Laughable Chris and Jordan video on medium format

[Django]

1 hour ago, kye said:

@Django @PannySVHS You guys are hilarious.

I wonder if you can tell me what the colour science of the next canon camera will be like?  I mean, I know you haven't seen it, but you also haven't seen the Mini adjusted in post to match the 65, and you're confidently speaking about that!

Maybe you can compare the GH6 to the next Canon camera?

If I promise to take a video of the lottery numbers next week, can you tell me what that video contains?

That'd be great, thanks!

 

Huh? Did you actually read my post? Nobody is doubting you can match a Mini to a 65 in post.

What I'm saying is that is totally besides the point of the test & discussion which is camera sensor size, and lens pairings not CS.

This is corroborated by the DP himself which I've quoted.

Not sure what Canon or GH6 has got to do with this either?

Again you seem obsessed with color science. Sorry but you're being off-topic (and acting a bit of a jerk in the process).

[kye]

21 minutes ago, Django said:

Huh? Did you actually read my post? Nobody is doubting you can match a Mini to a 65 in post.

What I'm saying is that is totally besides the point of the test & discussion which is camera sensor size, and lens pairings not CS.

This is corroborated by the DP himself which I've quoted.

Not sure what Canon or GH6 has got to do with this either?

Again you seem obsessed with color science. Sorry but you're being off-topic (and acting a bit of a jerk in the process).

I did read your post.  

The fundamental challenge is that it's not possible to do a comparison without changing so many other variables that you can't see past them to actually see the effects of sensor size.

Your post acknowledges that it wouldn't be possible to do a better test, but that doesn't mean that the best test is of a high enough standard to be useful.

10 hours ago, Django said:

sounds to me like you're focusing too much on the exposure, color science etc in your grading experiments to match both cameras.

How would you know?

What if once you match these things perfectly there was no difference?  Can you tell me without any doubt that there even is any difference?  No.  Because no-one has seen a test where all the other variables have been eliminated.  

This thread is about the difference between sensor sizes, and you're trying to say that you can extrapolate this test to all sensors of different sizes despite there being an array of differences of other variables, but I have tried to eliminate the other variables and I'm saying that the difference in look was so reduced that it wouldn't be possible to tell if there was any actual difference or not.

In a sense you and I are disagreeing about the impact of the lens distortion, colour science, vignetting, etc, but you haven't seen the altered version.  That's why I was being a bit sarcastic.  You're talking about the look of something you haven't seen.

You're literally arguing with no experience of something against someone with hours of experience of it.

10 hours ago, Django said:

The first shot say a lot. Using a same 40mm lens on both sensors displays massive angle of view difference.

Yes, this is called crop factor.  This isn't new or useful information - it's literally part of the maths of how an optical system works.

10 hours ago, Django said:

Second & last shots with angle of view matched by lens equivalency shows the huge differences in between a 35mm & 70mm (compression, DoF, bokeh) but also center crop vs full circle (vignetting, edge blur). 

Those DNA primes are made for the 65 and have so much mojo:

Yes, I agree.  In fact, I can speak from experience here because when I matched the Mini to the 65 (which required adding quite significant amounts of barrel distortion and vignetting) the Mini looked like it had so much more mojo too.  It's an amazing observation, but when you take two camera setups and put a lens on one that has lots of mojo, that cameras images will have more mojo.

I thought this was a sensor size discussion?  Instead you're talking about the lenses.

You're kind of saying that the FF look is using much nicer lenses.  But that's not a FF look at all - every format benefits from using nicer lenses.

10 hours ago, Django said:

The low light tests show the much noisier image of the smaller sensor. The 200% zoom-in shots the difference in resolution.

This is a faulty assumption.

When you match DoF between sensors, you have to use faster lenses on the smaller sensor.  There are many variables at play here, and mostly they're overtaken by the various low-light capabilities of the various sensor technologies.  A FF sensor with one native ISO will be absolutely killed in a low-light test by a MFT sensor with dual-native ISO.

We also don't know what differences there are in processing between the two cameras.  The only conclusions you can draw from this is that the ALEXA Mini has worse low light than the Alexa 65.  It's not directly applicable to any other camera.

10 hours ago, Django said:

In the end, it's a very thorough and revealing test that showcases just about everything to consider about sensor sizes and their correlation to lens pairings on an aesthetic & technical level.

Actually, it's a very specific and singular test that showcases the look of two particular cameras, and two particular sets of lenses.  There are so many variables different between the two of them, even an economist would throw their hands up in the air before declaring that somehow multivariate analysis would yield anything useful.

If I did a test between a P4K with Master Anamorphics and the worst FF camera and lens ever made you wouldn't be happy if I drew any conclusions from that at all.  I'd conclude that MFT had higher dynamic range, lower noise, was incredibly sharper, had a much more cinematic look, more mojo, etc etc etc.  You'd claim that the test wasn't fair, and I'd just say;

"it's a very thorough and revealing test that showcases just about everything to consider"

"sounds to me like you're focusing too much on the exposure, color science etc"

Of course, these objections wouldn't be that logical because I've picked two camera/lens combinations that aren't really a level-playing field, I haven't adjusted for any differences that aren't directly related to the sensor size, and I'm claiming that the differences in lenses and colour science etc somehow don't factor into the equation in any meaningful way, or not the the extent that it would overwhelm the test.

Based on my P4K Master Anamorphics vs crap FF test, you wouldn't say that it would apply to a Panasonic GF3 + kit lens vs Sony Venice + Zeiss Super-Speeds test, because in that comparison there's no way that the GF3 would win in any way at all.  In this sense, a comparison of two cameras and two lens sets is simply not enough to extrapolate from.

[Django]

 

1 hour ago, kye said:

In a sense you and I are disagreeing about the impact of the lens distortion, colour science, vignetting, etc, but you haven't seen the altered version.  That's why I was being a bit sarcastic.  You're talking about the look of something you haven't seen.

You're literally arguing with no experience of something against someone with hours of experience of it.

 

Simply making observations made on a real-life comparison test video.  Not even arguing about the thousand hours you put in post to emulate the look of the 65+DNA Prime by adding vignette, barrel distortion, grading ETC. 

No disrespect to your skills but again sorry, you're being off-topic. 

(Personally, I think I'd rather use a speed booster to achieve any bigger sensor lens look than muck around in post all day with bigger sensor reference footage you never get irl to emulate it, but to each their own.)

Quote

I thought this was a sensor size discussion?  Instead you're talking about the lenses.

You're kind of saying that the FF look is using much nicer lenses.  But that's not a FF look at all - every format benefits from using nicer lenses.

That is not what I'm saying. What is even a "nice" lens? That's so subjective. Some like modern tack sharp, others soft with vintage flair. What is for sure is that FF has the biggest lens selection 35mm being such an old & popular format.

But again, your deflecting to an entire other side conversation. 

I'm saying a FF/MF/LF lens will give its full characteristics on it's native sensor size, regardless of how "nice" a lens is. 

On a crop sensor, only the center of the optic will be used, losing some of its inherent characteristics.

Its pretty basic stuff really, not sure what you are arguing about.

And of course I'm talking about lenses, I thought it was established pages ago that sensor size AND lens pairing go hand-in-hand. 

Anyways I kinda feel you're being purposely dense and obtuse for the sake of argument winning, I've noticed this in many other threads that seemed to aimlessly go on forever, so let's maybe save up some bandwidth and just agree to disagree on this topic? 😉 

Cheers

[kye]

1 hour ago, Django said:

 

Simply making observations made on a real-life comparison test video.  Not even arguing about the thousand hours you put in post to emulate the look of the 65+DNA Prime by adding vignette, barrel distortion, grading ETC. 

No disrespect to your skills but again sorry, you're being off-topic. 

(Personally, I think I'd rather use a speed booster to achieve any bigger sensor lens look than muck around in post all day with bigger sensor reference footage you never get irl to emulate it, but to each their own.)

That is not what I'm saying. What is even a "nice" lens? That's so subjective. Some like modern tack sharp, others soft with vintage flair. What is for sure is that FF has the biggest lens selection 35mm being such an old & popular format.

But again, your deflecting to an entire other side conversation. 

I'm saying a FF/MF/LF lens will give its full characteristics on it's native sensor size, regardless of how "nice" a lens is. 

On a crop sensor, only the center of the optic will be used, losing some of its inherent characteristics.

Its pretty basic stuff really, not sure what you are arguing about.

And of course I'm talking about lenses, I thought it was established pages ago that sensor size AND lens pairing go hand-in-hand. 

Anyways I kinda feel you're being purposely dense and obtuse for the sake of argument winning, I've noticed this in many other threads that seemed to aimlessly go on forever, so let's maybe save up some bandwidth and just agree to disagree on this topic? 😉 

Cheers

I'm happy to discuss the relative merits and aesthetics of lenses, but that can be done without sensor size being part of it....... but sensor size was the premise of this whole thread, so that's what I was talking about.

I have a very particular interest in learning about how this stuff actually works.  Fluffy discussions that conflate various things together and confuse one thing with the next prevent tangible things from being learned.

I'm getting philosophical here, but you questioned my approach to discussions, so it's relevant.

Steve Yedlin put it wonderfully in his spectacular essay "On Colour Science":

Quote

The elusive thing that we call the photographic look is an abstract phenomenon. It's the aggregate perceptual experience that emerges from the sum of many smaller attributes that clue the eye.

So, the question is: can we as filmmakers identify, isolate and understand any of these underlying attributes so that we can manipulate them meaningfully for ourselves, or are we forever relegated to the status of shoppers; browsing for pre-packaged solutions and then wearing the badge of brand allegiance to the one we select.

That applies to all of film-making, not just colour, so let's unpack that a little.

"identify, isolate and understand any of these underlying attributes so that we can manipulate them meaningfully for ourselves"

The idea here is to identify things we like and things we don't like.  Things that work for a particular aesthetic.  

Then we isolate the underlying attribute.  We do this all the time when actually making films.  We film something from two different angles and then choose the one we like better.  We do this in isolation by looking at a frame, taking a step or two to the left and looking at it again.  We position the subject in the centre of the frame, then position them to the right and then the left, examining the effects of changing just one isolated variable.
We do this in post by choosing a warm or cooler WB, but putting more or less contrast. etc etc.  If we made a list of every individual aspect that is decided when making a film, most of us would have some idea of the effects of these and could talk about them.

We then understand these underlying attributes so we can manipulate them for ourselves.  
I'd imagine that most people into cinema in one way or another would realise that a romantic comedy would be high-key, warmer WB, less sharpened, smoother camera movement, slower editing, happier music.  A horror/thriller would be low-key, cooler WB, sharpened harsh image, jerky camera movement, fast paced editing, with ominous music.
This is about understanding the aesthetic impacts of these individual aspects of film-making.

To turn back to this discussion, or others where you feel I'm being particularly "dense or obtuse" it's actually about trying to drill down using this identify/isolate/understand approach.  As far as I can tell, I'm one of the people working hardest on these forums to actually pull apart the specific elements of film-making and understand them.  If there are others, they're not sharing their efforts or findings much.  @BTM_Pix is an exception of course.

This idea of trying to isolate variables is one of the fundamental principles of science, and its taken us from the dark ages to space exploration.  Not quite all of human knowledge, but a good deal of it, and it's not anally-retentive about details just for the hell of it, it's because it actually matters.

But, I get it.  
If you're not trying to drill down and get to the specifics, then it's fun to just hang out and say things with loose words and may or may not be true, and just agree with each other for the sake of being nice.  I'm not here, posting detailed responses in a thread about the look of various sensor sizes to chew the fat and hang.  I'm here to try and learn WTF is actually going on.  This discussion has actually been useful for me, counter to how it might appear, I've learned a great deal in terms of sharpening my understanding of the topic, further developing my understanding of how much other people actually know, and the overall psychology of humanity.

I also get it that most people here are just looking at cameras as a thing you buy to shoot, edit a bit, adjust the colour a little, export, get paid and move on.  From a business perspective it makes total sense.  Choose the best package and then just go use it.  
That's not my approach.  I spend more time in post than most, and am willing to put in more effort to develop my skills for post as well.  If I can do that and get an advantage then that's worth it for me.  My "obtuse" posts are trying to sharpen the conversation to be more specific (seemingly against the wishes of the other participants it seems) to understand concrete things.  

Sorry if you were just here to speak loosely and draw conclusions without having your logic checked, but that's not what I thought the focus of these forums were.  The entire idea of the DSLR revolution was trying to get the best results we can with modest affordable equipment, but that takes specific knowledge, and that requires rigour and questioning.

[Django]

ok now you're making yourself sound like you're some kind of unrecognised martyr on this holy crusade to solve the great mysteries of film making, swimming against the tide from evil hordes of blinded brand zealots. what is this Passion of the EOSHD Christ?  

I mean I'm sorry if I ruffled your feathers but again you are simply way off-topic: you're bringing up color science again ffs. what does CS have to do with sensor size? please answer, genuinely curious. 

 

[Andrew Reid]

4 hours ago, kye said:

I'm happy to discuss the relative merits and aesthetics of lenses, but that can be done without sensor size being part of it

Not to criticise, however that can't really be done, but they are absolutely 100% linked.

If you only see the centre crop of a painting, the composition is different, the brush strokes are different, you're not able to discuss the aesthetics of the whole thing

So you can't discuss a lens without adding sensor size to the discussion, or at the very least the sensor format it was designed for.

[Andrew Reid]

7 hours ago, Django said:

I'm saying a FF/MF/LF lens will give its full characteristics on it's native sensor size, regardless of how "nice" a lens is.

On the other side of the argument, it's not quite that simple either

There are magic combos of mismatched sensor size and glass.

This, granted, is more a matter of taste than anything to do with peak performance or corner sharpness.

But I love the Contax Zeiss 85mm F1.4 on Micro Four Thirds as a fast telephoto, whereas on full frame I find it to be merely another portrait lens of which I have plenty.

Usually it doesn't work like this. I find 50mm lenses on 2x crop sensor to be a no-mans land. The Canon 50mm F1.2L on APS-C and Micro Four Thirds I find lacking all that's nice about it on full frame.

And what is basically a crap old boring £60 lens on full frame can really come to life on medium format. Minolta MD lenses for example.

This is why you can't discuss a lens separately to image format.

And this is why Chris & Jordan don't have a clue about depth of field or medium format.

Maybe we could turn the spotlight back onto that.

The fact that such a big proportion of the camera community is happy to idolise two ex-salesmen who don't even have a basic artistic understanding of photography and cinema.

[Django]

36 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

On the other side of the argument, it's not quite that simple either

There are magic combos of mismatched sensor size and glass.

This, granted, is more a matter of taste than anything to do with peak performance or corner sharpness.

But I love the Contax Zeiss 85mm F1.4 on Micro Four Thirds as a fast telephoto, whereas on full frame I find it to be merely another portrait lens of which I have plenty.

Usually it doesn't work like this. I find 50mm lenses on 2x crop sensor to be a no-mans land. The Canon 50mm F1.2L on APS-C and Micro Four Thirds I find lacking all that's nice about it on full frame.

And what is basically a crap old boring £60 lens on full frame can really come to life on medium format. Minolta MD lenses for example.

This is why you can't discuss a lens separately to image format.

And this is why Chris & Jordan don't have a clue about depth of field.

Oh I totally agree with you on that, different pairings yield different results.

I also have the EF 50mm F1.2L and find it too lacking on crop sensors, but also have a FF 85mm Zeiss that looks great when adapted on my FS7's S35 sensor.

There is no rule of thumb, its down to personal preference and look you're trying to achieve. 

Must admit I'm curious about how FF lenses must look on MF. Plenty of vignetting I'm sure. or are you using the 35mm crop mode on the GFX?

 

[Emanuel]

For sure, cinema is a combo like every artistic medium, requiring technology, is : ) Let alone the more complex ones... (EAG :- )

[Andrew Reid]

2 hours ago, Django said:

Must admit I'm curious about how FF lenses must look on MF. Plenty of vignetting I'm sure. or are you using the 35mm crop mode on the GFX?

No, a lot of them cover 44x33. Especially 85mm or longer. Sigma ART 85mm F1.4 EF mount for example barely even has any brightness fall off at, in corners. Canon FD 85mm F1.2L is sublime. It's nice enough on full frame but on medium format takes on a whole new dimension.

DPR wouldn't even bother to scratch the surface of these kinds of combos in their videos.

Also Minolta tended to design a larger image circle, for better corner sharpness on full frame - side effect of that is they don't vignette as much on an even larger sensor.

One thing to bear in mind with some of the really fast full frame lenses is they're not very sharp wide open so a crop sensor will magnify the aberrations and softness.

That's why Contax Zeiss 85mm F1.4 on GH2 back in the day was always best at F2 for detailed shots and ninja star bokeh, and F1.4 for softer portraits and people shots. It was two lenses in one with two completely different looks at different apertures.

So it is not just about sensor size but aperture as well. Not even talking depth of field differences but bokeh as well.

Plus much lighter to carry round than a 170mm F1.4 on full frame would be.

It gave the GH2 a handy leg up in dim light.

[BTM_Pix]

5 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

There are magic combos of mismatched sensor size and glass.

I still think back to when we put the Contax Zeiss 35-70mm on your GFX100 and how fantastic it looked.

In the spirit of that particular trip, I would've attempted to buy it off you even though it was actually mine.

[webrunner5]

All of the Contax Zeiss lenses are just breathtakingly great. Just jewels in your hand. Amazing engineering on all of it. And surprisingly fairly affordable compared to Leica lenses.

[filmmakereu]

On 1/28/2022 at 2:11 AM, greenscreen said:

There isn't any confusion at all involved because math isn't applied. Perception doesn't need to be less scientific than math.

Roger, it is even more complex, for example see this CML discussion about perceived discussion, different DPs, different opinions: https://www.cinematography.net/edited-pages/percieved-sharpness.htm

 

[kye]

10 hours ago, Django said:

ok now you're making yourself sound like you're some kind of unrecognised martyr on this holy crusade to solve the great mysteries of film making, swimming against the tide from evil hordes of blinded brand zealots. what is this Passion of the EOSHD Christ?  

I mean I'm sorry if I ruffled your feathers but again you are simply way off-topic: you're bringing up color science again ffs. what does CS have to do with sensor size? please answer, genuinely curious. 

Not a martyr at all.  You asked a question and I answered it.  

If you think I'm off-topic then I guess you're just not seeing how it connects.  No wonder you're not following.

You ask what does colour science have to do with lenses.  Let me ask - what did that quote have to do with colour science?

10 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Not to criticise, however that can't really be done, but they are absolutely 100% linked.

If you only see the centre crop of a painting, the composition is different, the brush strokes are different, you're not able to discuss the aesthetics of the whole thing

So you can't discuss a lens without adding sensor size to the discussion, or at the very least the sensor format it was designed for.

You're right that the look of a specific lens is linked with the sensor that you use it on, but I am talking about the aesthetic effects of a lens attribute.  

For example, barrel distortion.  Lots of lenses have that attribute.  Luckily it's one we can add and manipulate in post.  So is vignetting.  So is contrast.  So is halation.  So is sharpness and so is resolution (in the sense we can reduce it in post).

Depending on how sophisticated we want to be, we can stretch all these parameters to develop a 'look'.  They're actually quite easy to adjust in most software, so it's not a super-esoteric kind of thing.  It's simple enough that a person could develop some looks they enjoy and just save them as pre-sets, and apply them during an editing session.

I've heard you mention several times that you're a fan of the Cooke look.  While I'm not suggesting you can emulate that in post, what I am suggesting is that you could take a lens that was objectionable, perhaps because it is too perfect (like many complain the Sigma 18-35 is, for example) and apply similar adjustments to push it in the direction of a Cooke.  No, it probably won't fool anyone, but perhaps it gives an aesthetic that suits a project, and maybe gives a look that's desirable.  In fact, by adjusting the parameters individually, you could even tailor a look to a project where no lens in existence would give that exact combination.

The show "The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina" on Netflix has a dark other-worldly vibe with huge amounts of lens distortions, which I suspect come from old anamorphics with huge and very compromised squeeze factors.  While us amateurs are not going to be emulating anamorphic bokeh in post any time soon, the wild distortions are certainly possible with a few nodes in Resolve.  

This is the relevance of the Yedlin quote that @Django didn't seem to read / understand.  By identifying individual lens attributes, isolating them and their influences and how we might emulate them in post, and by understanding which ones and how much give what aesthetic effects, we get creative control, rather than being limited to simply "shopping" for the look we want from any specific lens.

I've shown this kind of thing on the forums before.  Perhaps the people who resist an analytical approach simply don't understand what is possible?

IIRC that was simply matching the colours ( @Django oh no! - looks like colour science might have something to do with lenses!!  gasp, cough, splutter).

The more we understand the elements of an aesthetic the more empowered we are to manipulate it and create it ourselves, which gives us greater potential for creativity.  Isn't that what we're all trying to achieve?

[Andrew Reid]

@kyeyup very clever what you can do in post to manipulate the image as far as computational optics go.

For the sake of this thread though I think we should keep to the original topic.

Feel free to open a separate thread for the other stuff, and if @Djangocan stop arguing with you that would be a plus.

iPhone does computational optics in realtime, and there are apps to emulate anamorphic bokeh and all that sort of thing.

Maybe in future with 8K, sensor size, focal length and FOV will ALL be computational, with smaller sensors or telephoto lenses being a crop with a depth map for computational bokeh.

Until that day comes, we live in real world of real optics and real sensor sizes.

Hopefully we can get back on topic, which was the unique depth of field of medium format and Chris from DPReview's video.

[Andrew Reid]

7 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

I still think back to when we put the Contax Zeiss 35-70mm on your GFX100 and how fantastic it looked.

In the spirit of that particular trip, I would've attempted to buy it off you even though it was actually mine.

Yeah it was an eye opening moment that. It's a good lens on full frame as well, but the magic of the GFX 100 is it elevates certain lenses to a more interesting place. Makes them a bit more unique. I still haven't used the 35-70 on full frame, it's been permanently GFXed!

[PannySVHS]

19 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

but the magic of the GFX 100 is it elevates certain lenses to a more interesting place.

Now that! That´s a sight super worth and exiting to be seen! Though your Canon Dream Lens on the FF camera of your choice would be really something as well! Or maybe the Pentax "Zeiss Hollywood" 28mm F2.0, since you, BTMPix and webrunner are running our eyes watering with mentioning all that Zeiss magic.

@kye I agree with the logic of seperating parameters of an image and to work them in Post. You have shown some kewl examples of your own colour exploration and put Yedlin on our map. Thank you very much! Just our logic of what one did state or not in this thread differs from one another. I am happy with that, even moreso with your input of course. After all, Django, you, me and others do love the Arri video. I can stop arguing now with that realization.

[kye]

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

@kyeyup very clever what you can do in post to manipulate the image as far as computational optics go.

For the sake of this thread though I think we should keep to the original topic.

Feel free to open a separate thread for the other stuff, and if @Djangocan stop arguing with you that would be a plus.

iPhone does computational optics in realtime, and there are apps to emulate anamorphic bokeh and all that sort of thing.

Maybe in future with 8K, sensor size, focal length and FOV will ALL be computational, with smaller sensors or telephoto lenses being a crop with a depth map for computational bokeh.

Until that day comes, we live in real world of real optics and real sensor sizes.

Hopefully we can get back on topic, which was the unique depth of field of medium format and Chris from DPReview's video.

I'm having devious thoughts for a separate thread, but it will require some filming, so might take a bit.

I think one key aspect of the computational stuff is having a depth map, which can be used to generate realistic anamorphic bokeh, which currently I don't think there are good simulations of really.  Certainly this is one aspect where the stupendous resolutions will help - doing 3D edge detection on an 8K image is likely to generate a much better result than at native 2K or similar.

1 hour ago, PannySVHS said:

Now that! That´s a sight super worth and exiting to be seen! Though your Canon Dream Lens on the FF camera of your choice would be really something as well! Or maybe the Pentax "Zeiss Hollywood" 28mm F2.0, since you, BTMPix and webrunner are running our eyes watering with mentioning all that Zeiss magic.

@kye I agree with the logic of seperating parameters of an image and to work them in Post. You have shown some kewl examples of your own colour exploration and put Yedlin on our map. Thank you very much! Just our logic of what one did state or not in this thread differs from one another. I am happy with that, even moreso with your input of course. After all, Django, you, me and others do love the Arri video. I can stop arguing now with that realization.

The sheer weight and scale of the image from the 65 in that ARRI video is just wonderful.  No doubt whatsoever.

What was interesting to me was how "imperfect" the lens is on the edges, with smear and vignetting etc.  It makes a wonderful look, but normally the high-end optics are as clean as they can make them, but not clinical.  Sure, the 65 sensor is larger, but if you're making custom glass then I still don't see why you can't just scale everything in a lens design up proportionately and get a larger image circle.  Maybe there's something I'm missing there though - optical design is definitely outside my expertise.

[Nikkor]

@Andrew ReidI'm still waiting for that speedbooster hasselblad gfx review 🙂

[Django]

17 hours ago, kye said:

If you think I'm off-topic then I guess you're just not seeing how it connects.  No wonder you're not following.

You ask what does colour science have to do with lenses.  Let me ask - what did that quote have to do with colour science?

No, I asked you what does CS have to do with sensor size, not lenses. Simple question, you seem to be the one not following. 

By the way, the Yedlin quote you took was from his essay on color science. Again, off-topic. 

If you wanna quote Yedlin, at least try do it from one of his essays on format sizes which would then at least be relevant to this discussion:

ON COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT LARGE FORMAT OPTICS

MATCHING LENS BLUR ON DIFFERENT FORMAT SIZES

(btw you'll notice CS never gets mentioned. wonder why?)

Now while all that Yedlin says is factually true, I can't say I necessarily agree with his conclusions that lean on the Chris Nichols side that there is no Large format look because DoF & FoV can be matched by equivalencies and that the audience won't know the difference:

Since the audience can see only the final blur circles and neither the f/stop nor the sensor size, they can't see in the final image if blur circles are increased by a larger format size or by a larger aperture. Those two things are interchangeable in the final image, so this is not a "look" that's discernable in the final image. (It may be easier for the the filmmaker to achieve a certain size blur circle in one format or another but the audience also can't see how easy or difficult it is -- they only see the final image, so again, it's not a "look.”).

This is where the MINI/65 comparison video comparing the 35mm to the 70mm shows a huge difference in look/aesthetic and imo contradicts this conclusion.

His example of matching a 50mm at F11 to a 18mm at F4 is certainly not conclusive either imo. Shoot that LF 50mm at F1.3 and good luck finding an equivalent 18mm f0.5! Yet his response to that is again that the audience will never know so there is no look:

Even in an unusual edge case where a filmmaker has a specific model of large format lens at an extremely wide aperture and the only lens model available to him/her for a smaller format camera can't open wide enough to get the same size blur circles: anyone who only looks at the final image and wasn't there when the image was captured can't SEE that the aperture was at its endpoint, so that's not a "look" -- it's just something that the filmmakers are aware of during production (that the aperture and not the sensor was the limting factor in this particular case). 

Let's keep in mind though that Yedlin is talking from a digital cinema perspective where S35 is still the standard and hence the format with most lens choices (vs 65mm LF). So this subjective point of view doesn't necessarily fully translate to our hybrid world where FF is the longstanding widespread standard and most people here invest in an according lens format system.

Quote

IIRC that was simply matching the colours ( @Django oh no! - looks like colour science might have something to do with lenses!!  gasp, cough, splutter).

So you color matched a lomo to a samyang shot in post. Congrats, but that still has nothing to do with sensor size.

I strongly suggest you start another thread to discuss CS or even lens emulation in post, which are both interesting side topics.