jcs

The Alexa 65 looks great, though it's basically 3 ALEV III sensors (A3X) making a medium format-sized composite sensor. I think ARRI will make a 4-6K sensor that is very competitive. Given the recent Alexa price drops NAB seems like a good place to officially announce the new camera- it's about time

I think the non-upsampled 4K requirement is only for internal Netflix productions: they're building a 4K library for the future so it makes sense (which they charge extra to watch).

Hey Mattias, if after everything I have posted, and everything Brian Caldwell, the designer of the SpeedBooster has posted, has not convinced you that there's no such thing as a full frame or medium format look, no worries. I wasn't trying to win an argument, only to share what I have learned with others. Have you tried working through the equivalence equations, setting up the camera and reviewing the results as I did here? If not, how can you dismiss it if you haven't tried it? If you have any questions about setting it up, feel free to PM me. It would probably make a cool video that a lot of people would be interested in seeing

Could be related to Netflix requiring 4K (internal shows?)? Perhaps a 4K(+) Super35 Alexa is around the corner: http://nofilmschool.com/2015/03/arri-6k-super-35mm-alexa-4k maybe this will be announced at NAB and soon to be released?

I too used to believe in the 'full frame look' myth: http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/1917-quick-test-sony-fs700-speed-booster-vs-canon-5d-mark-iii/ Once I ran across the Equivalence equations and did the tests myself, I understood the truth- there's no such thing as a 'full frame look' or any other sensor size look. It's all about the optics. I can still remember what it was like to believe in the myth and have empathy for those who still do.

Haha Kaylee I'm pretty sure @tupp is putting one over on us and is joking at this point. If you're still not convinced that it's not sensor size but rather optics that matter with respect to a certain look, Brain is far more qualified and perhaps can do a better job explaining it than I can. Cheers

Do you realize that what you are saying is that the lenses are alive and sentient and direct photons differently based on the physical sensor size? Everything that Mattias posted here is a collective hallucination and focal reducers don't actually work? Or are you just messing with us for kicks? If not, I look forward to your equations and examples showing your concepts in action.

@tupp does this make sense now?

I was gonna say for 1080p, 5D3 RAW, with the exception of DR and highlights (though you can do a lot with Adobe Camera RAW if you have the processing time), is the Baby Alexa Deal of the Century...

I had the 25mm Voigtlander F.95 for the GH4- very cool indeed!

@tupp, while we agree the two images are not exact, it was acknowledged that it was not possible to make the settings exact for equivalence. I don't see anything significantly special or magical about the full frame image, and most people cannot even see a difference without a blink test: The simulations showed a perfect match, hopefully this simple diagram will show why: If we take a movie projector and increase the distance from the projector to the screen, the image grows larger and vice versa. Does the image significantly change other than size? This should make it clear that sensor size by itself does not do anything special for the projected or recorded image. Are we in agreement? Now does the size, shape, curvature, and number of lens elements make a difference with respect to DOF, bokeh, and overall image character? Of course, no one has argued that point as these changes occur between lenses designed for the same format, for example the Canon 50mm 1.4 vs the Canon 50mm 1.2. The 1.2 has a much larger lens and of course a larger aperture. What happens when we set both lenses to F1.4, or F2.0? Is there still something 'magical' about the 1.2 lens with the much larger glass? Are they different? Sure they are. Is it significant? Does it matter- we're using the same sensor size? Much more comparisons here between the 1.8, 1.4, and 1.2: https://www.slrlounge.com/canon-50mm-prime/ We haven't changed sensor size, only lenses, and the bokeh and character is quite different, right? Want crazy/weird/artistic bokeh on full frame? Here you go ( http://allphotolenses.com/gallery/item/c_7319.html ): Everyone agrees that lenses make a huge difference and some full frame lenses have bigger optics than some medium format lenses, right? If you still feel that sensor size affects the final projected/captured image, can you provide supporting math, physics, diagrams, and real-world examples supporting your hypothesis?

ARRI will release the ARRI Nano 4K, for $5K

The Tinfoil Hats (either actual tin or aluminum) have been upgraded to nickel-iron alloy (mu-metal) which works better to shield EM radiation. Regarding the 'aliens', there's a cream for that . At least we've finally established that's there's no such thing as a FF, MF or any or size "look". It's about physics and optics, where even in the same format looks are radically different in terms of bokeh, 3D, etc. The (highly imperfect) Canon 85mm F1.2L + 5D3 does nice 3D too (probably stopped down a little):

My understanding is threads will be locked if they go political. I will say this and no more: do deep research about who's really pulling the strings, study history*, follow the money and who's pushing hate and division vs. love and unity. Look at the big picture, then I hope you'll be part of the solution of healing this planet ? vs. continuing the prior path. You can tell right from wrong based on messages of love and kindness vs. the opposite. Anyone who wants to debate, PM me since we're not allowed in the public forum. * take a deep look at the ancient megalithic structures (that we still can't build today!) dating back over 12,000 years that MSM and MS science are trying to suppress (Atlantis wasn't just an island). That's just the tip of the iceberg...

Hi, I have a Vimeo Pro account and just tested 4K H.265 from Premiere Pro CC (default settings for H.265 4K with 'Good' selected under Quality (setting this higher will take more time to encode)). I would expect H.265 to provide the best quality for 4K if ProRes 422 exceeds 5GB for your video. With the default PP CC H.265 4K settings, the 4K result looks good for a 5s test. Suggest trying short clips and reviewing them to make sure quality is OK and no issues with color/gamma etc., then encode and upload the whole thing. Use the highest bitrate that will fit under 5GB. If your NLE doesn't provide H.265, start with the 4K settings here: https://vimeo.com/help/compression (and set bitrate as high as possible to keep under 5GB).

I recently helped a friend set up an A7S II and showed her the difference a Black Pro Mist 1/4 makes to take away the digital harshness- she loved the look. Addition diffusion would help the A7 look more like film.

Each of us runs a local simulation of reality- there can be a point if you want, or not. We are all the same

Simulation is not reality- are you sure about that? https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/11/simulated-world-elon-musk-the-matrix (ever wonder why quantum physics is... quantized or why the Planck length exists? I'm a bit uncertain, maybe we can ask Heisenberg). Sure, simulations can do diffraction: https://docs.chaosgroup.com/display/VRAY3MAX/Lens+Effects, and Cinema 4D also does quadratic and cubic distortion as well as chromatic aberration. I've written a few simulators, flight and racing, and from the math it's clear we can simulate anything. Simulations are approximations, and as the approximations approach reality, computational time increases. At the limit we could perfectly simulate reality (that's where the Simulation Hypothesis comes from in the link above). Would it be exactly the same as this reality, say to recreate something in this reality in a simulation? Nope, Heisenberg will tell you why. So we can avoid that argument, right? I'm just a software guy into filmmaking and lately metaphysics. @Brian Caldwell is a lens designer and is perhaps the best resource who posts on this forum regarding real world optics. He created the SpeedBooster of which the Kipon is a kind of copy. Hey, if you're still not convinced, well, we can all agree that the art created by these devices is cool!

Ahem... Earspeakers (for those who've never listened to them, click the link, they are amazing tech!). Stax + Carver Magnetic Field Power Amplifier* + organic matter = wow. I've got a pair of old HD 580's which are super comfy though the Audio Technica ATH-M50's are more detailed (for mixing and critical listening). Sony 7506s are great all-around, smallish, light and comfy too. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Carver Looks like he's now retired- amazing sound engineer!

I used to use an i1 Display calibrator on Windows and OSX, unfortunately for whatever reason the calibrations seemed to change (don't think it was normal hardware changing over time, seemed to be software related). I now use two factory calibrated 4K Dell monitors, a UP3216Q (main), and a P2715Q (secondary). When the image/video looks good on these displays it looks good on MBP Retinas, iPhones, iPads, Sony TV, Samsung TV, Apple Cinema display, etc. Still have the i1 Display calibrator- haven't needed it since upgrading monitors (probably wouldn't hurt to use it however given the fiddly stability results (could be the OSes), probably not worth the time. Maybe when people start looking like this I'll put it back into service ).

The challenge with *nix is there are so many flavors (versions). Ubuntu and relatives are perhaps the mostly popular right now... What we do as software developers is download the source code for tools/apps and build for the specific version of *nix that we are using (this too can be a pain and time burner). This is great for back-end server products but not front end user-facing products. This would not be possible for mass-market commercial software like Adobe. The other challenge is UI development tools on Linux are currently very weak. Just debugging code on Linux with an IDE is currently very very weak. XCode on OSX and Visual Studio on Windows are still light years ahead of anything on Linux (Microsoft has released Code for Linux, but mostly for webapp development (not C/C++ which is needed for native apps)). Working on Linux feels like working on a Model T vs. Porsche or Ferrari on OSX and Windows respectively (Windows still has the best developer tools, by far). C++ Builder used to run on Linux, however support was dropped: https://www.embarcadero.com/products/cbuilder . This is an incredible cross-platform toolset for C++ development. They could bring it back to Linux if there was a market. The challenge with Linux is most desktop Linux users don't pay for anything, and want everything for free (and/or pirate software). Until or if major software vendors can work out a model that works for Linux users (can't be totally free), don't expect any major products to be ported to Linux. AutoDesk and Blackmagic do support Linux, however that's for very vertical market applications (renderfarms are a good use for Linux, and having many seats in a (e.g. one-off movie) production environment where the OS is free can make financial sense). I switch between OSX and Windows 10 frequently. Instead of dual-booting my 'old' 2010 12-core + GTX 980ti anymore, I built a brand new 10-core box (6950X) + GTX 1080 which I was going to make into a Hackintosh. After getting it running with Windows 10, I was so impressed with the superior font rendering, snappier GUI response, and ability to display a 4K desktop vs. OSX, as well as superior 4K editing performance and less crashes (really an NVidia driver issue- it is what it is), I dropped the idea of putting OSX on it. I use a special USB switch to switch keyboard and mouse input, and use the 2 4K Dell display's multiple inputs to switch between OSX and Windows 10 without having to reboot. Works really well in production. I still use MacBook Pros running OSX, however modern software such as vMIX (for live streaming with efficient GPU acceleration) only run on Windows (not really enough space on the internal SSD to run Bootcamp at this point. It is possible to install Bootcamp on an external drive with a bit of effort (easiest with Thunderbolt, a bit more work with USB3), see YouTube for some examples).

So if we focus on the art, the emotion of the combined 'lens filter', we can categorize looks so others can replicate themselves* and quit arguing about sensor size. I think Mattias' pics look cool, and if a MF->FF focal reducer plus cheap MF lenses can be used to recreate those looks, that's pretty neat- gives new love to neglected unused MF lenses * this was not meant as a cloning comment

Equivalence is math & physics. That is where the problem lies...

This discussion reminds me of similar ones for analog vs. digital audio, vinyl/tape vs. digital, tubes vs. MOSFETs, one preamp vs. another preamp, one mic vs. another, crisp and clinical vs. warm and creamy, etc. Head on over to GearSlutz for a taste of audio drama for those inclined: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/ (around 10 million posts!). It's a great resource for audio related questions for filmmaking too. In agreement with what @Brian Caldwell just said- these lens combos are creating interesting character, analog optical filters (transfer functions), which is art, and that is cool. It has nothing to do with sensor size per se, only the combination of optics to get the desired (or discovered!) look. Here's an example of Shane Hurlbut comparing Leica Summicron-C to Cooke S4, same sensor size (Super35), and getting vastly different results (his perception, some of you may even disagree with his results): http://www.thehurlblog.com/lens-tests-leica-summicron-c-vs-cooke-s4-film-education/ To wrap it all up: Leica Summicron-C Lenses: Flatter image Makes Monette look more sophisticated and older Makes her look wider than the Cooke S4 More of a white out with lens flares; doesn’t do as well as the Cooke S4 with lens flares. Bokeh less stop signing, more round Neutral lens Less detail in her face Doesn’t hold highlights as well as Cooke S4 Less contrast Cooke S4 Lenses: More three dimensional quality Makes Monette look younger Makes her look skinnier Better with lens flares than the Summicron-C lenses Slightly more yellow than the Summicron-C Bokeh has more of a stop signing effect More detail in her face Holds highlights more than the Summicron lenses More contrast Thanks @bunk for creating these excellent computer renderings, which physically simulate perfect lenses and sensors via ray tracing photon paths for different sensor sizes and using perfect mathematical equivalence with pixel perfect results: http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/20975-full-frame-aesthetic/?do=findComment&comment=167154 @Mattias Burling offered $100 if the images matched perfectly (if I read the thread correctly, see link above). Mattias did you pay bunk? The time and effort to set up and render those examples was worth way more than $100, and should end any further arguments regarding sensor size for anyone interested in a scientific and rational discussion (bunk also included the Cinema 4D project files for anyone to replicate as per the Scientific Method). @gatopardo replicated the results with VRay (another photon ray tracer) and 3DSMax. Mattias' comments on medium format lenses being very cheap and 'free' in some cases is very useful information for those admiring the kinds of looks possible with a focal reducer and old medium format lenses, which create interesting analog filters which a lot of people love. As noted by Hurlbut and others, the Cooke S4 causes distortion and has other artifacts which make people look thinner, more 3D, better highlights, etc. Imperfection is the spice of art- makes the flavor interesting which will be loved by many where different forms of spice will be loved by others (or for some uses, no spice at all- clinically accurate (Sony/Zeiss for example)). Like comparing Neve/Avalon preamps (warm/colored) to Grace (clinically clean). Neither better than the other, chocolate vs. vanilla...

Unfortunately it looks like a bug in Premiere. Try posting in the Adobe Premiere forum and hopefully Adobe will fix it. Until then, perhaps try deleting and recreating the mask and/or other trial-and-error workarounds