jcs

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  

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.

Well Arri Classics are only going for around 15,000 on eBay...

Let me get this straight - are you denying that the combination of an 80mm lens with a 0.7x focal reducer is a 56mm lens?

AWWW yisssss lets have it out!! @jcs vs @tupp deathmatch!!! TheREMUST BE A WINNER

 
seriously tho when i STARTED posting on this board years ago certain ppl were having this EXACT same argument... and i still dont know the truth. im gonna start a movement like the 911 truthers called... uhm... sensor size truthers? #sensorsizeTRUTH 

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.

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, 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?

Here's a screengrab of an ISO200 chart shot in daylight balanced lighting I found at this link:
http://www.drewmoe.com/digitalnoise.shtml

Here's a shot I took of a chart in sunlight on a 5D3. Brought it into ACR, applied Cinelog C profile, brought it into Rec709 After Effects and exported as RGB TIFF:

I brought them in to Photoshop and blurred both shots to eliminate noise and masked off the squares. I placed Cinelog behind Arri and used a quick curves adjustment to match the exposure using the bottom squares (because the Arri shots had a Rec709 lut applied and the Cinelog is still in Cineon gamma). This is the result, Arri is the set on top and 5D3 ML Cinelog C is the set underneath:

It's not an exact match, but it's not bad considering these are shots from 2 different cameras from 2 totally different shoots... and also when you consider the price difference. I'd love to get both cameras side by side to shoot the same chart at the same time.

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...

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, 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?

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...

@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?

Imagine that!
But even if it was just 1080/24p only with the alexa sensor... I'd be all over it... that sensor is pure magic 

@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  

Great shots. Voigtlander 17.5mm for MFT does 3D nicely too.

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

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...

Not buying it for this reason would be the silliest thing I've read in a while. Most speed boosters don't boost back 100% to the optics original image circle, all are just shy of it usually.

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  

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