tupp

I wouldn't be too sure of this claim. We need to see the photometrics with the beam angle delineated at 50% (one stop less) of max. Plus, it has a long ballast.

Still cameras have to be able to white balance from a captured still frame, otherwise, how would one get a custom white balance from a strobe?

Are you using the same memory sticks or drives from your previous computer?

LOL! Exactly!

I was trying to impress a girl, Kinda wish I had become a stock broker instead.

Do you have a lot of programs/windows open when this happens? Perhaps the system is being overtaxed and the dialogue box is very slow to open. Or, could the dialogue box be opening underneath another window?

If you are only going to arm-out the mic no more than 2.5 feet, then a regular mic stand might work on someone who is seated. However, most situations call for arming out the mic a longer distance than 2.5 feet. You probably need a sturdy stand with a baby pin on top, plus a boom pole, plus something like the bracket I linked, plus some sort of swivel clamp or a grip head. There are other ways to do this (and I frequently use one of the other ways), but if you already have a pro boom pole, this might be the best way to go.

"rentals" Thanks for the link. However, that's a sparse list compared to the zillions of FF lenses out there. I would worry about vignetting with most Canon EFs and Nikkors. The issue could be similar to some lenses not mounting to the Metabones EF speedbooster -- there is an inner metal flange that prevents some wide angle lenses from being mounted. There's nothing wrong with the Panavision DXL color -- it was overseen by Light Iron from the early design/engineering phases. It's a rather unique and advanced approach. I would call Vision Research a "pioneer" resolution and frame rates before I would give that title to RED. Which reminds me -- the Phantom 65 is another excellent medium format cinematography camera that one can shoot with right now. VR recently discontinued that model, but they are still available in rental, and there are probably some shooters who still use them at normal frame rates as a nice MF alternative. Panavision has always been a "manufacturing" rental house. That is why they can create such amazing special items and one-offs that normal manufacturers can't even touch.

I think the sensor is too big for most FF lenses, unless one is okay with cropping out vignetting. I have never seen the DXL marketed as a FF camera. The Kipon MF adapter is yielding excellent results. I would certainly consider it for any MF shooting. Again, if one is okay with the crop and with the slight loss of resolution, an MF lens with a dummy adapter on a FF camera also works. Some projects rent IMAX gear.

There are several ways to do what you want. One common way is to use a boom pole bracket that fits into a grip head (or other swivel clamp) on top of a C-stand or light stand. Of course, you will still need a shock mount for your mic, and there are ways to mount two mics on the end of a boom pole.

Hopefully, your boot process is just soundly borked, and you still have all of your files on your drive. Stop trying the "repair" function. Unplug all peripherals and SD cards from your laptop and try to boot again. If that doesn't work, you might try to see if your "BIOS" has somehow changed it's boot order or default boot device (doesn't sound like the problem, but it is worth a try). This is simple to do and there have to be instructional YouTube vids. If none of those things work, you might be able to boot a live USB. @Don Kotlos mentioned above a possible built-in Windows live USB image, but NEVER REFORMAT your computer if it tells you it needs to do so. You could also try a Linux live USB OS, which might be able to access your drive without changing anything on it, so that you can back-up all of your files before trying any serious recovery/repair.

Are you referring to something that you saw in your aforementioned article? If so, please link it. If you are referring to the potential optical properties that might involve a "format specific" look, I listed some in the second paragraph of this post. In regards to the differences in "looks" between formats, other than focus rolloff, I listed some points in this post. There's also the Panavision DXL, along with its Red equivalent. There are some IMAX cameras that could probably use MF lenses. I believe that the second-generation Dalsa Origin had an MF sensor. The Kipon MF focal reducer works with several cameras. Of course, our own Rich Gale has the Forbes 70. Also, MF lenses work great on FF cameras with dumb (or tilt/shift) adapters.

You might still have all of your files intact. Macs generally use the same internal components as many non-Macs. More info needed: Does it not turn on (blank screen) or does it fail to boot (you see stuff on the screen initially, but your desktop doesn't come up)?; Does it have multiple drives?; Is it a laptop?; etc.

Uhm, those "beer bottle" images are very different. Did you enlarge them? Did you happen to notice the dramatic difference in focus on the bush/car to the left of the bottle? Well, in the first place, neither of those images were actually shot with a "large format" camera/lens. Right now, all we have to go on are comparisons made with FF, APS-C, M4/3 and an Iphone. In regards to optical and image properties that become increasingly inherent in bigger formats, I have in fact stated those earlier in this forum. Then why did you bother mentioning the Minolta/Sony lens with the date (1999) as well as the Fujinon APD with a date (2014)? And your point is...? Note that the Fujinon 56mm comparison not only shows a dramatic difference in focus roll-off, but that that roll-off seems to be eating into the technical DOF range. I disagree. If you shot with a 20'x20' camera/lens and a S16 camera/lens, I think that most of us could tell the difference in an equivalence comparison. And my point with the dramatic apodization demo is that there is more to DOF and focus roll-off than merely the equivalence principle and the DOF calculation. There are other properties and variables involved.

I already have. The most obvious example so far is the "beer bottle" comparison. I have also listed what I think the properties might involve. I think apodization filters appeared before your first example (1999). Never seen that one! Very cool! Thanks! Looks like my prediction was correct.

@jcs wrote that article? I missed it! Could you please provide a link to that article, and please quote the passage in which he addresses how the equivalence principle and DOF calculation applies to the dramatic difference in focus roll-off between 135mm apodization lens and other non-apodizatioin 135mm lenses? Thanks!

Are you forgetting once again that I (and others) have stated I am not referring to the sensor/film size? My (and others') contention is that there are properties generally inherent in the optics designed for a certain sensor/film size. I thought that I made that clear. However, with this comment, you seem to have inadvertently admitted that there is a variable that affects DOF and focus roll-off that is not considered in the equivalence principle and in the DOF calculation. Is that true? Agreed, as I have stated before... except maybe for the consideration that a lens is designed for a specific sensor/film size. Funny, I was thinking of asking the same of you. It's not sensor size... Instead of suggesting that someone do an experiment, perhaps it would be more expedient if you would simply respond directly to the points made in this forum. For instance, please explain how the equivalence principle and DOF calculation applies to the dramatic difference in focus roll-off between the two Fujinon 56mm lenses shot at identical f-stops. I do, and I have. In fact, my footage/images that I have posted in this forum were part of lens/camera/adapter tests. I predict that you will not directly address how the equivalence principle and DOF calculation applies to the dramatic difference in focus roll-off between the two Fujinon 56mm lenses shot at identical f-stops.

Are you saying that the difference is minor between the Fujinon APD and other lenses of similar focal lengths? The difference looks fairly dramatic to me. They're really not even close in the posted comparison.

The two Fujinon 56mm lenses are mounted to the same camera (suddenly camera/format makes a difference?) and have the exact same optical elements, except for the apodization filter. Wait a second. Mr. Caldwell stated that, "The combination of a 0.7x focal reducer and an 80mm lens is a 56mm lens. Period. Put that 56mm lens on a 24x36mm format camera and it will behave just like any other 56mm lens attached to that camera, the only caveats being related to aberrations and other flaws in the lens and focal reducer." So, as long as there are no significant aberrations nor flaws, the "design" of a lens has little bearing on it's look, as all lenses of the same focal length should behave the same ("period"). Do you disagree with Mr. Caldwell's assertion? How many of those lenses will be as different as the Fujinon APD? Don't you think that there could be something else to focus roll-off, other than the simple DOF calculation. Well, above, you seem to be contradicting Mr. Caldwell.

It seems that you and @jcs cannot resist bringing Mr. Caldwell into the middle of this discussion. I believe that I already addressed this argument. Essentially, my point is that the testers should address all differences, regardless of whether or not they think those differences are "reasonable/unreasonable." Again, some of us immediately spotted the differences without the "blink comparator," and the blinking GIF was employed merely to reveal the differences to those who couldn't discern them with the side-by-side comparison. Furthermore, I am fairly sure that everyone in the discussion was focused on the first Brightland Studios test when Mr. Caldwell made this post. The second test (with in-camera sharpening eliminated) reveals more dramatic differences. Again, the Brightland Studios tests were all shot with the same zoom lens, so the differences would be much more subtle than those encountered with two prime lenses of different focal lengths and designed for two different formats. Ahh, so this is the line in which Mr. Caldwell validates @jcs's equivalence test. Nevertheless, I strongly disagree with Mr. Caldwell's notion that all aspects of a lens designed for one format can be reproduced with a lens that is designed for another format. Again, I strongly disagree here. Merely demonstrate a S16 lens/camera combo that can come close to matching the look of a large format lens/camera, and I will give you US$100. The assertion that a 0.7x focal reducer and an 80mm lens will behave like any other 56mm lens is logically (and demonstrably) false, because lenses of the same focal length can exhibit a dramatic difference in behavior, even when designed for the same format by the same manufacturer. Lo and behold, Fuji makes two 56mm lenses in their X-mount line: the XF56mmF1.2 R; and the XF56mmF1.2 R APD. These two lenses are identical, except for the fact that the APD version contains a apodization filter near the aperture. Here is a comparison of the two lenses mounted to the same camera and set to the same f-stop: Notice any difference in the focus roll-off? You can see an enlarged version of the comparison with a few mouse clicks. If you can't see a dramatic difference between these two images, then it is futile to continue this discussion. On the other hand, if you do see the dramatic difference between these two images, then you must logically conclude that Mr. Caldwell's statement is false, regarding a 0.7x focal reducer and an 80mm lens behaving like any other 56mm lens. The 80mm lens with a 0.7x focal reducer could behave like one of the 56mm Fujinons or like the other -- but it cannot behave like both. Thus, the 80mm lens with a 0.7x focal reducer does not "behave like any other 56mm lens." Furthermore (and most important to this discussion), how can this dramatic difference in focus roll-off be reconciled with the notion that the equivalence principle is absolute? The focal length of the lenses are identical, and the f-stops are identical, so these images should have the exact same DOF/focus roll-off -- but they obviously don't have the same focus-roll-off. In addition, if you look closely at the enlarged images, you will see that the technical DOF of these images does not match. Again, there were no differences in aberrations nor "flaws" between these two lenses -- they are identical except that one of the lenses includes an apodization filter. On the other hand, there are other lenses with intentional aberrations that also challenge the notion of absolute equivalence, such as soft focus lenses and the Fujian 35mm f1.7 (the aberration became "intentional" after folks used it). So, do you think that there might be more to the look of a lens besides the equivalence/DOF formula? I'll call him "doctor" when he reconciles the notion of all lenses of the same focal length behave identically and when he explains how the focus differences in the BG bush/car in the "beer bottle" test proves "equivalence."

Although I respect Mr. Caldwell for his optical engineering prowess and for his high-quality products, his "calling your tests valid" (please provide a link to this statement) certainly "isn't proof of anything." In addition, Mr. Caldwell might not desire your dragging his name into this discussion. In regards to my "referring to bad tests done by others" as not being proof, note that not only did I criticize the setups of the tests but that I also analyzed the results of the tests. Those results show a difference in DOF/focus between optics made for different formats, a point which you still have yet to address. Perhaps you (or Mr. Caldwell) could explain why the "beer bottle" equivalence test shows the BG bush/car to be conspicuously sharper in the Iphone image than in the FF Nikon image. Perhaps we should first thoroughly analyze the results of the tests done so far, instead of glossing over the information and dismissing discrepancies out-of-hand. Why would one do a comparison test and not focus on the differences in the results? My guess is that such a tester does not want to contend with results that he/she is biased against. Again, dismissal out-of-hand... Mr. Ezcurra is clearly referring to how the Cyclops works and to the making of the Cyclops in the passage you quoted. He is not commenting about the results of the Cyclops. There are several videos on Mr. Ezcurra's Vimeo channel that show the unique look of both the "full" and "mini" Cyclops versions. Again, if you (or anyone else) can duplicate this look with just a S16 camera and S16 lens, I will give US$100.

No. It's not. As I just said, the fact is that all of the equivalence tests so far show a difference in DOF/focus between lenses made for different formats. I would be happy to point out those differences to you once again. So, given the DOF/focus differences inherent in all of the equivalence comparisons up until now, the "burden of proof" is on those who deny those results. I said that I would not bother to do a test unless it involved two extremely different formats, so that the differences are undeniable. The differences are already clearly visible in all of the equivalence tests so far, but biased testers and equivalence followers deny the results. Your two tests were flawed in almost every way, so they are hardly worth considering, even though the results showed differences in DOF/focus between different focal lengths. In the first place, you used the same lens for every single test image. How do you expect to get a valid result if you use the same lens (made for a single format) in every test? And that lens is a zoom lens to boot, which means that its internal convergent/focal point doesn't necessarily move to different positions to match the positions of focal/convergent points of prime lenses with different focal lengths. Using two different focal lengths on the same zoom lens is like using the same prime lens with and without a focal reducer -- there will be almost no difference in DOF/look between the two focal lengths. To properly test equivalence, one must use two prime lenses with differing focal lengths and with each lens designed for a different format. Secondly, you did not include any middle-ground in the frame that could reveal the character of DOF/focus fall-off. This mistake seems common amongst those making tests biased toward equivalence. Having only air between the foreground and a distant background renders useless any test of DOF range/falloff. Thirdly, you misinterpreted/ignored/dismissed your results. When you first posted your two tests long ago, I and others stated that we could see differences in the DOF/focus, but you and other equivalence supporters failed to address those points. In a more recent thread, I used flashing GIF images with colored circles which pinpointed these differences. You and the other equivalence folks dismissed these differences as slight imperfection inherent in testing equivalence that only becomes apparent in flashing GIF images, even though these differences are quite clear to me and others without the flashing GIFs. Furthermore, in your second test, you eliminated the variable of in-camera sharpening -- lo and behold, the differences in DOF/focus became more dramatic. However, you and other equivalence supporters glossed over these more conspicuous non-equivalent second test results and only "focused" on the first test in all of the discussions. Such examples have already been linked several times on this forum. You almost never respond to such links/points. Notable examples would be the PhotographyLife "beer bottle" equivalence test (note the obvious differences in focus of the BG bush/car to the left of the bottle) and footage from Gonzalo Ezcurras extreme large format Cyclops cameras (if you can show a lens made for S16 that has this same, exquisite DOF roll-off/look, I'll give you US$100). First, why don't you explain one-by-one each of the DOF/focus differences that I pointed out in your tests (especially the DOF differences in your second test). Also, please explain the huge, conspicuous DOF/focus differences in the "beer bottle" test linked above, which compared an Iphone camera lens to a full frame camera lens. Here is the first post covering my points on both of your tests and on the "beer bottle" test, and here is a further breakdown of your first test. There are a lot of specific focus/DOF differences both in the BG and FG in the tests that you (and others) have already done which you have not yet reconciled. Even the bokeh is substantially different in size and edge sharpness (both tell-tale signs of DOF differences). As I stated before, I will do an equivalence comparison if I can obtain a S16 camera/lens and a large format camera/lens, but you or some other equivalence supporter must be present to oversee the camera settings. In regards to the optical properties that might differ between various sized formats, once again, these have been posted several times in this forum.

Nope. With all the equivalence tests that have been done, none have been conclusive. In fact, all of those equivalence tests show a difference in DOF between lenses made for different formats, and some comparisons actually show a dramatic difference in DOF.

Black paint and clean, sharp edges.

Looks like the fittings might be die cast. They could fatigue early.