PPNS

Zooming in = going telephoto. You can’t get shallow DOF on wide angles on small sensors. Telephotos always inherently give you a shallower dof at the same aperture compared to wider angles at the same distance from subject. 
you’re just describing depth of field again (and maybe the corresponding vignetting, since that’s harder to correct on larger format glass). 
Going wide open on a 24, 35, 50, 75 on FF at 1.4 for example, is a level of shallow dof that didn’t exist on moving images before 2007. I’m excluding anamorphics here, since their distortion has significant other impacts on visual language, as well as vista vision and 70mm, because you’re not gonna shoot at 1.4 on some of the most expensive film stock in the 50s and 60s. 

shooting f1.4 on any focal length on FF or f2 on alexa 65s is the ‘unique look’ of larger sensors, since manufacturers aren’t particularly interested in making f1 lenses on s35 (even though they could)
if you limit yourself to f2 on FF, you can recreate the whole look with super speeds, or certain leicas on an alexa mini or 35 (and even voigtlanders on mft)
limit yourself to 2.8 on FF, and you’re in the same ballpark as most s35 lens sets dof wise. 
limit yourself to f4 on FF, and the look becomes completely recreatable on mft, and even on s16 with arris ultra primes. Just make sure to scan it well if you’re trying to fool people that you’re going for a modern look
i think its worth mentioning that contrary to people’s belief, the magnification number of focal reducers is there to explain what it does to your lens, instead of confusing you even further with crop factor mental gymnastics.
A 0,71x focal reducer turns a 35mm f2 lens with a FF image circle into a 25mm f1.4 lens with a super 35 image circle. Its a wide angle adapter that converges light at the aperture. An f2 at 35mm gives you the same size of aperture as an f1.4 at 25mm, and thus the same depth of field, regardless of sensor size.
Optics is just math. Not that crazy. If you know this, it’s easier to know, pinpoint and elaborate what you like. In most cases for you guys it’s just shallow dof.
also, if you understand the relations between the numbers, you can also understand that manufacturers can just scale down certain lens designs/sets to get the same super shallow looks for smaller sensors. they just don’t want to, because some asshole called 36x24mm “full frame” and accidentally created one of the most successful marketing/disinfo campaigns ever.
Also speedboosters suck

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
 
 
 

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.

1. learn the color temps of things irl
2. set the camera wb based on what looks good and vibes 👍

1. learn the color temps of things irl
2. set the camera wb based on what looks good and vibes 👍

hey we’re actually posting our work on here again, finally! 
 
some nice looking stuff there marty!
 
while it looks decent, i do think this is incredibly vapid

and if you’ve ever worked with arriraw you would know how stupid and useless uncompressed raw is if if the camera also has a good codec built in.

hey we’re actually posting our work on here again, finally! 
 
some nice looking stuff there marty!
 
while it looks decent, i do think this is incredibly vapid

Thank you for sharing! @kye That 45 - 150 is very intriguing and tiny! I've been owning one for years now when it came with my Lumix G7 and I still haven't ever used it. It is time to change that!
As two of my friends here on Eoshd already know, I have been out filming with my Bmpcc lately. I could write a longer paragrsph about it. No ibis, coupled with a 25mm lens felt challenging but also very freeing from perfectionism and especially rewarding. Four internal batteries lasted for 30min of material so I came to appreciate every time I pressed the recording button. In the edit I was grateful for every stable shot that DID get recorded and not screwed up by an empty battery. I got "full" four batteries waiting to fool me again. Maybe tonight. Last weeks magical night during blue hour with the Bmpcc and a Zeiss Tevidon 25mm:
 
 

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.

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.
 

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.