jcs

The sign of a good film is watching the film and not noticing any technical details- following the story, which I did- nice job! I feel ya regarding living in a big city vs. the country where I grew up (on 2 acres in San Diego). I moved to LA (Beverly Hills) in 2006 to work for Myspace. I avoided the #1 traffic in the USA by walking to work. After Myspace I've been fortunate to be able to do mostly remote contract work to avoid the traffic. Once when working in Santa Monica it took over 3 hours to go 11 miles to get home. I could have walked faster. Trying to go East from Santa Monica after 2pm is challenging (the 'secret shortcut' is jammed too). Big cities have their plusses, but after a while it's time to get out, at least most of the time (sometimes work/family/friends bring us back). I kinda understood why some people from big cities moved to small towns/country, now I fully understand. Fellowship and connection to friends/family is the most important thing in life, not money or things. After many years in tech and the arts my next business is related to organic foods and spending more time with nature.

It's like audio gear, cars, etc. One can always spend more, with linear returns in quality for exponential increase in cost. If one doesn't need slomo or higher than 1080p, 5D ML RAW is more than sufficient. For 4K, GH4, NX1, A7S can be sufficient. For slomo and 4K, FS700+7Q is a deal (and FS7 too). In the higher end, Alexa Mini looks great.

Two words: liquid nitrogen. No more noise, cool & sexy 'fog', and they can sell their own brand in a can (dewar). For super high frame rates you can switch to liquid helium, to get the sensor down near absolute zero. Liquid helium gets the sensor so cold it can then actually hit 16 stops of DR. This is achieved by running the sensor in Quantum qubit mode .

When ARRI makes a still camera, then I might switch from Canon for stills .

ARM+GPU+Sensor+Lens Mount+Battery+Case = the future of modular cameras. We'll be able to pick & choose, mix & match, just like we can with PC computers today. There will still be trick cameras in the same way Apple makes nice laptops and desktops, but we won't be limited by 'all or nothing' systems anymore. H.265 is cool, however until there's real-time GPU decoding in major NLE's, 2x higher bitrate H.264 will provide the same quality and also supports 422 10-bit (and 444, and even more bits (likely H.265 too, including rec2020)).

http://www.wired.com/2015/02/science-one-agrees-color-dress/ It's a form of Relativity Theory. We each have different cameras for eyes, we see color differently, and our life experience colors our perceptions differently. This generalizes to all of our senses, all of our experiences, and all of our perceptions about what is true reality. In the dress example, some people truly see the colors one way and some the other. Without any objective analysis, of course people are going to argue, as they don't understand what is going on. In essence, we are all the same in that we perceive reality differently. People who haven't learned this yet rely on ego to defend what they perceive to be truth, and leads to heated arguments. Once everyone realizes this we can use math, tools, etc., to objectively agree on what reality really is, with the understanding that everyone will perceive everything differently. On internet forums, the worst that might happen is perhaps someone spilling their drink on their keyboard. In the real world, this leads to oppression and war, and is the root cause, sometimes intentionally as an exploit for power, of the major conflicts going on in the world today.

Maybe it's a double-edged sword. Canon has the best color, and people who already own Canon didn't see anything cool in the 7D II. I'm totally happy with the 5D3 for stills. The only reason I'd replace the 5D3's is if the 5D4 did 4K, slomo, good audio, etc., so I could use one camera for both stills and video. 5D3+A7S+GH4+FS700 is a lot of gear. It's technically possible to put all those features in one camera. However, if someone did that, what's the next upgrade path to keep the cash coming in for the company? Smaller cameras are the future, so perhaps all those features with trick lens tech that fits in your pocket (including shallow DOF!). One area for video that could use major improvement is focus using a '3D guided semi-automatic focus' system. A 3D depth sensor would allow 3D planes to be rendered into the display/viewfinder so one could see exactly where the near and far focus regions are, in real-time. This is possible for low cost today. Probably already patented (if not, after this post now public domain ). It wouldn't surprise me if someone like Apple did this before anyone else.

It says Canon didn't release anything cool in 2014. 2015 could be a different story.

Cinegain- I started out on this journey with the Canon 5D Mark II. I gave my dad my first DLSR, a Canon 40D (which only shot stills). For years I thought there was something special about full frame. It wasn't until the GH4 came out did I learn about equivalence, otherwise I wouldn't have purchased an m43 camera. Being able to shoot shallow DOF with the Voigtlander 25mm F.95 and GH4 in a relatively small package is very cool. I still felt there was something magical about the 5D (Mark III at that point) and full frame beyond shallow DOF. After using the A7S and comparing it to the 5D III, I realized it was Canon's color science that was providing some magic (RAW is reasonably sharp). For video we want the most detail possible without aliasing. We can always add softening filters if needed (I use a Tiffen Black Pro Mist 1/4 on the A7S, which is sharper than 5D 3 ML RAW). Doing the S35 to full frame equivalence challenge removed all doubt: sensor size alone does not provide a unique look. The full frame look is a... better described as the shallow DOF look. I feel for the folks who don't believe it yet. It took a while to research and do the tests to reach this conclusion.

All we need are example comparative shots where the cameras are set up for equivalence to show that a larger format renders the image somehow differently beyond what is predicted by the math (lens variance, etc.).

While we wait for example images showing larger formats provide unique looks beyond corner cases for DOF vs. their smaller brethren, here are some helpful charts & graphs from: http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/ff.html Where quality is resolution, bokeh, artifacts, etc. The author is on the same page regarding equivalence and sensor size and no unique looks for sensor size. They created these charts & graphs to show how sensor size relates to what's currently available in lenses (at the time article was written).

​See the bricks in the periphery- there are differences. Nick's example makes the differences more clear.

Great job Will! I see photos B&D (boy) form a nice stereoscopic 3D pair (shot side-by-side). If you 'look into the page staring at B & D you'll see a nice 3D image araucaria is pretty good at analyzing bokeh, etc.; guessed correctly in my two image tests- perhaps the (post) image reduction makes differences harder to see (and no tell-tale bokeh to analyze). After studying medium & large format camera systems, the biggest difference in those camera designs vs. full frame and smaller is the image plane. In full frame & smaller, the lens is bigger than the image circle projection onto the sensor. This is why full frame can do better in low light: light is focused into a smaller area (and why the Speedbooster / focal reducers increase light performance by about 1 stop). Medium & large format cameras put the image plane much further back. The lenses aren't much bigger than full frame (if at all?) and appear to be much smaller than Super 35 cinema lenses. With the image plane so far back, these cameras+lens systems act like focal enlargers (apparently photocopier lenses can be used for photography?). While many believe larger sensors do better in low light, that's not the case for medium and large format cameras with effective focal enlargers. They require vastly more light and/or very long exposure times. Found a post where someone noted they could see the bones in their hands when the flash went off. With their eyes closed! These larger format cameras also provide built in tilt shift capability, which helps deal with too much shallow DOF and/or reducing distortion (as with tilt shift lenses for full frame). The tilt shift is built into the camera, so all lenses will work. It's clear that medium/large format lenses will have an advantage for shallow DOF for large objects/distances, and since tilt shift is built into the camera, are very useful for architecture and landscape. However, given that they need tons of light and/or long exposures, they're not as useful for moving objects. In summary, it looks like medium & larger format provides more resolution potential (including microcontrast), easier shallow DOF (sometimes a problem for small objects up close), and tilt shift to help reduce distortion. I haven't found any examples which show the larger formats provides a unique look except, once again, more options for shallow DOF with larger objects. The same pattern comparing full frame to smaller sensors. There's a lot of overlap between sensor size formats. Where the sensor size + available optics overlap, the images will be equivalent, where variances are due to lens designs. In the corner cases, larger sensors have advantages over smaller sensors with shallow DOF options for large objects (and also creates issues for smaller objects up close). Larger sensors, up to full frame, where the image circle is a reduction, can do better in low light. Once the sensor + optics acts like a focal enlarger, much more light is needed: medium & larger format. If there are other visible + measurable characteristics, it would be helpful to see and know what they are.

Wow- MLVFS is a very cool idea! Need to try this with Resolve! mlvrawviewer with ProRes 444 10-bit + CLog output is very handy, however the high-quality software only debayer + ProRes encoding isn't very fast (you can batch many files though). MLVFS with Resolve could be faster (GPU debayer, fast ProRes encoding). mlvrawviewer's default settings with CLog along with a few clicks to set WB and exposure is really fast and easy to get a nice ProRes file for continued work. Resolve's workflow isn't as fast if you simply want to get something decent into ProRes for further editing & grading in FCPX, PPro, etc. However once a bunch of clips have be added to Resolve's queue, it should process much faster.

Good points Ebrahim. I reviewed the Brenizer Method, and recall a friend using this technique. It's about using a smaller format camera with limited lens options to achieve... shallower depth of field as is possible with larger formats and current lenses. If the looks we're referring to are only about shallow DOF, we can build a chart/table/interactive database which shows the continuum of DOF possibilities with current sensor sizes and lenses. This would help people mix & match cameras, focal reducers, and lenses to provide the shallow DOF they are looking for within their budget and available technology. This DOF simulator is helpful: http://dofsimulator.net/en/ . Perhaps there's more that include available lenses.

Math was used to set up the cameras- the proof is in the real-world images. So far no one has provided real-world images which show that the full frame look is unique or real. What's a better word than 'myth' to describe something that isn't real? Mythbusters is a pretty popular show... Bringing up ego is ad hominem in debate. If this was about ego, no requests would be made to show a counter point, right? Ego is about selfishness, not willing to help others, no search for truth that benefits everyone. Is tenacity in a search for truth ego? Challenging the status quo definitely involves egos. I'll be the first to thank and appreciate anyone who can demonstrate with images from real cameras that the full frame look is real- and what exactly the unique properties are! Then we can move on to medium format

​All we are saying is that the sensor size does not by itself create a unique look. Sure, different formats have different strengths & weaknesses, the point of the current discussion is that sensor size alone does not create a unique look- there's no such thing as the FF look, MF look, or LF look (no one has posted any evidence to the contrary).

​There is- you just need to set both cameras up for equivalence, as in this example: http://hobbymaker.narod.ru/English/Articles/midfmt_eng.htm Here is my test with Super 35 and full frame, along with simplified math: http://brightland.com/w/the-full-frame-look-is-a-myth-heres-how-to-prove-it-for-yourself/ More detail on the math & physics here: http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/ And a physically simulated camera matching full frame to large format: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?334046-The-Full-Frame-Look-is-a-Myth-Here-s-how-to-Prove-it-to-Yourself&p=1986521948&viewfull=1#post1986521948 It is possible to compare- using math & camera settings, or via simulation. Sensor size does not determine any specific look in any of these cases. Example images with cameras side-by-side set up for equivalence are needed to provide evidence otherwise.

​LOL, we're getting off topic. Google can provide evidence- I found an example showing equivalence between FF and MF- have you found any that shows MF (or large format) have distinct looks that can be attributed only to sensor size? (not specialized lenses, which could someday become available in other formats).

​For higher resolution, right now medium and large format appear to be better. For tilt-shift like options, they appear to have decent options as well (there are tilt-shift options for full frame too). This may not always be true: the human eye shoots around 600Megapixels with a fairly small sensor. Part of the pro camera world is the psychology of the client. Bigger, more impressive, and better looking cameras appear to open the client's wallet further. Luc Besson's DP for Lucy hadn't considered the Sony F65 (and apparently much of the pro cinema world) because it is "an ugly camera". Only after testing it against the other top cameras did they choose to use it because they liked the look of what it shot better. They couldn't even rent it (not popular enough)- they had to purchase two of them. If MF and LF destroy full frame & smaller- where is the side-by-side comparative evidence to support the assertion? Without a side-by-side same-scene shot, with cameras set up as close as possible for equivalence, we can't make a useful comparison. Here's a good shot at matching full frame to medium format: the results match the math predictions: http://hobbymaker.narod.ru/English/Articles/midfmt_eng.htm. He notes the images are basically equivalent. Medium format helps with resolution (with film anyway)- the resolution advantage is diminished as smaller sensors get more photosites (remember the human eye does around 600Mpixels- there's lots more room for tech to improve with small sensor resolution).

If Canon releases competitive new cameras, Sony can compete at a lower price point. Sony has been stronger in low light (A7S) and high frame rates (FS700, FS7, F5, F55). Their color has been improving- even matching Alexa with LUTs. The FS7 menu system sounds like it's a mess- fixable with a firmware update. That said, it will be great to see new gear from Canon! I would expect to see higher bitrate 422 H.264 (XAVC-like) and perhaps ProRes vs. RAW (except perhaps for the C500 II). With good in-camera debayer (or no need for debayer as with the original C300), ProRes 422x or 4444x at 10- or 12-bits is more than sufficient for high-end work.

I 'took the sensor size challenge' and used the equivalence math to match the settings for different sensor sizes: full frame vs. Super 35. The predictions by the math were correct: there was no substantial different in looks. The goal was to learn if there really was something unique about the full frame sensor size and the images it could create. While there are differences, there's nothing unique. So there's no point saying 'the full frame look'. Shallow DOF, deep DOF, bokeh character, artifacts (good or bad), are all better in describing what we are seeing or trying to achieve in terms of looks. That said, if there is some kind of unique character that can be measured or defined with any size sensor: m43, Super 35, full frame, medium format, large format, then we can compare cameras as long as they are matched with the equivalence equations to examine the unique differences. We're already on the same page regarding lens availability for desired looks. Full frame is certainly useful for the variety of options currently available. However smaller cameras are understandably becoming more popular- more options are becoming available all the time. If one disagrees and knows of examples where the theory isn't true- the ball is in your court: you can share the images so we can learn what those unique traits are. Lots of folks are disagreeing but not providing any evidence to support their position.

SleepyWill- indeed distortion and artifacts can be desirable traits. For architecture, lower distortion is preferred. Both can be achieved with different lenses. dhessel posted physically-modeled camera and ray-traced images of multiple sensor sizes on dvxuser: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?334046-The-Full-Frame-Look-is-a-Myth-Here-s-how-to-Prove-it-to-Yourself/page6 . VRay is a kick *ss renderer, and its physical camera model can also simulate distortion and vignetting: http://help.chaosgroup.com/vray/help/150SP1/examples_vrayphysicalcamera.htm . It would be helpful to see medium and large format comparisons to full frame with real cameras and lenses- perhaps we'll discover something interesting. But in theory, and in practice (full frame vs. Super 35 and m43 etc.), the full frame look is a myth, and the concept extends for all sensor sizes. The sensor size does not define the look. It's the lens+sensor system, which can be matched to other combinations of lenses and sensor sizes, smaller or larger. In the real world available lenses or lenses on hand are constraints, but the sensor sizes themselves do not define the look.

RIght- agree that the full frame look is shallow DOF, and shallow DOF can be achieved with smaller sensors: S35, m43 (get's trickier as we go down in size due to current lens availability). We've been looking mostly down. How about up? Can we achieve shallow DOF with medium and large format? We can! Since shallow DOF isn't an exclusive trait with full frame, there's no point calling shallow DOF 'the full frame look'. Currently larger sensors can provide more resolution, though keep in mind there's a common sensor that's relatively small that has about 600Megapixels resolution: the human eye.

The only difference between RAW and ProRes 4444 XQ (or regular 4444) is ProRes maxes out at 12-bits and is debayered in camera. RAW was an interesting idea to offload expensive processing on desktop computers- its days are numbered. Compressed codecs will completely replace RAW. ARRI is now even providing tiny 50Mbit/s 422 MPEG2 to improve workflows.