PPNS

it’s a trick to understand optics and basic math?
jesus fucking christ man
if any of you gave as much shit about making, or working on interesting art on here and sharing it instead of jacking off your lil dingdongs over new gear, resolutions, different starting point looks of shitty fucking sensors, or being mentally insane about 24 fps this place could actually have interesting discussions. 
 
I fucking hate gear. i fucking hate lenses, cameras, shitty lights, cables, rigs etc. Sadly its necessary to understand at least some of it, as it is a means to an end to create what i actually want to create. i suggest others to view it same way. Or learn color grading, like kye said. That has generated a bit of income for me from time to time.
 

it’s a trick to understand optics and basic math?
jesus fucking christ man
if any of you gave as much shit about making, or working on interesting art on here and sharing it instead of jacking off your lil dingdongs over new gear, resolutions, different starting point looks of shitty fucking sensors, or being mentally insane about 24 fps this place could actually have interesting discussions. 
 
I fucking hate gear. i fucking hate lenses, cameras, shitty lights, cables, rigs etc. Sadly its necessary to understand at least some of it, as it is a means to an end to create what i actually want to create. i suggest others to view it same way. Or learn color grading, like kye said. That has generated a bit of income for me from time to time.
 

if i had the option/luxury to, i would certainly try to shoot with the 65 once. why not? maybe he occasionally wanted easy access to the inherent extra shallow dof that that combination produces?
tarantino has an open bias against digital, and is one of the few directors that has the pull to get the use of more “exotic” film formats financed. I’m sure he likes the extra resolving power you get from bigger film too. that being said, he’s not a very technical guy (and he doesn’t have to be)
 

Literally marketing. Vista vision was a super short lived format, and was competing against 35 anamorphic. Movie studios were in shambles to get people into theatres again, after the rise of the tv, as well as something called “the suburbs” in the us postwar economic boom. their number 1 gimmick to do that was widescreen. This way there was a clear differentiation in what cinema and tv looked like.
Essentially cropping in on the negative and scaling that to a wider screen was called techniscope, and gave you a loss of resolving power. anamorphic was a way of getting a wider image into the same negative, and vista vision fed the film differently into the camera, like on stills, with a similar sized negative. Fyi, this was studio mandated and most of the filmmakers hated this change at the time, since it became harder to frame good closeups. 
 

the fov is dependent on the focal length as well as the imager size. 21mm is not inherently a wide angle focal length. It’s
- very wide on MF
- wide on FF and s35
- a widish medium on mft
- mild telephoto on s16
- regular telephoto on B4 broadcast.

lf you had an f/2 20mm lens on ff, and an f/1 10mm on mft, with similarly designed optics, your shot would look the same if taken from the same spot. 
https://www.yedlin.net/NerdyFilmTechStuff/MatchLensBlur.html
 
 
 

i dont get this argument? you can get essentially a 95% match across most image formats, but since you can get just that tiny bit shallower with larger sensors that makes it all moot?

the reason to get a gh or fx or pocket camera is because its a shitty camera to own. It’s for personal projects where theres no budget, or as a bcam in certain situations, either as an extra angle during scenes, or to rig it on a car so the good expensive camera doesnt break. If you have to use it, a few compromises should be made. In the case of mft that’s mostly not being able to be super shallow on wide lenses, but for normal use cases, you’ll be fine. this stuff should be liberating to know?
If there’s budget, why wouldnt you rent a mini/mini lf/35/venice? Its obvious better cameras have advantages!
there’s a certain other test by manuel luebbers where he conducts a similar test with a mini and 65, where he shoots more shallow. the same conclusion arises: the large format look is just super shallow depth of field when the lenses are wide open. If theyre not, the look can be matched with different formats.
 
i think theres about a million things more important than hitting the sweet spot of separation in real life scenarios. that being said, with the right choice of focal lengths and distance from camera, you can get pretty shallow dof from any format!
 
i just think they hit a great balance of being sharp and slightly soft at the same time. The vignette you get at t/1.4 is nice too. Zeiss CP2 set is garbage tho, so i’m not going to generalise statements about their brand.
 
i think 1080p is a great delivery resolution, but i’m not always inclined to shoot it. Someone in the editorial suite is probably going to zoom on something without my intention, and then they’ll get mad at me for not shooting in a higher resolution. I’d prefer to avoid that.
 
He likes it because it was twice as shallow as S35. Just like the 2x anamorphic used on moonlight are twice as shallow as spherical s35
“We shot Beale Street on the Alexa 65, a large-format camera. You get a much more shallow depth of field than you would with a Super 35 sensor, or 35mm film if you're shooting film. It's what helps that rack focus to the foreground on Brian to be as dramatic as it is.”
https://filmmakermagazine.com/106532-laxton/
 
 
 

The ifs have a grammatical function. I’m explaining to you how optics work. A 24 at 2.8 on a 36x24mm sensor and a 12mm at 1.4 on a 18x12mm sensor will look exactly the same when placed at the same spot, with exactly the same separation.
that is also the reason i linked yedlins article: you get to see example images where he matched the look of 1 certain FOV and DOF on different imager sizes and lenses. this is just pure math that you’re trying to disprove.
“Even the same lens on the same camera will have a different look with a couple steps forwards or backwards.”
not sure what you’re trying to say here. Flaring and a different focus point tend to have an influence on the image, sure.
I agree that 1.4 lenses on mft are more rare, but that’s a different aspect in this argument (manufacturers not wanting to make high quality mft gear anymore). 
if the client is broke, i use my pocket 4k and meike lenses or olympus zoom. If theyre not, i rent an alexa and some lenses (i like zeiss super speeds a lot). I don’t see why resolution is relevant to this discussion though. are we trying to move goalposts again?

the fov is dependent on the focal length as well as the imager size. 21mm is not inherently a wide angle focal length. It’s
- very wide on MF
- wide on FF and s35
- a widish medium on mft
- mild telephoto on s16
- regular telephoto on B4 broadcast.

lf you had an f/2 20mm lens on ff, and an f/1 10mm on mft, with similarly designed optics, your shot would look the same if taken from the same spot. 
https://www.yedlin.net/NerdyFilmTechStuff/MatchLensBlur.html
 
 
 

i guess its a nicer starting point than the v log conversion.
 
 
Pure nonsense. human eyes are not closer to 40mm on FF than 21 on MFT. FF only makes it easier to get shallower DOF. Focal lengths dont “round out” your subjects, lens design does. FOV is created between relationship of the focal length and the film back size. Dof by the size of the aperture. 
 
If the colors of the cameras, as well as the dof and fov, were matched, you wouldn’t see a difference. Read the yedlin articles again.

the fov is dependent on the focal length as well as the imager size. 21mm is not inherently a wide angle focal length. It’s
- very wide on MF
- wide on FF and s35
- a widish medium on mft
- mild telephoto on s16
- regular telephoto on B4 broadcast.

lf you had an f/2 20mm lens on ff, and an f/1 10mm on mft, with similarly designed optics, your shot would look the same if taken from the same spot. 
https://www.yedlin.net/NerdyFilmTechStuff/MatchLensBlur.html
 
 
 

the fov is dependent on the focal length as well as the imager size. 21mm is not inherently a wide angle focal length. It’s
- very wide on MF
- wide on FF and s35
- a widish medium on mft
- mild telephoto on s16
- regular telephoto on B4 broadcast.

lf you had an f/2 20mm lens on ff, and an f/1 10mm on mft, with similarly designed optics, your shot would look the same if taken from the same spot. 
https://www.yedlin.net/NerdyFilmTechStuff/MatchLensBlur.html
 
 
 

i guess its a nicer starting point than the v log conversion.
 
 
Pure nonsense. human eyes are not closer to 40mm on FF than 21 on MFT. FF only makes it easier to get shallower DOF. Focal lengths dont “round out” your subjects, lens design does. FOV is created between relationship of the focal length and the film back size. Dof by the size of the aperture. 
 
If the colors of the cameras, as well as the dof and fov, were matched, you wouldn’t see a difference. Read the yedlin articles again.

tastelessly shot and lit imo. they really couldve used olan collardy again

i have fantastic news: the a35 has log c4, which is quite different from c3. so you have to put in the same work as before if you want to match the cameras. it’s strange that panasonic licensed log c3 imo when Arri is abandoning it for something newer.

yes. And i’m saying that even if you could take advantage of it, you would still have to put in the extra work to get it to match.

since i’m working as a DIT again on a feature, this time with an alexa35 as an A cam, and alexa mini as the B.
both are shooting arriraw, we have custom log to log looks made for C4. davinci can debayer c3 raw footage into log C4.
 
that being said, even with matching iso, WB settings, lens sets, and the mini debayered to C4, i still have to do a considerate amount of work of getting each shot to match from the same scene.
 
nothing is ever seamless. you can only hope for a bit of saved time.

Bigger, heavier duty fixtures are probably outside the budget you're willing to spend, but I'll just offer the devil's advocate view to the other posters here, that you can never, ever have too bright of a light. 

I generally use a Nanlux evoke 1200 as my keylight, usually shooting through a 4x4 frame of magic cloth, and I am frequently at 100% power and needing more output, sometimes ganging it with an additional 1200B, 600D, Prolycht 675, whatever I have available. 

Granted, I am usually trying to hold some exposure through windows and the like, and I prefer to light with big, soft, beautiful keys, but still. You'll never regret having more power at your disposal. That will just allow you to bounce more, diffuse more, shoot through more material... always an advantage!

Also worth mentioning, but bigger fixtures are more portable than you might think; until I recently upgraded to a full-size production van, for the past several years I've been able to easily carry a 1200d, Prolycht 675, 4' pavo tubes, in addition to a Nanlite forza 500, aputure 300d, spotlight attachment, 4 or 5 turtle-base c-stands, 4x4 frames and diffusion, various softboxes, not to mention all the accompanying bits and bobs of grip, power, dolly and of course, cameras, lenses, etc.... all within the confines of my beloved '09 Honda Civic. 

Now that I am finally in a bigger vehicle, I've got the Nanlux 2400b on my soon-to-purchase list as well. And I'm sure I'll very frequently still want more power. 

im going to be very honest, i think its crazy you can see the difference between cameras with their stock 709 lut. To me they all look samey, boring and bland.

Now nikon gets to be the patent troll. Red will probably get to pretend to remain a company for 2 years and then nikon will probably fire the entire workforce, and we get to hear about “the constantly changing landscape of media” in some press release justifying the gutting of the company.

Now nikon gets to be the patent troll. Red will probably get to pretend to remain a company for 2 years and then nikon will probably fire the entire workforce, and we get to hear about “the constantly changing landscape of media” in some press release justifying the gutting of the company.

what else would you call it?

you don't have to, your value judgement is irrelevant. the fact is that nikon now gets to control red's patent, and now gets to decide who gets to use "compressed raw" on their terms: 
either we get more more cameras with internal raw from other companies, where nikon will be profiting from the income of licenses (imo unlikely) or nothing changes. instead of red going after other companies in court, it's going to be nikon, and thus having another source of income by claiming damages (imo more likely) this was red's business model after all. nikon probably doesn't care all that much about making products or entering the cinema market. my prediction is that red as a brand, as well as their cameras will cease to exist in a few years. nikon will probably keep making hybrids with a focus on photography, and i doubt that any of the red tech will trickle down. why would it after all? Who's going to buy a nikon branded camcorder in a world where sony dominates the market? reds are kinda dead in the european high end rental market, why would nikon even start?
 
here's a value judgement from me: lol

Now nikon gets to be the patent troll. Red will probably get to pretend to remain a company for 2 years and then nikon will probably fire the entire workforce, and we get to hear about “the constantly changing landscape of media” in some press release justifying the gutting of the company.

Now nikon gets to be the patent troll. Red will probably get to pretend to remain a company for 2 years and then nikon will probably fire the entire workforce, and we get to hear about “the constantly changing landscape of media” in some press release justifying the gutting of the company.

Now nikon gets to be the patent troll. Red will probably get to pretend to remain a company for 2 years and then nikon will probably fire the entire workforce, and we get to hear about “the constantly changing landscape of media” in some press release justifying the gutting of the company.

theyre marketing themselves in a way that makes the tech seem special to try and gain infinite investor money just like any other tech company does