From Canon 5d mkiii to bmpcc6kpro

After endless fun, beyond cinematic results (Amazon Prime "Shoot in any Direction and You'll Hit a Bastard") and little to zero in the field issues/bugs/malfunctions... I still feel the pull towards promises of raw dynamic range goodness.

I am way more right-side brain and would rather be creating than calculating crop sensor resolution bitrates... so a couple quick questions before I pull the trigger.

I'm a filmic locked shot prime lens kinda guy, so I immediately assumed I would grab a Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Lens (cant afford cannon cinema lenses) to get the most out of the bm camera... but is that the way to go? Will I actually be getting everything out of that lens via the super 35?

Should I go with a 35mm? I like the "look" of 35mm but would something like the "" actually give me the quality and outdoor worry-free-ness I am used to in canon L series lenses? Will it pair better with the sensor?

Am I missing something as far as what lens I need to take advantage of the sensor to get the most cinematic imagery and shallow depth of field I'll be after?

Any dumbed down insight in these areas most appreciated.

p.s.

As a bonus - knowing I will mostly be going for an HD end result (although more "k" wiggle room would be a welcomed perk)... any suggestions for shoot settings that aren't bloatedly overkill but still take the most advantage of the sensor?

A 50mm will feel a bit long for a S-35 sensor, 35mm would be the better choice.
And f1.2 will be very hard to focus, in particular with a 'fly-by-wire' lens. If you are really that much into manual focusing and 'cinematic' feel (whatever that overused term says), why not go for manual lenses?
M42 or Zeiss C/Y can be adapted to EF, and there is some great vintage glass out there. Or check which offers you find in cine glass these days, they don't cost a fortune any more and your 50mm f1.2 was definitely not cheap.

From Canon 5d mkiii to bmpcc6kpro you needy to rethink your lenses*. It is simply that you will be using just the center image area of them. That is good in general for the image quality, but different angle of view. Also to cover the sensor EF-s is enough, Those are less pricey and smaller and lighter weight.

*That is Canon 5d mkiii is using the whole sensor for video, i.e not coping it.

I've recently gone for a BMPCC6kG2, to sit alongside my Canon 5DmkII. I've not tried my 100-400mm L series lens yet, but my 16-35mm and 24-105mm ones suit my needs. The 24-105 is the one that sits on the BM most of the time and, since I'm not going for Hollywood grades, it's more than adequate. Yes, the sensor is cropped, and an L-series lens doesn't lose much at the edges, but it means I'm using the best part of the glass. Shoot in 6K and it's not quite as wide at the 24 end as on my Canon, but crop for straight HD and it extends the zoom nicely (though allow a bit for the inevitable crop in post). The IS is useful when hand-holding (though turn if off on a tripod, or you'll see it hunting); I find the lens IS is better than using the camera gyro for stabilisation - but still need Resolve's smoothing function to get a steady shot. I find the 16-35 better for indoor, tripod sequences (like an interview).

Changing focus during a shot takes a lot of skill (which I don't yet have) so I cut the aperture down to increase DoF - I lose the shallow isolation, but that's not been an issue for the type of work I'm doing.

Hope that helps - one newbie to another!

A 50mm will feel a bit long for a S-35 sensor, 35mm would be the better choice.

So by better fit do you mean it will be using more/all of the sensor? This is an area I am really lost in. So 35mm is the way to go for the BM super-35 sensor, like unequivocally?

And f1.2 will be very hard to focus, in particular with a 'fly-by-wire' lens.

I lock my shots and have very set marks and action, focusing to f1.2 is my lifeblood... so my question is do you mean either of those lenses is soft? Or the camera itself has issues with it? Or did you mean physically manually focusing them can be tricky (something I'm used to fine with).

Also, fly-by-wire??

If you are really that much into manual focusing and 'cinematic' feel (whatever that overused term says),

Yes, very that much into it. as far as the term cinematic it has very specific meanings to me, I tried to share that via my trailer example in the OP.

why not go for manual lenses?

Well I am. I consider both lenses I mentioned to be manual as I will never turn the autofocus on. My issue with going more affordable is I am not sure what I am getting as far as glass quality, bokeh, weather sealing, edge distortion, etc, etc. -- And I definitely don't want to deal with adapters. But maybe there is some manual only lens that is EF that you can vouch for the quality in some of the areas I mentioned?

Or check which offers you find in cine glass these days, they don't cost a fortune any more and your 50mm f1.2 was definitely not cheap.

Well money isn't a factor for me except I cant swing the "Canon Cinema" series lenses. I can handle "L" series. I'm very scared of getting the best camera I've ever owned, that can capture the most detailed information ever, and handicapping it with a subpar or incorrect lens. -- But to your point, the other Meike lens I mentioned was half the price of the Canon L series.

Shoot in 6K and it's not quite as wide at the 24 end as on my Canon, but crop for straight HD and it extends the zoom nicely (though allow a bit for the inevitable crop in post).

Can you shoot in 4K instead of 6k for the same reason you mentioned but ending up with smaller file sizes? Or does switching to 4K do something to the sensor that should be avoided.

I just referred to 35mm since it will have pretty much the aesthetics as 50mm on photographic full-frame.
'Fly-by-wire' means that you have no direct, mechanical connection to focusing, even if you switch off the AF. Plus, a very short focus throw with most AF lenses.

Regarding 6K vs 4K: there is a good reason to use 6K with a Bayer-pattern sensor, which all of these cameras have. A Bayer pattern can't resolve true 4K/UHD if shot at the same number of pixels, while 6K will fully resolve that resolution in the final product. Since you are obviously very much concerned about quality of lenses, I would suggest shooting 6K to make full use of it. Storage is not that expensive any more.

Shoot in 6K and it's not quite as wide at the 24 end as on my Canon, but crop for straight HD and it extends the zoom nicely (though allow a bit for the inevitable crop in post).

Can you shoot in 4K instead of 6k for the same reason you mentioned but ending up with smaller file sizes? Or does switching to 4K do something to the sensor that should be avoided.

4K in BRAW will crop to 4K on the sensor; 4K ProRes crops to 5.7K. I have 4K BRAW as a default preset as, for me, it's a good compromise between file size and quality. It also means I can use relatively inexpensive V60 SD cards with confidence; the ones I have will work at 6K BRAW 8:1, but they soon fill up. If I plan to record in 6K I hook up a 1TB Samsung T5 SSD; I don't need that level of "quality" as my final output is only HD, but it's useful when I want to crop and pan in post (or when I need a wider angle than the lens I have with me).

Because I'm only looking for HD, I find the ability to sensor crop gives me even more "zoom range" on lenses. But I'm only an amateur and not under the pressures of paying customers.

I just referred to 35mm since it will have pretty much the aesthetics as 50mm on photographic full-frame.

OK so a 50mm lens does play "weird" with the Super 35 sensor then? And a 35mm will behave more like a normal 50mm on the bmpcc6kpro? If I'm warm, what would I need to do to get the "35mm on a full frame feel" on the bmpcc6kpro?

a very short focus throw with most AF lenses.

Do you think the Canon L-series lenses qualify as "most AF lenses" in this case?

Regarding 6K vs 4K: there is a good reason to use 6K with a Bayer-pattern sensor, which all of these cameras have.

OK based on this description, for my purposes, 4K bad 6K good. How is this Bayer-pattern sensor utilized when shooting 1080p?

4K in BRAW will crop to 4K on the sensor;

And 6K does not crop the sensor at all? What does Full HD do in this regard?

I don't need that level of "quality" as my final output is only HD,

Mine will be too, in fact I'm used to only using the crop wiggle room going from 16:9 to 2.35:1. I'm not worried about storage as much as pushing these files around my machine in post. And if you just shot in Full HD I am assuming you aren't utilizing any of the cameras "magic"? 6K seems so overkill but the idea of not utilizing the sensor would prevent me from sleeping at night.

If I am this lost on this stuff with this camera, can you imagine me trying to comprehend using anamorphic (which I would LOVE to do).

I find the ability to sensor crop gives me even more "zoom range" on lenses.

I just don't get what that means. Would 6K give you less "zoom range" because its not cropping? Can you define "zoom range" for me?

6K filming will use the full sensor area (although it would still be viewed as a "crop" when compared to a 35mm full frame sensor. 4K BRAW will use a proportion of the sensor - AFAIK it will just process the area needed to record a 4K frame instead of a 6K frame (and similarly for other frame sizes when recording in BRAW).

Recording in ProRes (which is the only option for HD) allows choices in how much of the sensor area is processed. In HD, if I wanted to maximise the lens width I'd select the 6K area; if I wanted to maximise the lens zoom, I'd select 2.7K area. I've not done any experiments to see how quality is affected - it's an option.

I'm not concerned if I don't use the full potential of the BM 6K sensor for every shot - I know that it has what I will need, when I need it.

The terms crop and zoom aren't always helpful as they can sometimes be seen as doing the same thing. On my Canon 6DmkII, I could always crop the final image and get a better result than the same lens on my Canon40D with its smaller sensor - it comes down to pixel density needed for the image (although let's not get into a discussion of what determines a picture's quality). If you started out with film, you were probably aware of the "circles of confusion" concept to determine the effective depth of field - start with the final size of picture you needed, how far away people would be standing to view it.

I'm not sure any of that makes anything clearer, nor whether it is helpful. I've only had my 6kG2 a few months; I'm still ploughing through Blackmagic's DV Resolve training videos to make best use of what I record, whilst playing around with various camera options to see what they do. Fortunately, it's for my own pleasure and not important to anyone else - my 2023 project to challenge me in retirement.

If you use a lens that is designed for the sensor size, you use the full potential of the lens.

Lens that is designed for bigger sensor, you could actually get sharper image, but you have otherwise much heavier and expensive lens than needed for the smaller sensor size.

And the smaller sensor will collect less light, require lower f-stop for the same depth of field, and wider lens for the same field of view.

confusing, yes, and there is nothing wrong using what ever sensor size and lens if you are happy for it.

LOADED QUATION: Am I making a mistake here... giving up a FULL SENSOR for a cropped (35mm) sensor and more dynamic range that can finally escape the h264 codec? Feel free to just shoot straight and give me a no nonsense answer here.

Recording in ProRes (which is the only option for HD) allows choices in how much of the sensor area is processed.

So you can't record HD in raw?
But I can choose HD, prores and somehow choose "use all of the sensor" which I guess is saying 6K area? Am I warm?

In HD, if I wanted to maximise the lens width I'd select the 6K area; if I wanted to maximise the lens zoom, I'd select 2.7K area.

If I never "zoom" - I always use prime and move closer to my subject for maximum clarity and minimum glass, does this apply?

I'm not concerned if I don't use the full potential of the BM 6K sensor for every shot - I know that it has what I will need, when I need it.

Right, not the case for me or what I am asking. I am shooting short film and want the maximum sensor usage every time. So all my inquiries are coming from that perspective if it helps.

I'm not sure any of that makes anything clearer, nor whether it is helpful.

Make no mistake, the fact that you continue to humor and engage me, despite my continued confusion, is BEYOND HELPFUL.

If you use a lens that is designed for the sensor size, you use the full potential of the lens.

OK perfect, so then in that case are either/both of these lenses "designed for the bmpcc6kpro sensor size"?

• Meike 35mm T2.1 Cine Lens (EF Mount)

• Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM Lens

It sounds like you just need to settle on 6K BRAW, and the lowest compression your media can record at.

HD cannot be recorded in BRAW, just ProRes - but has an option to choose how much of the sensor area will be used.

Insofar as not zooming (or cropping) it's not the same as moving closer or farther away; the latter changes perspective whereas the former doesn't. They're different movements for different purposes,,,

I don't think many EF mount lenses are actually designed for the BM 6K sensor, but they will be suitable.

EF-S lenses could be considered designed for the BMPCC6K. I say this since they share an APS-C sized sensor, 1.6x crop compared to 135 film.

I do not know those lenses, but both should work just fine.

However they both seem to be covering the 'full frame' and that is unnecessary for 1.6 crop sensor.

To be clear, a lens designed for the 1.6 crop, would not necessary, maybe even not likely provide 'better image', but it likely would be smaller, less weight and price.



Note: the 'better image' is undefined here, if you prefer absolute sharpness, low distortion, low focus breath, low CA, minimal flare, specific kind of bokeh, or maybe a lens with more a character, what ever that is.

If you use a lens that is designed for the sensor size, you use the full potential of the lens.

OK perfect, so then in that case are either/both of these lenses "designed for the bmpcc6kpro sensor size"?

• Meike 35mm T2.1 Cine Lens (EF Mount)

• Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM Lens

I think this is the way to go for me:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1600180-REG/meike_mk_s35t21_ef_super35_cinema_prime_35mm.html

It specifically says it was made to cover a super 35 sensor (even calls out bm and red, etc)

I go 35mm because I guess that gets me towards 50mm in "real life"

Or I could go with their 25mm version because in theory that would get me towards a 35mm and maybe slightly subtly wider than normal human vision.

Beyond that I just close my eyes and kiss my arse hoping this thing actually works (like the 5D mkiii did) in the desert when needed shooting short films.

Exciting, yet scary stuff.

I started out on a 5dmkiii for the Magic Lantern Raw:


I LOVED the quality but the workflow was terrible.

When I started using BMD cameras I was already familiar with CNDG files and working with Davinci, so it was an easy transition.

Funny to look back on my first days with a Blackmagic camera:

Sweet, Adam.

I started out on a 5dmkiii for the Magic Lantern Raw:

Ah yes, the fear of ending up with a brick, pushing petabytes around, and resale value kept me amply away from this valley of death... but our call to the bmp comes from the same place, breaking out of the h264 prison.

Any insight on PRIME lenses?

Any insight on walking into an outdoor sandy shoot with this thing vs the canon that never failed me once?

Still wondering if a 25mm that covers a super35 (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/ ... inema.html) gets me close to the 35mm nirvana I was used to on the full frame 5D like so: https://www.amazon.com/Shoot-Any-Direct ... B07Z42ZSWB

I hope this easy equation helps:

If you divide focal length and aperture by 1.5 you'll get the equivalent lens that gives you the visually same image on the 6k Pro vs your Canon 5D.

For example, to get the same image that you get on your 5D with a 50mm lens @ f2.8, you'll need a 33mm lens @ f1.8 on the 6K Pro. Comparing these two images, you'd have a hard time telling which is full frame and which is S35.

Considering "cinematic". The shallow depth of field of the full frame Canon 5D contributes less to the "cinematic" feeling than the colors and dynamic range of the 6K Pro (in my opinion).

Also, BRAW is a dream to work with in post, it's extremely light on the system (and storage). I can easily edit 6K Pro footage on a Macbook Air M1.
You may download some footage and test yourself:
https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/de/pro ... ra/gallery

Lastly, the L-lenses brand in my opinion has a better reputation than it should have. That reputation seems hard to kill even though by now there are many less expensive lenses that offer equal or better image quality. Wheather sealing is still a thing though.

I could film an emotive project on just a 25mm on the Pocket 6k Pro.
You can find a used SLR Magic APO 25mm Microprime for cheap ($400-$800).

I have done tests between the Meike, Vespid, and APO 25mm lenses and the SLR Magic outperformed both.

I’ve been on the hunt for a great 28mm, as that is my ideal focal length for s35, but still searching for one.

I’ve been on the hunt for a great 28mm, as that is my ideal focal length for s35, but still searching for one.

28mm is my favorite focal length on s35 too. I still have a Sigma 28mm 1.8 EX DG Macro, not a Cine lens and maybe not the "best" 28mm but I somehow always absolutely loved the images it produced on s35 sensors. And being able to casually throw in a macro shot is awesome and very handy. I could shoot whole pieces just with this lens. Cheap but need a bit of luck to get a good copy.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreview ... macro.html

You may want to consider the 4k?

If you want native weatherproof lenses the Olympus Pro Primes are outstanding optically, weatherproof and more optimised for video work compared to L series canon (focus hard stops)

It would be easy to adapt almost any lens too, along with existing EF lenses to the MFT mount.

They make a 17mm, 25mm and 45mm F1.2.

I think you’re worrying about crop factors too much.

JB

I hope this easy equation helps:
If you divide focal length and aperture by 1.5 you'll get the equivalent lens that gives you the visually same image on the 6k Pro vs your Canon 5D.

Nice. So if I (you?) were to do the math to get a canon 5D visually 35mm equivelant, I would need a what now on the BM? And does this equation fall apart if the lens listing specifcally calls out "35mm covers a super 35mm"?

Considering "cinematic". The shallow depth of field of the full frame Canon 5D contributes less to the "cinematic" feeling than the colors and dynamic range of the 6K Pro (in my opinion).

Completely disagree through my own experience/results, but obviously I'm here for the dynamic range despite this, but still hopeful I can pull some shallow DoF with the BM. (Wait, can I?)

Also, BRAW is a dream to work with in post,

Inspiring, thanks. BRAW what ratio?

Lastly, the L-lenses brand in my opinion has a better reputation than it should have.

Yeah disagree again but you more or less called out why. Also, the quality still blew me away on the "L" when I sat in the projection room at Brenden Theaters and saw the damn thing hold together far better than it should have. I truly think the rep is hard to kill because it's legit. But we can both agree about the price, ridiculous, and I am obviously ready to cheat on my lover.

I have done tests between the Meike, Vespid, and APO 25mm lenses and the SLR Magic outperformed both.

Wait, real confident direct recommendation vs. "Hey man it's like whatever looks good through the glass, dig?" -- I'm in!
But of course after researching these lenses (that I have never heard of prior, but I like their story!) when I simply looked at all of them that call out "Covers Super 35 Sensors" the only thing that came up was "Fuji X Mount" and I have no idea what that is unless it's a volcano in Japan? Nothing's easy, ugh.

I’ve been on the hunt for a great 28mm, as that is my ideal focal length for s35, but still searching for one.

Same, but I can't decide if it's because it really is or because of the same article we all read. 35mm on the FF seems pretty hard to touch imho as far as that just bleeding into surreal territory for retro narrative fictional.

You may want to consider the 4k?

Built in ND filters. 'Nuff said. But if I'm being more honest I'm already having heart palpatations going from FF to super 35, couldn't imagine going even smaller.

If you want native weatherproof lenses the Olympus Pro Primes are outstanding optically, weatherproof and more optimised for video work compared to L series canon (focus hard stops)

Solid. What are the chances I'm going to find one made specially for the super 35 sensors?

I think you’re worrying about crop factors too much.

Literally keeps me up at night. On the same token there seems to be no shortage of articles/videos to fuel my restlessness.

Sounds to me like you're very invested mentally to the shallow depth of field of FF. You should rent/lend the 6K (or any APS-C camera), try it instead of wallowing over it too much.

If you want to replicate the FF look of a 35mm f1.4 you'd need a 23mm f0.9 lens and that's not going to happen.

I vehemently disagree that shallow DoF is what makes stuff "cinematic". You keep referencing a western piece in the style of Sergio Leone. Leone shot on Techniscope 2 perf, that's 35mm (even less wide than s35mm). He liked to use zoom lenses like the Angenieux 25-250mm that starts @ f3.8. That all makes for much deeper depth of field than FF. He actually often uses deep DoF:

If this ain't "cinematic" then I don't know what we're talking about here. Your personal preference is another thing though and if you really just love the look of FF with fast lenses, the 6K might not be the camera for you.

If you want native weatherproof lenses the Olympus Pro Primes are outstanding optically, weatherproof and more optimised for video work compared to L series canon (focus hard stops)

Solid. What are the chances I'm going to find one made specially for the super 35 sensors?

Olympus are MFT only. Sony like to say they're weather proof, but nowhere near to the same degree.

Olympus (and their pro lenses) have no problem with this

I think you’re worrying about crop factors too much.

Literally keeps me up at night. On the same token there seems to be no shortage of articles/videos to fuel my restlessness.

Maybe consider that no Cinematogrpaher in the 100+ year history of filmmaking had heard of using a crop factor until Canon made the 5D mk2.

I can tell a DP that has come up using DSLR's because that's always listed as a concern when considering equipment.

There have always been differences in format sizes (16mm, 35mm, 70mm) It's just a difference in mindset. I have honestly never thought to do crop factor maths and I use different sizes sensors on the same set all the time.

JB

I mean there's a use for crop factors, especially with so many mixed formats, because it's very simple math. At least for me it's much more intuitive to just convert back to one well know FOV equivalent (in my case super 35) instead of constantly doing AOV calculations. But maybe that's just because I did come up with DSLRs, John!

I mean there's a use for crop factors, especially with so many mixed formats, because it's very simple math. At least for me it's much more intuitive to just convert back to one well know FOV equivalent (in my case super 35) instead of constantly doing AOV calculations. But maybe that's just because I did come up with DSLRs, John!

Ha well I find it's mostly true. That's not a slight, that's just how you've come to understand how to use focal lengths.

I think that's the problem for a lot of traditionally trained DPs.

It takes everything back to a sensor size that no one actually really uses much. The compared-to format has no extensive history in cinematography, and even in the current last decade iterations, once you take an aspect ratio into account it still doesn't REALLY give you a clear picture.

So why are we comparing it to a sensor size we're not using so much in cinema? Yes it's a popular size in STILLS photography, but not in cinema and narrative drama. I say that because MOST of the time, when shooting 135 it is cropped by an aspect ratio. Very few actually shoot FULL FRAME. It's even called "full" frame. What does that even mean? I shoot Alexa 65, Is that "overflowing frame"?

When I think of shot sizes I tend to rely on my own experience to know what I can see with a given focal length at a given distance. And I think in shot sizes.

I'm doing a close up. On Alexa 65 at 3' a 65 mm is a closeup, but on Super 35 a 50mm at 2' will be a screamer and for a super 35 I know that 65mm at 6' is going to get me just inside two T's one someone or that 35mm at 3' will be about the same.

I have apps that can do the exact calculations account for aspect ratio but I never use it. I've never once heard on set a discussion of crop factor. Matching AOV? Sure.

Crop factors are useful to those that own full frame, or rather 135 format cameras. Because that's what those DP's take everything back to. Everyone else? Not so much.

JB

Nice. So if I (you?) were to do the math to get a canon 5D visually 35mm equivelant, I would need a what now on the BM? And does this equation fall apart if the lens listing specifcally calls out "35mm covers a super 35mm"?

If you want to replicate the FF look of a 35mm f1.4 you'd need a 23mm f0.9 lens and that's not going to happen.

Not in EF mount

Meike 25mm .95 https://meikeglobal.com/collections/mei ... m-rf-mount


Brahm, I watched your short film you linked to above, which character did you play?

I would look at experimenting with the 70mm - 200mm range on the Pocket 6K if you want to try and recreate some of the same close-up shots you used (real shallow on the face) but now move the camera farther back from the subject.

If you are sticking to Canon L lenses, Canon makes the 70-200mm 2.8 zoom that is weather sealed against dust.

For the wide shots, I don't see any issue using a Canon 50mm f1.2 L and getting the head down to the belt buckle. Try a 35mm F1.4 L for full body, head to toe shots. Just some rough suggestions to get started.

As John is mentioning above you are going to have to re-calibrate your intuition to the format you choose. The best way is to practice with the new camera to build up your mental archive of possible shots you can make. Using a crop factor calculator will just slow you down when you are out shooting.

Not in EF mount

Meike 25mm .95 https://meikeglobal.com/collections/mei ... -95-aps-c-

Well you can't use it on the 6K.

The difference between the DOF of FF vs. S35 is largely negligible, it's one stop.

However using a full frame lens on an S35/APSC sensor will yield much different results, especially WFO. Consider this image from a 35mm f1.4 Canon L series lens. On a FF sensor the falloff at the edges can be as high as 3 stops, whereas on a 1.6x crop it's ~1. This will have a much more noticeable impact than a 1 stop change in DOF.

If you're used to shooting WFO then consider APSC/S35 glass as the lens' natural vignetting will fall more in line to what one is used to seeing from FF glass.

Good Luck

35mmL.png (698.72 KiB) Viewed 2612 times

Just get a Canon 35mm lens. You can still use your 50mm.

I think at this point, the OP's head might have already imploded.

The best action would be just to get something and start experimenting.

I think at this point, the OP's head might have already imploded.

I too came from still photography to motion, though it was long enough ago now it seems a distant memory. The first thing I did was shoot with my "L"'s with a Canon 5D Mll. Then the BMCC came out so it was on to that.

I had to relearn what I found desirable in how my imagery looked. Most of my photography favored sharpness and a smoothness in the way focus went from soft to sharp. The still lenses I was using for motion often seemed too sharp for cinema. It took me a while to recon with that. But I started experimenting with cinema glass and found results that were appealing to me.

It's taken me a long time understanding what character means as a way of describing a lens. It's so subjective. But after many years of experimenting I'm finding some glass that I like the images from. Partly relearning what I like as well.

Though I cannot afford sets of Leitz or Zeiss lenses, there are many alternatives. It is truly a GOLDEN AGE for cinema lens production. At Cinegear this weekend, were many manufacturers showcasing both primes and zooms for what 10 years ago would have been breakthrough products for very reasonable prices.

One of the things that's helped me the most comes from the steady stream of knowledge that comes from the regular contributors on this site. The collective talent and knowledge here provides an incredible sounding board for all sorts of questions and favors the curious.

I think at this point, the OP's head might have already imploded.

Ha, to the contrary, I just kept pushing here until this post hit critical mass and went viral, finally opened up to a larger group of contributors. Mission accomplished. But yes, much to unpack!

I vehemently disagree that shallow DoF is what makes stuff "cinematic". You keep referencing a western piece in the style of Sergio Leone.

I know it's like discussing politics, so I'll just add that knowing a thing or two about Mr. Leone may or may not be something I've lost money, relationships and health to. Most ironically if you look at the youtube thumbnail/still of the 2nd video you provided it is crystal clear face with orgasmically blurred background. Yep, that is indeed cinematic. Sure the use of zooms for actual zooming, snap or otherwise, and of course deep DoF shots when called for (crystal clear hand over holster in foreground, crystal clear cracks in the dry lake bed background) all make up the vary large bowl of spaghetti (westerns) I engorge. But just as many shots are razor sharp sunbeaten face with a messy smudgy oil painted desert behind, pure gold (or is that ecstasy?).

Shallow DoF is so synonymous with "film" there's been a trend in several of the more cinematic of TV series to actually blur the backgrounds in post, and it's evident, and gross. But it is obvious what they are going for, and why they even dare to bother.

Anyway, I know exactly the vision I am emulating, exactly what I want/need to create. Proof of concept done and done a dozen times over. What I am here for is to purge myself of the h.264 codec and drink of the RAW dynamic range, and I needed a bit of help navigating unfamiliar waters on how to best achieve what I have already done yesterday, with a sensor (let alone camera) I have never used in a future tomorrow.

Now, lets talk Anamorphic (KIDDING!!!!)

I've never once heard on set a discussion of crop factor.

I'm hoping this is because this is all sorted out long before anyone walks on set. That's all I'm trying to do here FWIW. I have no issue embracing the super35, I am just looking for guidance on what lens to slap on the thing to get the majority of shots I want while taking full advantage of the sensor. Which brings us to:

If you're used to shooting WFO then consider APSC/S35 glass as the lens' natural vignetting will fall more in line to what one is used to seeing from FF glass.

This. Man I don't want to mess this up. I don't want to think things are technically right, even visually fine, and then realize I was subtly handicapped.

Also, can you provide more details on "consider APSC/S35 glass as the lens"?. Highly intrigued.

:D The best action would be just to get something and start experimenting.

I'm in a place where my experimenting is well out of the way. Was just wondering how to achieve those results I've dialed in over the years on foreign equipment. If there's nobody that's ever been in this boat, or no clear answer, then sure we'll fire up the lab again, no worries.

I too came from still photography to motion, though it was long enough ago now it seems a distant memory. The first thing I did was shoot with my "L"'s with a Canon 5D Mll. Then the BMCC came out so it was on to that.

Perfect, thanks for chiming in.

It took me a while to recon with that. But I started experimenting with cinema glass and found results that were appealing to me.

So believe it or not, that is not my issue here. I know the look and feel I want to achieve, I have just never achieved it with a Super 35. I was trying to get apples to apples going, as far as the proper lens to "cover" the BM sensor to (A) get the technically correct FF FoV on a 50mm and 35mm prime lens and (b) avoid other issues (see Howard's post) associated with a "non-optimal" lens/camera pairing.

So a direct question, what would you consider decent "cinema glass" for the bmc/Super35 that felt most close to the technical/visual results you were used to when using your "L" series on the 5D as far as DoF, FoV, what fits in the frame, etc?

One of the things that's helped me the most comes from the steady stream of knowledge that comes from the regular contributors on this site. The collective talent and knowledge here provides an incredible sounding board for all sorts of questions and favors the curious.

I think I have this part down pat

Just get a Canon 35mm lens. You can still use your 50mm.

Sometimes I think it's that simple. And then I do stupid stuff... like digging deeper:(

Brahm, I watched your short film you linked to above, which character did you play?

All of them. It was my attempt at a Peter Sellers thing.

I would look at experimenting with the 70mm - 200mm range on the Pocket 6K if you want to try and recreate some of the same close-up shots you used (real shallow on the face) but now move the camera farther back from the subject.

In my experience/experiments I have gained an aversion to zoom lenses. I reserve them for "special effects" really (AKA the need to zoom). But for me, having less amounts and higher quality of physical glass between me and my subject has yielded the best results I am after.

And even beyond that, I saw things, and felt things, and was able to get others to emote things through the Prime that were powerful enough to start a torrid "lens type" love affair with minimal infidelity. And now I've said too much.

For the wide shots, I don't see any issue using a Canon 50mm f1.2 L and getting the head down to the belt buckle. Try a 35mm F1.4 L for full body, head to toe shots. Just some rough suggestions to get started.

I'm well versed in this, but I had no idea that if I tried to do this (using lenses above to get the expected compositions) on the BMC, it would potentially yield noticeably different results, so was trying to learn how to compensate for that.

Using a crop factor calculator will just slow you down when you are out shooting.

Right. I want to have this over and done with before I even start writing TBH.

I am curious about lens listings that say "covers FF" and ones that say "covers Super 35" - Even the Zeiss Supreme Primes are touting this language. Are they implying a 35mm lens built specifically to cover a Super 35 sensor is different than say the Canon L 35mm built to cover a FF? Or is a 35mm a 35mm a 35mm and that's just marketing? Or is it really being customized to get the most out of a Super 35? Again hoping Howard can shed some light since I think he specifically mentioned going this route (that I didn't know was a route but was solely here to see if it was).

Thanks all.

Most ironically if you look at the youtube thumbnail/still of the 2nd video you provided it is crystal clear face with orgasmically blurred background. Yep, that is indeed cinematic.

You picked out a close up, shot with the longest focal length :=)
Well that you can certainly achieve with a s35mm sensor and long lenses.

I'm well versed in this, but I had no idea that if I tried to do this (using lenses above to get the expected compositions) on the BMC, it would potentially yield noticeably different results, so was trying to learn how to compensate for that.

Like I said, divide the focal length from your Canon through 1.5. That will give you the focal length you need on the BMPCC6K to get the same framing.
Then you need to open the aperture about 1 stop compared to what you used on the Canon 5D. Do those two things and you'll end up with the same image on both systems.

Canon 5D + 50mm f2.0 = BMPCC6K + 33mm f1.4

Do the math for any lens you want.

I am curious about lens listings that say "covers FF" and ones that say "covers Super 35"

Generally speaking, FF lenses are bigger and heavier, APS-C/s35mm lenses can be built smaller, lighter and often faster (wider aperture).

Most ironically if you look at the youtube thumbnail/still of the 2nd video you provided it is crystal clear face with orgasmically blurred background. Yep, that is indeed cinematic.

You picked out a close up, shot with the longest focal length :=)

Heh heh. Well truth be told I didn't "pick" anything, the videos iconic title page thumbnail was just sitting there all gigantical-like on your post, staring me down in full shallow Sergio glory. Had to point it out. But as I went on to say, that video (and his entire body of work) is riddled with shallow DoF shots. Undeniably every bit as much a part of the masters cinematic signature.

Refocusing (see what I did there?):

Do those two things and you'll end up with the same image on both systems.

I'm starting to glean that even if you do the math, other things may be going sideways under the hood when a FF lens is on a Super35 sensor. Also I was getting a sense there may be lenses specifically built for Super35's that would eliminate the math, and maybe the other dangers. BUT, if my understanding doesn't pan (yep, I did it again) out here or abroad, your equation is where I'll be starting.

Generally speaking, FF lenses are bigger and heavier, APS-C/s35mm lenses can be built smaller, lighter and often faster (wider aperture).

OK if that is "generally" what is meant, physical specs, that won't affect me. But if there is something more to say a Meike or a Zeiss specifically, loudly, calling out "This lens if for a Super 35 sensor" - I've got to explore that further.

----------

I got a 25mm Distagon lens here that has an image circle for photographic FF by Zeiss. And then a Switar 25mm for S-16 by Kern Paillard, also a very well-reputed manufacturer (from Switzerland). The Zeiss is large and heavy and opens to f2.8. The Kern Switar is tiny and reaches f1.4. I would consider the images from either one 'cinematic' under the right conditions and in the right hands. But the Switar would project a keyhole circle on photo FF. Still, these are both 25mm lenses, that doesn't change, never.

And then, while Leone might be the master of small DoF, what about Orson Welles? Not cinematic?

Covers full-frame, covers VistaVision, covers Super35, suitable for mirrorless cameras, covers Super16… these are imprecise guidelines. The important criteria are things like the image circle, the falloff of illumination from the normally bright centre area, the Colour and contrast, the look or the idiosyncrasies of a lens, the angle of view on a given sensor, and so on. A 35mm lens is always 35mm regardless of the sensor is not the whole story when one 35mm lens has an image circle of 46mm and another covers 30mm or 14mm. Forgetting the role of SpeedBoosters, smaller image circles tend to be brighter and that is reflected in the rated aperture as has been pointed out.

Just saying it’s important to know the behaviour of a lens, and the focal length is only one part of it.

Correct. But then you'd have to check lenses individually.

One important difference, on wides in particular, is the sharpness over all areas. Some photographic FF lenses compromise in this respect and are sharp in the corners and the center and a bit less so between those. My Zeiss 25mm is one of these.

If that’s really bad or even an advantage is up to your taste. The softer region will be the corners on S-35 and that can steer attention to the center. Some Cooke lenses are like that. Deliberately! And they are made for cine 35.

But if you want something biting sharp edge to edge, rather go for lenses made for that image circle.

OK if that is "generally" what is meant, physical specs, that won't affect me. But if there is something more to say a Meike or a Zeiss specifically, loudly, calling out "This lens if for a Super 35 sensor" - I've got to explore that further.

https://vmi.tv/blog/learn-help/guide-to-sensor-sizes-and-lens-formats/
This link might answer all your questions.

But just as many shots are razor sharp sunbeaten face with a messy smudgy oil painted desert behind, pure gold (or is that ecstasy?).

Yes but that's Leone using long lenses and smaller distance to isolate the subject (from an endless landscape), not a large format and super fast apertures.

If you are fine with Leone's shots, who used a much smaller "sensor" and slower lenses than your 5D + primes setup, you should be good with the 6K.

I'm in a place where my experimenting is well out of the way. Was just wondering how to achieve those results I've dialed in over the years on foreign equipment.

You seem to have a very specific look in mind and imo there's no way around testing different lenses (that also fit your weather requirements) to stop you from wallowing over things that may or may not bug you in the end.

Over at the Red user forum is a long thread for Zeiss C/Y and a shorter one for Minolta SR lenses (which don’t adapt to EF with one exception). Might be helpful, there are not only fanboys, but some seasoned DoPs commenting.
But then, vintage lenses are normally not waterproof.

I spent quite a bit of time talking with Dan Kanes at the Atlas booth last weekend. He gave me a beginners look at the history of anamorphic glass, thanks Dan. He then passed me on to an experienced DP who spent 20-30 minutes going into detail about the characteristics of anamorphic's. I've got to admit how much I like the imagery made with this gear. But it puts me in a paradoxical place where all the traits I've grown to believe make a good images are in question. And that's OK with me. I'm still learning.

I'm not sure that there's one solution that answers every question. While I really liked the anamorphic images, spherical will remain my mainstay.

Like you it's been hard for me to decide between FF and S35. I asked a lot of questions especially around here. I was thinking that cameras will all move to FF. But that's not been the case. S35 is showing strong across the board. I've made the decision to embrace S35. I've been shooting M43 for many years now adding S35 several years back. Got to say the format never made a difference in whether I liked the images or not. On the other hand I do prefer the larger resolution from the S35.

For me at least, built-in ND's has been a game-changer. I work with small teams and often alone. Having built-in ND's lets me move at the speed I think at. If I was on a big shoot I'd likely reconsider but that's generally not the kind of work I do.

We all know that glass stays around longer then cameras do. It's a much longer term buy. And it takes a long time to really get to know what a certain lens will do much less a system.

Also from a practical point of view carrying two systems (M43 & S35) is more work then one. At some point reducing the amount of gear helps me make better work. As long as I have what I need. LOL!!! Do you ever have what you need.

Which leaves me spending more time shooting with what I do have.

Sorry for the ramble, hope this helps.

I'd go for built-in ND and maybe internal cut-offs and not worry about "FF". As a long-time stills shooter, that is a stills thing, not a moving image capture thing.

I spent many years professional in stills, primarily shooting an RB67-Pro S body, with all primes as I couldn't afford the zooms. For some work I used a 4x5 "on a post". Meaning there was a 2' long steel bar with a movable tripod base, and two "uprights", the front and back plates of the camera, with a folding cloth sort of thing between. Sheet film holders, focusing cloth over your head, et al.

Both the front and rear of the camera could go up or down from center, plus pivot top to bottom or sideways ... or all three. You had to get pretty experienced to know how to use that rig with which lens for the needed results.

So I had to deal with two lens systems with different focal lengths for similar FOV/DOF. And of course, lens circles and vignetting, which ain't the same. A bit of fall-off being very different from a black line at edge of the image falling across the negative. Some lenses had a big circle, but typically some vignetting and some softness moving out towards the edge. One was very sharp edge to edge, but barely covered the 4x5 before even thinking of movements.

And we did very few things with 35mm. Which, compared to 120 roll and 4x5 sheet, was *incredibly* limited in capabilities.

Then came The Digital Age, and software based image manipulation, and well ... using a digital SLR for near everything. Lighter and easier... yea. Can't justify using the old tools.

And some results are truly amazing.

But I do not have any clue why anyone would worship the 35mm "full frame" as if it's some kind of Ideal. It's just another engineer designed tool. That's all.

As noted in several posts, movies were far more likely to be on 35mm perfed ... but with the image long axis ACROSS the film stock, not parallel to it. Not hardly "full frame", much closer to the various APS-C variants.

And depth of field is most certainly not tied to any image size of the camera, but to lens angle of view and aperture used, against distance "film" plane to subject versus distance to other items. And that has always, with any gear, required a calculation taken at time of shooting to get what depth of field was needed.

In my professional work, it has been far wiser to choose a DOF with a little extra depth. Because subjects *move*, even talking heads. I don't know how many horror stories I've heard of shots accepted while shooting, only to show up sadly as unusable in editing. Because of too shallow shooting depth.

Never heard a horror story of too much DOF.

In moving images, IMHO, as opposed to stills, if you want tight and shallow DOF, with live subjects or camera not on sticks, you need an experienced hand pulling focus.

Learned that the traditional way myself: I've quite a number of shots that I've dumped in post, of my own shooting, due to inadequate DOF to keep the subject properly focused. The good old School of Hard Knocks.

And just a personal lens comment ...I've worked some projects and sequences, with Canon media on "beloved" Canon lenses (by their owner). That I used mixed with Red raw and BMPCC4K BRAW, (Micro and Hyperprimes), and an old Panny GH3 with the Oly 17mm "pancake" shooting all-i mov.

The Canon stuff was my least favorite to work with, hardest to blend with the Red and BM raw footage. The Red and BMPCC4K were an easy match. The Panny some extra work but the end feel was pretty close. The Canon just felt kinda different. Visually.

But of course there are many who love that ... intriguing ... "Canon" image.

Isn't it wonderful how naturally diverse our tastes are?

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

I kinda regret getting into this thread. I only replied at first because I had recently bought a BMPCC6kG2 to use alongside my Canon 5DmkII (sharing my Canon EF lenses). The subsequent discussion has almost taken me back to my university days in the 1970's, when I did the photography for the university's student newspaper. I used a range of camera bodies (a Pen-F half frame, a SEM 120, a Zorki4 and a Minolta SR-1S) - all in B&W (the 35mm, full or half frame, usually FP4, loaded from bulk into recycled cassettes) and processed in the evenings in university darkrooms. I rarely gave a second thought to the format - it was whatever I had at the time and it was up to me to get the shots needed by the editors. I also gave tutorials to various groups on topics ranging from film structure, through the developing chemistry, to lens design. I still remember the topic of circles of confusion leading to a lot of questions, especially the point where there is no such thing as a definitive DoF: there is only one plane that is actually in focus (i.e. as sharp as the lens is capable) but there is an area in front and behind that may be sharp enough - depending on the final degree of enlargement, the viewing distance, the resolution of the film (after developing), even the paper type used for printing...

There were times when the camera, lens and film I had with me were going to yield the shot envisaged by the editor - so it was up to me to reinterpret the need, reframe, even change the subject, to get prints on his/her desk that would fit the story.

I'm still exploring video. It's nothing like stills, and I have to think through each sequence to get something useable with the kit I have to hand. Luckily for me, it's a hobby and, if the shots don't work, I can usually rethink and try again. I chose the BMPCC6kG2 because I already have a selection of Canon EF lenses - also, because it will make me think about what I'm doing. Taking video is a lot easier on my iPhone 13Pro, but it's no challenge...