Lintelfilm

I just did a calculation: 50mm 1.8 on a 5D vs 25mm f/1.0 on a GH1 ... with a subject distance of 3m they both came out with a DoF of 40cm (give or take a couple of cm either way). Definitive, IMO

I think we're talking at cross purposes here. I agree with you entirely and if you re-read my post I *think* you can see that. I just brought up my plugin because the subject of "digital optical character effects" came up but I'm not making a case for them doing the same job ... This I do actually take issue with though because we are talking about degrading images, not improving them. You can make an Otus look pretty close to a beaten up old Helios with my plugin (yes not perfectly, but reasonably and certainly believably with casual inspection). However you would have a very hard job - as you say - making an old Helios look like an Otus. There is another school of thought in cinema that it is always better to capture it as clean and high-quality as possible and then degrade it later if you need to, because you can't do it the other way around. Of course you know this because you do this very thing yourself when adding FilmConvert to your XC10 4K footage! :P

Exactly correct. F-stop is a measurement of exposure - the amount of light hitting the sensor is the amount of light hitting the sensor. However aperture size as related to depth of field is a different thing entirely - not related to exposure but image character. Of course the two things are interrelated as one affects the other, but they should not be confused. There will always be real-world advantages to larger sensors, but all things being equal (on paper / mathematically) you can always re-create the "full frame" aesthetic on smaller sensors. THIS IS SERIOUS!!!! STOP BEING TRIVIAL!!!!

Ahhh Mattias I'm disappointed in you! I am quite a fan of your YT channel but you are WRONG here! As @Timotheus says you are actually using an example that disproves your own point! Those two images ARE identical (within the realms of reasonable difference - of course you can never replicate the EXACT same look with two different lenses on different cameras). There is no significant difference between them. Background separation, compression, bokeh, etc are within the realms of "the same". This is a very confusing subject, because all the terminology gets messy when talking about equivalencies. I made the mistake in my earlier post of refering to "equivalent" F-stop, which you rightly took issue with, but I was only wrong in the terminology I used. What I should have said is "aperture size" (which as we know is a different thing). I absolutely do think there is a use for talking in terms of equivalents when discussing f-stop/aperture on different sensor sizes, but only when thinking about DOF. It makes sense to say F-stop should remain the same because that tells you about exposure/ the amount of light getting to the sensor - but it doesn't tell you about Depth of Field image characteristics. Here you can talk in equivalencies. Again, Timotheus is correct: 50mm 1.8 on FF = 35mm 1.2 S35 = 25mm 0.9 MFT Of course in the real world you have to give a little room for error but in theoretical terms there is no difference in DOF characteristics. Forget about exposure - that is different. This is about depth of field and focal length.

Theoretically, yes. That's why I like the Sigma APSC zooms (yes I know I keep going on about them) on my C100 - because you can see the corners/edges. However different lenses have different corner characteristics. Some are not so nice.

@Mattias Burling (and following on from my own answer) of course this is where super fast lenses for smaller sensors come come in. An f/0.95 on MFT will be ROUGHLY equivalent to a 1.8 on full frame. If we talk about zooms only, the Sigma 1.8 APSC zooms are roughly equivalent to 2.8 zooms on full frame. And seeing as you can't get 1.8 zooms for FF you could argue they negate the FF advantage. But then you get into advantages of specific lens features etc (such as IS, focal range, AF) and it comes down to which system suits your needs best. I moved from MFT to EF for various reasons but partly because building a lens collection around EF on a S35 sensor is as close as you get to a video/cinema standard now (below PL of course).

If you're using certain full frame lenses on APSC you loose the nice swirly corner bokeh you only see when using the full image circle of the glass on full frame (though you can replicate this using my FCPX plugin! See xc10 thread). Other than that and the things you mentioned, full frame image generally is technically superior in terms of low light and dynamic range (and looking at the plus size RED and Arri sensors, resolution too). Personally for me S35 is the sweet spot between image, lens size and practical focusing. There are as many things that could be listed as advantages of smaller sensors...

Not sure if you meant that reply for me or HelsinkiZim who asked about digital filters, but the ones I have -HDTVFX and UltraCon - are physical filters. I cant comment on Tiffens digital filters as I've never used them. I do always add some level of grain though, even if I want a clean digital look, just to dither a bit. As an aside, I also built my own FCPX "lens character" plugin that is pretty cool if I do say so myself. FCPX users can download it free from my site. It's been very popular actually - Mike Matzdorf the guy who edited the Will Smith film Focus in FCPX has it and sent me a couple of tweets about it... If you google Dawg Pu (yes it's a stupid name ripping off Dog Schidt Optics in a jokey way) you'll end up on my blog post about it. Richard Gale even gave his approval! Of course I'd rather get Richard to build me a full customised set of DSO primes but getting effects optically is not always practical.

I have all the STM zooms and the 50mm 1.8. The prime is pretty noisy. The zooms are very quiet. I think though that smaller apertures are quieter as them dont have to work as much to get focus (because of shallow DOF). I love the look of the sigma 1.8 zooms on the c100. I never really use the STMs but they're good to have in a pinch because of IS, focal range, STM, etc

Baassiilllll!

To chip in to the diffusion chat, I have a few tiffen HDTVFX and UltraContrast filters I used a lot with my gh4. I must try them on my XC10. Personally I like these two because they don't add the mist look to highlights but still take the digital edge off. The only thing I don't like is the ghosting they create with in-frame light sources. That's the only reason they're not on my lenses 24/7. I like No.2 strength best.

Thanks man. Mine is fine now too I'm just concerned it'll go kaput again during a job. I hate intermittent faults! What kind of noise does your's make - is it quite "stuttery"? If I can make time I'll upload a video of the sound mine makes.

Hey at least if any of us are stuck for ideas at Halloween we can just film stuff with our XC10 and tell people it's a ghost-finding device ...

Cool thanks Tom. Fingers crossed for shutter angle and waveform too!

Crap I just looked and it's a Premiere-only update. No FCPX as yet ...

Hmm it's not there for me. Perhaps it didn't install properly.

To backtrack a little, where is this new "Blur" slider for Super 8/S16 in the new Film Convert version? I can't see a blur option anywhere.

Any idea what 8.5 equates to in ISO on the XC10? Oh and do we know what the base ISO is? I've assumed it's 500 as that's the lowest C-log can go but I really have no idea. The C100MkII can go down to 320 in CLog (850 is base)

Thanks JP. I too got much less ghosting with everything off but it is there. Personally I think the XC10 is still an awesome camera and although this ghosting issue should be acknowledged by Canon it's not keeping me awake at night. The camera uses a lot of digital fandangledness we really know little about to create a very sturdy and overall great image in most situations (esp. for the sensor size). I can live with this ghosting, because in motion it is only very noticeable in quite extreme circumstances. I'd guess that whatever is causing it is doing a job that is contributing a lot to the image quality so as with any camera I'll pay the price of compromise. The XC10 is really aimed at VJ's and other run+gun filmmakers who require versatility, speed and generally clean-out-of-camera images over "image perfection" (whereas a narrative filmmaker in contrast may prioritise the latter). I'll contact CPS too but I'm not going to send the camera to them. Personally I'm more than happy using it as-is.

My Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 AF just completely stopped working (on a C100 MkII). I was in continuous focus mode and I think it *may* have been me adjusting the manual focus ring that caused it to go. But as I understand it the 18-35mm has full time manual override enabled as default. When I attach it to the Sigma Dock the Full Time MF button is greyed out so I can't change it anyway (unlike the 50-100mm which can have it switched on or off with the dock). Anyways, the 18-35mm AF is back to normal now but it was gone for a good half hour or more and I have no idea what I did to fix it. I've tried to break it again by manual focusing in continuous AF mode but so far it's just freaked out a bit as you'd expect it to (man vs machine - continuous DPAF vs MF) but returned to normal as soon as I stop turning the focus ring. The Sigma 1.8 zooms have always made slightly unpleasant noises in continuous AF mode but I'm worried that the 18-35mm sounds worse/"jumpier" since the fault occurred. But it could just be me being paranoid and it always sounded like that. Anyone else had anything similar happen with the 18-35mm (or any other lens for that matter!)?

Personally I think this is an issue you will see in any XC10. We don't have anyone here really looking for the ghosting and saying they can't find any. I think you'd be wasting your time to send your unit in. I'd press them to try it on a random unit (or ten) to confirm/underline that it is a universal issue. Posted these on the other thread ages ago. Granted they're out of focus but I think they show the real world effects of the issue pretty well. Look at the weird banding on the faces, and in the final image the ghost of his profile. It's really very weird.

I can't find anything about new firmware via Google. Where did you hear this?

The test I just did showed clear ghosting of an in-focus object so I think I'm wrong about the OOF being more pronounced. I also turned AF off and ghosting is still there.

I just turned everything off and the ghosting is still there. It's much less regular and visible - I think when IS is off because all the motion blur hides it more, but it's definitely still there. @Jpfilmz can you try again to make sure?

I was just about to do the same thing. My guess was AF or IS or rolling shutter reduction. I'll do some tests of my own and post when I can. FWIW out of focus objects seem to show more ghosting.