dhessel

The beer example shows the images are not exactly the same. It doesn't show what is uniquely different about all large format lenses nor have you stated what unique image characterists all large format images have in common that make them different than smaller. Irrelevant when the filter first appeared. The Fujinon uses one and that filter alters the Bokeh. I hadn't either until recently, didn't even know something like that was even possible. It would be interesting to see how it could be used in the context of story. I think the point I and others are trying to make is that if you take a bunch of images shot with different lenses, sensor sizes and cameras that were shot at equivalence they would all look very much the same and identifying the large format images from the lot wouldn't be possible.

In 2014, Fujifilm announced a lens utilizing a similar apodization filter in the Fujinon XF 56mm F1.2 R APD lens." I never said he wrote it.

Here is a rather bizzare and extreme example of how what lens design can do. http://www.rafcamera.com/en/elite-reverse-perspective-lens

He already diid address it with the article he posted, "The Minolta/Sony Smooth Trans Focus 135mm f/2.8 [T4.5] lens, however, is a special lens design introduced in 1999, which accomplishes this by utilizing a concave neutral-gray tinted lens element as apodization filter, thereby producing a pleasant bokeh. The same optical effect can be achieved combining depth-of-field bracketing with multi exposure, as implemented in the Minolta Maxxum 7's STF function. In 2014, Fujifilm announced a lens utilizing a similar apodization filter in the Fujinon XF 56mm F1.2 R APD lens." If you point is that different lens designs can produce different looks then I think we all agree. If you point is the large format lens design produces their own large format look you will need to show examples of them and define what the properties are.

I had never heard of this webiste before, thank you. If the seller doesn't refund you, contact Ebay and they almost certainly will.

If you don't already have a or filter you may want to look into a variable IRND, tiffen makes one if I am not mistaken.

Not behind, neglected.

you are not an idiot for criticizing them, they deserve it. Their treatment of usra owners has been embarrassing.

There is nothing that can be done, best practice is work with a proper grading monitor that has been calibrated for the space you want export to, sRGB, Rec709, P3, etc.... That way you know you at least it can be properly displayed on a calibrated device. But as you have noticed devices out there are all over the place so you there is no way to know how it will look on someone else's devices. I have seen two computer monitors of same age, manufacturer and model that are impossible to get to match, even with a calibration device. This is not an isolated case and not un-common.

Raw on a camera with highly compressed codec is awesome, raw on a camera with a high quality codec is overrated. I used to shoot raw all the time on a BMCC until I tried prores and realized it wasn't really necessary.

I clearly said that in my opinion ACES gives the best conversion from slog to Rec709, which is the main reason I use it and the topic of this thread.

Again you are making a lot of assumptions. True at this point you cannot monitor with ACES, it was never designed to anyway, but by going to ACES and keeping the full gamut you can have access to that wider gamut if you were to ever want to go to P3 or another wider gamut format than Rec709. There are colorspaces beyond Rec709. Of course I can adjust the contrast and what ever else but I still prefer to start with a neutral grade and you cannot properly grade slog/sgamut material with out a lut or at least a proper color transform matrix to bring the colors to Rec709 ranges or you can get nasty color shifts. Slog/sgamut is not desaturated the colors are in a different space and just adding saturation is one of the reasons why people get ugly color shifts in skin tones. What makes you think I am working in a single system workflow for web delievery anyway, and who are you to say what makes sense for someone else? If you don't like ACES and choose not to use it then don't but I am going to continue to use it because it is a better fit for my workflow.

There are plenty of benifits to working with ACES one of them being that you can keep the full color gamut of sgamut which is much larger than Rec709. Once in ACES you can monitor and export to what ever final colorspace you want, Rec709, P3, Rec2020... Besides that the main reason why I do is that it is the best most neutral conversion I have found for transforming slog to Rec709. Everything else I have ever used either adds too much contrast, messes up the colors or is a look lut that I don't always want to use. Lastly I don't know why you are assuming that I have no benifit for choosing to use ACES in the first place.

All of the s-log variants have different gamma curves and different color gamuts, using a lut not designed for the specific one you are using it will not work properly. I own an F35 which has the same slog as the F3 if I am not mistaken. I have found that ACES is by far the best option, I have included a link that goes through the process of grading slog material in Resolve using ACES. http://www.filmscientist.com/blog/2015/01/29/film-scientist-aces-workflow-revisited/

It is a lomo yes, but it is a projection lens not a true cinema lens like the square and round front lenses. There were originally made in 2 mounts Oct18 and Oct19. Both can be converted to PL and there are adapters that can work for going from Oct18 to pl. If you get a Oct18 to PL adapter be sure it is like the one from Ciecio7 with the locking pin otherwise it won't focus properly. There is also an Oct19 mount for red that can be used or you can often times find Lomos that have already be converted to PL since many already have already been. The round fronts are the newest and also the largest and heaviest. The will all be PL or Oct19 and are the most expensive. Next are the single lens square fronts that will either be OCt19 or PL, they are lighter smaller and cheaper than the round fronts. Lastly are the dual lens Oct18 mount versions most often they are still with their orignal mount. These lenses are about the same overall size as the single part square fronts but are less expensive and not quite as good due to them being two separate lenses that lock together with a pin so both the spherical and anamorphic can be focused in unison. They also require lens support for the anamorphic front otherwise it will rotate during focus. If going this route finding ones already converted or having them converted to PL by Dima at conversiontopl.com would be best. He offers a great mod which not only converts the Oct18 to PL but also adds a PL style locking mechanism to the spherical and anamorphic front so they are almost like single bodied squarefronts. The tight fit allows for better collimation and quality like the more expensive ones but it will still require lens support to prevent the anamorphic front from rotating.

The reason why Trump won is because Hillary Clinton and the democratic party tried to force their will on the American public. They stacked the deck against Bernie Sanders and basically cheated him out of the nomination. They then continued to use all of their connections to try and stack the deck against Trump- getting debate questions beforehand, getting sent articles and news reports for editing from the media, etc... If it had not been for wikileaks exposing all of this we probably never would have none what they were trying to do. The DNC, Clinton, and their connections int the media tried to supplant Clinton as president.It wasn't about what the people wanted it was about what they wanted. In doing so they had a canidate who is one of the most corrupt and hated polititans out there. Looking for someone to protest, someone to blame, look no further than the Democratic party. They tried to force Hillary on us, they failed and this is the result.

All of this is just par for the course with BM. Probably true with any company just getting started with camera manufacturing, in all fairness. As someone who used to openly support them, the end for black magic for me was when I saw how they have treated their Ursa customers.

I have had used Resolve and USB 3.0 flawlessly for years before upgrading to Windows 10, in many ways Windows 7 was more stable and more compatible than Windows 10 is and there has been no performance increase that I have noticed specifically with Resolve. Windows boots up quicker and I see benifits in terms of the OS but not really with other programs. Since firmware updates will be necessary to fix the mirad of issues popping up it is a bit unfair to advertise Windows7 compatibility then drop it after the fact.

Miss typed meant to say greater.

OK, so you shoot stopped down on the smaller sensor camera to and have the same level of IQ. Sure your depth of field will be greater but the IQ will be the same so this just proves the point that the full frame look is just shallow depth of field. Most lenses are their best around f4-5.6 so MFT will have a deeper depth of field, full frame shallower and medium/large format shallower still at that aperture. There is no magical quality that gives full frame its own asthetic it is just shallower depth of field. If you shoot the same scene from the same location, focal length, f-stop on full frame and crop sensor the common parts of the image will look identical. This can easily be done on a camera like the A7s that lets you shoot crop and full frame.

This topic again. There is no full frame asthetic. If you take a bunch of cameras all shot with different sensor sizes shot with equivalance to one another they will all look almost exactly the same. The only difference will be the usual sensor and lens characteristics that will give each one its own look. Larger sensors can have a shallower depth of field since it would require super fast lenses to achieve equivalance to a fast full frame or larger format camera but where equivalances can be made they will look nearly identical. The reverse is also true for deep depth of field. If you like the "full frame look" you just like shallow depth of field. Follow this link, in these shots which one is the full frame and which one is the crop sensor? http://brightland.com/w/the-full-frame-look-is-a-myth-heres-how-to-prove-it-for-yourself/

I have looked into the crosshatching for several different cameras down to identifying the source of it in the raw file itself. It is not a scaling issue, either in camera or in post. Scaling can make it appear better or worse but that is just a side effec of the pattern already being there. Maybe it can be fixed via firmware but for now BMD is allowing RMA's for it. Firmware does seem to affect it since I have looked at one camera that was worse with version 4 beta 2 but still had it to a lesser degree in version 3.3.

I would have mentioned it as a con but it was fixed via firmware a long time ago. So it is not really relevant anymore.

your friend probably has an eye patch, peg leg, parrot on his shoulder and is wearing a funny hat.

purchase a subscription