>>4109967>you have bigger dofIf you have a half size sensor, then you get the same dof from stopping down once
>diffractionKicks in one stop wider on a half size sensor, you thick cunt
>It wasn't f0.7, but it had an optical formula that worked out at f0.7is your brain even above room temp? And you're wrong, the lenses were/are f0.7
>bigger dof is preferredUnless it's not, ff gives you that option (and higher res, less aberrations, better colour depth)
>They had to ensure that the shot stayed in focusno shit, retard
>AnAmOrPhIcThat makes zero difference, and anamorphics are used on all sensor sizes, do you even own an anamorphic, I do
>Completely ignores some of the most important and influential movies being shot on larger formatsCrazy coincidence they all were though eh champ ;)
>There is nothing to discuss any moreYou've not discussed anything, you've had an emotional breakdown again colin
>Cinema needs deep dofNot according to Zack Snyder, the reality is that shallow dof was rarely used before because autofocus wasn't good enough, throwing away 99% of your shots because your focus puller can't keep a moving object in focus is a thing of the past
>I will now admit ff has advantages, except dofexcept there's no dof disadvantage either, you just stop down more, understand the basics of diffraction before crying again.
>I want deep dof at 135mm on closeupsIf you had a cursory understanding of diffraction, you would have worked out this was impossible a long time ago
Just go to bed colin, it's been another rough day on the board for you because you've got severe dunning kruger syndrome.
