that's more commonly used in consumer cameras is derived from a 60Hz base clock - in 60Hz mode my FZ2000 gives the option of "24p", 30p or 60p, but in 50Hz mode it's 25p or 50p only - so if a camera can do 30/60p, there's no fundamental reason it shouldn't be able to do 23.976p.

Man this P6K footage is so bad and vidoish.
 
Wow the P4K looks like a baby camera next to the P6K footage.
 

I don't think this is for ProRes RAW, it's so they can put RAW video in the iPhone and the licensing there would be crippling. I wonder if the Hydrogen is some sort of play to show that Red is in the phone market and the iPhone doing RAW video would be a loss to them directly. If you can wrap RAW in a ProRes stream then you can probably wrap it in a more consumer oriented format, 1/3 of the data rate has got to be compelling once phones get fast enough ( they may even be already )

On the media and monitors, certainly  

I think camera's may be coming to a cross roads, they won't be tools anymore, there won't be a noticeable difference in the output of a cheaper DSLR and a high end phone in most situations and for most people's uses. This has happened in lots of industries; computers are one, my 5 year old MacBook Pro still does everything that 90% of computer users need it for but Apple still sell plenty of new ones, cars are another because the current Golf R is far quicker than a Porsche from 10 years ago and the difference isn't that great to even a modern Porsche. 
There will still be a market for people buying cameras like the Leica M, the Fuji's and esoteric products like the ALPA because using them is a different, and better for some, experience to using a phone or a conventional wheels and screens DSLR. Much like the Porsche and Golf example above.
The issue for me will be whether they end up dead industries because of a lack of return on investment and reliability, can companies fund a new camera that we can afford when they know they will only sell a few 10's of thousands of them ? Companies still make film, but how many truly new emulsions have come out since the peak of film ? Companies still make turntables and hifi speakers but there's very little real innovation, because they are cottage industries. 
Perhaps a lack of reliability will be their saving grace, will my GH3 last me as long as my Hasselblad ? I'm yet to actually have a digital camera fail me when I haven't done something egregious to it so perhaps ? 
 

I think camera's may be coming to a cross roads, they won't be tools anymore, there won't be a noticeable difference in the output of a cheaper DSLR and a high end phone in most situations and for most people's uses. This has happened in lots of industries; computers are one, my 5 year old MacBook Pro still does everything that 90% of computer users need it for but Apple still sell plenty of new ones, cars are another because the current Golf R is far quicker than a Porsche from 10 years ago and the difference isn't that great to even a modern Porsche. 
There will still be a market for people buying cameras like the Leica M, the Fuji's and esoteric products like the ALPA because using them is a different, and better for some, experience to using a phone or a conventional wheels and screens DSLR. Much like the Porsche and Golf example above.
The issue for me will be whether they end up dead industries because of a lack of return on investment and reliability, can companies fund a new camera that we can afford when they know they will only sell a few 10's of thousands of them ? Companies still make film, but how many truly new emulsions have come out since the peak of film ? Companies still make turntables and hifi speakers but there's very little real innovation, because they are cottage industries. 
Perhaps a lack of reliability will be their saving grace, will my GH3 last me as long as my Hasselblad ? I'm yet to actually have a digital camera fail me when I haven't done something egregious to it so perhaps ? 
 

Yes, but Otago Street in Glasgow, Scotland,  rather than New Zealand I'm afraid  

Yes, but Otago Street in Glasgow, Scotland,  rather than New Zealand I'm afraid