Misguided Netflix CEO Reed Hastings

The problem is that my Netflix experience (and, from what I've gathered from other reactions, that of many Netflix customers) is highly dependent on access to BOTH streaming and DVD content. Of course my preference is to stream content -- who wouldn't prefer to watch high quality streaming video instantly, without worrying about DVDs that might arrive scratched and unplayable or get lost in the mail? But the vast majority of movies that I am actually interested in watching are not available for streaming, only on DVD. This will likely change in the future -- as studios realize that more and more people prefer the convenience of streaming and no longer rent or buy DVDs, they will have to start licensing their premium content to streaming services like Netflix -- but it's very much the case NOW. And the recent announcement that Starz will no longer license its streaming content to Netflix makes the short-term situation worse, not better.

With Netflix's current service, this is not such a big deal. I don't mind waiting a day or two for a movie I really want to see to arrive in the mail, and the streaming selection is varied enough that I can usually find something entertaining to watch instantly in the meantime. My current Netflix queue contains 102 titles, 16 of which are available for streaming. So I can certainly find something I want to watch instantly, but the streaming is obviously no substitute for the DVD selection. Basically, the whole process is like going to a video store and being told, "I'm sorry, we don't have that title in stock at the moment, but we can order it for you. In the meantime, would you like to entertain yourself with one of the selections we have on our shelf?" The new Netflix will be more like going to a video store where you are constantly told, "I'm sorry, we don't have that." Which is a better experience for the customer?

Clearly Netflix is working toward licensing more and more streaming content, as its recent deal to stream programs from the Discovery Channel and Animal Planet shows, but it's not necessarily the content that subscribers signed up to watch in the first place. After all, it's called Netflix, not NetbasiccablerealityTV. Besides, for anyone who really cares that much about watching Animal Planet, there's already a way to stream it instantly to their TV. It's called Animal Planet.

The streaming service by itself hardly seems worth it, since most of the content you probably want to watch is not available. The DVD service by itself is of questionable value as well, since it is not convenient. Subscribing to both services, while it will cost the same as the current Netflix (increased) price, will not be convenient because the two queues will not be compatible. You will no longer be able to look up a title, stream it if it is available and order the DVD if it is not.

My fear is that many people who are put off by the inconvenience and cost of subscribing to a separate DVD by mail service, will just drop it entirely, and choose to only watch whatever content is available to them instantly via streaming services like Netflix and Hulu. Unfortunately, many films, especially small indie films, are currently available only on DVD. Without a service like Netflix, with a large DVD selection, audiences will have no access to these movies at all. Due in large part to Netflix's success over the years, many video rental stores and chains have gone out of business, and most of those that remain carry a very limited selection consisting entirely of new releases and Hollywood blockbusters.

In the past, when people have asked me if they could see any of the films I've shot, I could say, "Do you have Netflix?" The majority of the time, the answer was yes. A few months from now, if I respond to that question with "Do you have Qwikster?" I have a hard time imagining the answer will be the same.

As an indie filmmaker, I often find myself wanting to watch other indie films, either because I've heard good things when they were on the festival circuit, out of professional curiosity, or sometimes because I might have a potential job with one of the filmmakers. Invariably, the only way I can find to watch these movies is by adding them to my DVD queue on Netflix.

As someone who works in the business, such a service is valuable enough to me that I will most likely continue to pay for it, either through "Qwikster" or one of its competitors, until the streaming selection can compete. But I shudder to think what this will mean for the larger audience that is not as committed to indie film as I am. By taking away the option to order the DVD of a film that is not available instantly, Netflix is potentially making an indie film's small audience significantly smaller still. It is potentially making one of the few major distribution options for these films even less viable, and without that DVD audience they will become even harder to see, and therefore, if that continues to be the case, less likely to get made.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe current Netflix subscribers will flock to Qwikster or a competitor like Blockbuster. Maybe there is even a silver lining here. Amid all the recent uproar about Netflix's price hike, I'm surprised I haven't heard more about this, but in recent years I've noticed that Netflix's DVD service itself has gone way downhill. There was a time when any movie I wanted to see was available on Netflix. And if it wasn't, there was an option to recommend the that Netflix add the title to its library. This is no longer the case. Not only is that option gone, but the DVD selection has diminished as well.

Several titles that were once in my DVD queue, are now listed as "Saved DVD" with "availability unknown". I was listening to a DVD commentary recently that referenced the film "Ordinary People." I realized that I had never seen it, so I logged on to Netflix to add it to my queue. Much to my surprise, the DVD was listed as "availability unknown". This is a movie that won four Oscars, including Best Picture, in 1980 -- not some obscure indie film. There is no reason that the DVD should not be available. So far, two of the features I've shot have been released on DVD, "The Big Bad Swim," and "Goodbye Baby." However, Netflix carries only one of them, "The Big Bad Swim" (and only on DVD, so soon it won't carry that one either). But I happened to notice that Blockbuster carries both "The Big Bad Swim" and "Goodbye Baby" on DVD and they can both be rented through their DVD by mail service. After a few more minutes of searching, I realized that many of the titles in my Netflix "Saved DVD" queue were available from Blockbuster as well. They even carry "Ordinary People."

So maybe, just maybe, by being forced to take another look at their DVD watching habits, Netflix subscribers will realize that there are actually other games in town and sign up for the DVD by mail service with the best selection, rather than the one that was convenient because they were already subscribed for the streaming content. Or, even better, maybe the streaming services like Netflix, and content providers and studios will now start reaching licensing deals much more quickly and before we even start missing the DVD, we will have instant access to "every movie ever made in every language, any time," just like we were promised by that old Qwest commercial. I don't think it's likely, but who knows?

[Update: Netflix has announced that they are scrapping the plan to spin off their DVD business into a separate company, so please disregard this post.]

You can shoot on 35mm, and have all the crew and gear in the world, but the fact is, a room with four white walls is just never going to look that interesting. On the other hand, if you're shooting someplace that's already beautiful, you could shoot it on a cell phone and it will still look beautiful. Take this iconic image from Lawrence of Arabia, a film that is probably as known for its outstanding cinematography as any film in history:

Breathtaking. Now let's look at what this same scene would look like, had it been shot not in a vast desert, but in a more typical indie film location -- a filmmaker's apartment:

Somehow it just doesn't quite have the same impact. I don't mean to belittle the excellent work of the legendary cinematographer Freddie Young, but I definitely think having some nice scenery to work with probably made his job a little easier.

I understand that there are other practical considerations in play, and the uncle's house that you can get for free may be the only location you can realistically shoot in, but sometimes it may actually be worth it to pay for a location or two. After all, you're paying a DP and a film crew, renting equipment and paying for all kinds of expensive stuff to make your film look good. Don't skimp where it's really going to count and try to make your basement look like a working operating room. It can be hard to find great locations for free or cheap in New York or LA, but you might be surprised at what you could find for little to nothing if you're a couple hours out of town.

Hopefully, you will be able to see "Silver Tongues" soon, but in the meantime, check out this trailer for a glimpse of what you have to look forward to.

The purpose of Highlight Tone Priority is to increase the effective dynamic range of the camera, specifically by giving you extra protection in the highlights, while keeping the overall exposure the same. In other words, if two identical pictures are taken at the same exposure, one with HTP on and one with it off, the picture taken with HTP on will have fewer blown out highlights. Below is an example.

Both of the above images were shot at ISO 1600, at f2.8, with a shutter speed of 1/50th, and with the same amount of ND. The top one was shot with HTP off and the bottom one was shot with HTP on. The difference is immediately apparent. While the darker areas of the image remain very similar (the vertical blinds, the house and tree at the bottom right of the frame, etc), the bottom image clearly has much more highlight detail. Whereas in the top image the whole sky and much of the building are clearly blown out, in the bottom image the building and sky both retain significant detail.

Sounds great, right? After all, blown out highlights is one of those ugly qualities that screams out "video", and its far superior dynamic range is one of the last things keeping film alive at all. So, why wouldn't anyone want to use such a feature? Well, to answer that question you need to know how Highlight Tone Priority works, and as you might have guessed, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

HTP does not actually increase the dynamic range of the camera. It would be great if the camera did have more dynamic range, but the dynamic range is native to the sensor. HTP retains extra detail in the highlights essentially by underexposing the image. The image is actually captured at a lower ISO, and then the darker areas of the image are digitally lifted to bring their brightness to the same level they would be at without HTP enabled. That is why, when HTP is enabled, you cannot select an ISO lower than 200. When you are shooting at ISO 200 with HTP on, the camera is really recording the image at ISO 100. If you shoot at ISO 100, there is no lower ISO for the camera to use for that underexposure, so HTP mode is not possible.

Knowing this, I generally do not use Highlight Tone Priority. There is nothing wrong with the method it employs to "increase" the dynamic range of the camera, but what you are doing is essentially performing color correction in-camera, rather than in post, where you have more control. Take a look at the images below.

The top image was shot at ISO 1600, with HTP on (so actually ISO 800 with the shadows lifted in-camera). The middle image was shot at ISO 800, with HTP off, and the bottom one is that same ISO 800 image with a quick levels adjustment applied in Photoshop. [note: In fact, all of these frames were shot as 1920 x 1080 video clips, and then exported as stills, to show as closely as possible what HTP is doing in video mode. I used Photoshop for the color correction because it is quick and easy for the purposes of correcting a still, but the same correction could easily be done in any video color correction software.] To my eye, the color corrected image looks very similar to the image taken with HTP on. The major difference is that I did the color correction myself, rather than the camera doing it for me. In this case I was correcting it to look as close to the HTP image as possible rather than to make it look as good as possible to illustrate the point, but I could have gone in any direction I wanted with it. Because I was doing it myself, I had total control over it.

Control of the image is my job as a DP, and it is very important to me to maintain as much of it as possible. I don't use HTP for the same reason I don't shoot in auto-exposure mode. I want to be the one deciding how to expose the image, rather than the camera. ISO 800 may be the right choice for a given shot, but I want to make that choice myself instead of letting the camera make it for me. If I am worried about losing my highlights, I will bring down the exposure to protect them, but by the exact amount I feel is necessary for the shot, not an arbitrary amount chosen by the camera that I have no control of. What HTP does may be fine, but I want to know exactly what is happening inside the camera when I press record.

Then again, what HTP does may not be fine. In my cursory tests, at full resolution, I couldn't see any noticeable difference in noise levels between the footage shot with HTP on, and the footage shot with HTP off at a stop slower ISO and shadows lifted in post. But some people have found noise levels with HTP on to be a problem. There is a discussion about this issue at Cinema 5D in this thread.

Either way, the point is that HTP, unlike choosing to expose for the highlights and color correct for the shadows, is unpredictable. The camera is interpreting the footage and making a judgment call as to how it should look before it gets written to the card. This may yield great results on one shot, but horrible results on another. You may have no noise issues in one case, but terrible noise issues in a different shooting situation.

Because I like the footage I shoot to be as predictable as possible from take to take, shot to shot, and scene to scene, I tend to avoid HTP. However, predictability and repeatability are not necessarily everyone's top priority. When I shoot narrative work, I usually know in advance that some kind of color correction is planned as part of the post-production process, but this is not always the case. There are many types of work where you hand in raw footage and don't see it again until you see the finished project. If color correction in post is not a possibility, letting the camera make some color correction decisions for you may be helpful. If this is the case, I would definitely consider using Highlight Tone Priority in certain lighting conditions.

This music video for the song "Americanarama" by Canadian band Hollerado was something I shot over the summer that was released on YouTube last week:

Within a day of being posted online, it almost instantly became the most-watched (and most talked about) thing I have ever shot. And yet, from a cinematography standpoint, it's also one of the simplest things I've ever shot.

When the director, Greg Jardin, sent me his treatment for this no-budget video, I was immediately excited for the opportunity to work on it. The concept was so cool and so unlike anything I had ever seen before that I just wanted to be a part of it in any way that I could. In reading the treatment and in talking to Greg however, it was also immediately clear that my primary job as the DP would be to make sure that the camera stayed out of the way of what was going on in front of the camera.

Of course it's rare for filmmakers to want camerawork to call attention to itself and become a distraction (less so in the music video world), but this video required a whole other level of staying out of the way. The fact is that the lo-fi, "home-made" nature of the video is what gives it its charm. If I had used any of the DP tricks up my sleeve to try to make it look polished or slick, the concept wouldn't work.

So, one locked off shot, outside in natural daylight, YouTube video aesthetic -- you might ask exactly what it was that I did as the DP on this video. Essentially, I did what is the most basic and most important job of the DP -- to support to the director's vision of how he wanted to tell the story.

I was a second set of informed eyes, making sure sure the concept came across visually in the clearest possible way. I suggested things like adding black material to the sides and roof of the scaffolding structure to make sure all squares were equally lit by the sun, folding the red material used for the airplane's "trail" in a way that read better on camera, adding black tape to the metal cross beams each square of the scaffolding to make them less visible and less distracting. I made sure that the f-stop we were shooting at was deep enough to hold focus on both the scaffolding structure in the background and the band members in the foreground at the same time. During rehearsals and takes, I watched closely and took notes on what cues were coming too early or too late so that the stage hands could adjust their timing as necessary.

I didn't use a lot of my regular tools to shoot this video. I didn't use any fancy camera tricks. I didn't use any lights. But I did do everything I could to maintain the aesthetic that the director was going for; to make sure the video looked like it was supposed to look. When it comes down to it, that's what the job of a DP is.

Working with director Greg Jardin on the "Americanarama" video

B&H's store takes up an entire city block on the West Side of Manhattan

Before I moved to New York, and before the age of online shopping, I knew of B&H from the ads I had seen in the back of photo magazines. Based on their ads, I knew the place must be huge, but I imagined it as some kind of faceless warehouse in an industrial office park somewhere. The first time I went there in person, I was blown away. It was even bigger than I imagined, and it was like a camera wonderland. They had every piece of photo gear imaginable, right there in the store. The bizarre system of product elevators and conveyor belts that run along the ceiling and transport your purchases from the sales counters to the checkout area made the place seem like the store that Willy Wonka would have run if his passion had been photography instead of candy.

The sales people are knowledgeable and helpful, the customer service is excellent, the selection is unbeatable, and the so are the prices. They carry every piece of consumer and professional photo and video gear you could ever want, both on their website, and usually in stock in the store as well, and they have the best prices around. If I ever see an ad online for a price on camera gear that sounds too good to be true, just to make sure, I check out the B&H website to see how much that item really costs. If the advertised price is notably less than the B&H price, I know it's some kind of scam or bait-and-switch tactic, and a cursory look at some of that advertisers' online reviews confirms that this is the case.

If you are in the market for any kind of camera or electronics gear, consider clicking one of the B&H ads to the side or bottom of this page to find it. You can be confident that you're buying from a trustworthy source, and if you enjoy reading these blog posts, you'll be helping to support this site as well.

Read more >> Options >>

The gear rings are available in six sizes to fit lenses with diameters of 55-65mm, 65-75mm, 75-85mm, 85-95mm, 90-100mm, and 100-110mm

I was just about resigned to the fact that I was going to have to spend several hundred dollars on gear rings for my ten or so lenses, when I came across a post on the Cinema5D forum mentioning cheap lens gears. They turned out to be the lens gears included with the "PROAIM" follow focuses from India that you've no doubt seen for sale on eBay. They are also sold through the website thecinecity.com. I wasn't interested in the follow focus, but it turns out you can order just the gear rings, if you are so inclined, for a mere $12 each. You will probably not see just a set of the gear rings for sale on eBay, nor on The CineCity website, but if you contact the seller of the follow focus on eBay, or email The CineCity at sales@thecinecity.com, they will sell them to you.

The rings are available in six different sizes, meant to fit around lenses with diameters of 55mm to 110mm. I paid $84 for seven gear rings (5 of the 55-65mm size and 2 of the 65-75mm size), plus $14 for shipping. That comes out to just $14 per ring, including shipping. I was able to pay with PayPal, and the rings were shipped promptly and arrived quickly.

A thumbscrew at the top tightens the ring onto the lens barrel

The gear rings are very similar in appearance to the Redrock microLensGears, the design of which I'm sure they were based on. They are made of plastic, and have plastic feet which grip the barrel of the lens. At the top, the gear is split, which allows you to stretch it out to get it around the lens, and then closed with a thumbscrew to tighten it down. In terms of their functionality, there's really not that much to say about them. They work. What else do you need from a lens gear? They seem pretty sturdy, and I haven't had any problems with them. I've looked closely at the Redrock gears a few times and couldn't tell any discernible difference in quality or function.

One of the PROAIM gears on a lens, connected to the DFocus follow focus

The screw closure at the top is pretty big and can be more obtrusive than the closure systems of some of the other manufacturer's lens gear options, but if you tighten it onto the lens in the right position to work with your follow focus configuration, this shouldn't be an issue. It could become an issue if you have to switch your follow focus from the smart side to the dumb side of the camera or vice versa, but this will be the case with any gear that is not permanently mounted to the lens in a continuous circle. At least loosening the thumbscrew and rotating the gear into whatever position is needed is quick and easy -- more so than with some of the other gears out there that require tools.

The only thing that's really notable about the PROAIM gears is the price.  They do their job, and the next closest competitor I've seen costs more than twice as much. If I only had one lens that I used with my camera, I might consider spending more on one of the name brand gears, since one gear probably isn't going to break the bank, and it might buy me a little more peace of mind. However, considering I had a whole bunch of lenses to outfit with gears, the cost really added up fast, and at $12 each, the PROAIM gears were the only option out there that made sense. I give them five out of five bangs for the buck.

My first review is of my most recent acquisition -- the DFocus V2 Follow Focus, which is now distributed by Jag35.com.

The DFocus V2

An affordable follow focus has been a dream of mine for a long time. At one point I thought of trying to build one myself for my old Krasnogorsk K-3 windup Russian 16mm camera, but I never had access to the right tools or the mechanical engineering know-how to do it. Frankly, it would have been wasted on that camera anyway, but it would have looked cool. Now that there are finally some affordable follow focus-worthy cameras out there, equipment manufacturers have responded to the demand for them, and there are lots of follow focus options on the market. Most of them, however, remain extremely expensive (maybe not relative to traditional film equipment prices, but at least relative to a camera like the Canon 7D). Zacuto's follow focus units start at $1300. To me it doesn't make any sense to spend almost as much or more on an accessory like a follow focus than on your camera itself.

Some people agree with me apparently, and one of those people, David Aldrich, decided to do something about it and designed the DFocus. Its website bills the DFocus as "the world’s first truly affordable follow focus system" and I would have to agree. At $134.99, the DFocus is far and away the most affordable follow focus I have come across, so when I first heard about it, I was extremely excited that a follow focus that appealed to my frugal sensibilities was finally within my reach. But would such an affordable piece of gear also satisfy my demanding needs as a DP?

Unfortunately, it took a long time for that question to be answered. The DFocus units are built one at a time, and there is a constant backlog of orders, which means it takes about 4-5 weeks from the time you order the unit until it gets shipped.

They say that good things come to those that wait, and the DFocus is no exception. I wasn't quite sure what to expect when I ordered it, but for a tenth the price of other follow focuses on the market, I figured it was easily worth the risk. When it finally arrived, I was very pleasantly surprised that the design and build quality easily exceeded my expectations.

Before I bought the DFocus, I read all the opinions of it I could find online, and there weren't that many, but the reviews I did find implied that it was very good "for the price" or that it was a great as a kind of "introductory" follow focus.  I would go further than that and say that it is a good follow focus, period.

The mechanical parts of the DFocus are exposed for all to see (and tinker with if need be).

The DFocus does have more of a homemade look to it than most follow focuses, due to the exposed hardware and gears, but while some people may see this as a disadvantage, I actually see it as an advantage. I have worked with many professional follow focus units from manufacturers such as Arri, Chrosziel, and Panavision, both as a DP and as an AC (focus puller). They always have some amount of play (or backlash) somewhere between the knob you turn and the barrel of the lens. This can be a problem for focus pulling accuracy, especially if you are relying on marks on the marking disc as your guides (not usually the best idea, but sometimes a necessity). I have seen units where the focus knob turned a quarter of an inch or more before the lens barrel actually started to turn. Often, despite tightening up every user-accessible screw and connection, it is impossible to get rid of, or even lessen the amount of play. Granted, sometimes these units are years or even decades old and have been subjected to all kinds of harsh working conditions, but that doesn't make it any less annoying. As soon as I took it out of the box, I was impressed that the DFocus exhibited virtually no backlash. (I was present when a friend of mine received his Red Rock Micro follow focus for his Red camera, and that unit had a considerable amount of play in it, even brand new.) How well the DFocus will hold up over years of use remains to be seen, but the simple mechanics of it, as well as the fact that pretty much all its parts are readily accessible, gives me hope that if it does start to develop significant backlash, it will be easy to find which parts are causing the problem, and either tighten or replace them as needed.

Set screws hold the gears in place on the shafts.

The fact that many of the parts are plastic did worry me somewhat before I got it, but upon close inspection, the plastic parts seem quite solid. The plastic gears are held in place on the shafts with small metal set screws, and it does seem that the potential is there to possibly over-tighten the set screws and strip the threads in the plastic. I don't expect this to be a problem under normal usage however, and if the threads ever do get stripped, I imagine those gears would be very cheap and easy to replace. The build quality might not be quite up to rental house standards, where items are abused day in and day out by people whose knowledge and experience levels are all over the map, but given that this piece of gear is for my own camera package and I don't anticipate it seeing much use without me present, I would have no hesitation in using the DFocus at any inhospitable location, or under whatever harsh shooting conditions are required.

There is a little more friction in the DFocus than I'd like. On many follow focus units, if you disengage them from the lens and spin the knob, it will spin freely for a second or two before coming to a stop. Not so with the DFocus (at least the one that I have). It takes a little bit of force to turn the knob, even when it is not attached to a lens. However, it is still a very smooth motion, and given a choice between a little extra friction and a little bit of backlash, I would choose the extra friction without hesitation.

The DFocus in its original configuration, on the "smart side" of the camera.

The unit is very easy to take apart and reconfigure to suit your specific needs, and two different sized Allen keys are provided to aid you in doing so. The main block with the gear system can be taken off its support and flipped upside down, and the bevel gear on the lens gear shaft can be switched to the other side of the shaft. Doing these things in various combinations allows you to move the lens gear to the camera body side or the matte box side of the unit (could be necessary depending on what type of rod support setup you are using and how close your lens's gear is to the camera body), flip the marking disc reference pin to the front or rear of the unit, and reverse the direction of the lens gear (useful if you have certain brands of lenses whose focus barrels turn the opposite way from standard "cinema style" lenses). These configuration options should allow you to use the follow focus on the opposite side ("dumb side") of the camera as well, although depending on your setup, it may or may not be as quick as simply flipping the unit around. You can make any one of these changes without the others, depending on the combination of ways you change the configuration. I personally changed the configuration several times before realizing that the way it was originally configured was actually best for me after all. I did notice in putting it back together that the bevel gears didn't mesh as well together as they had originally, and when I turned the knob, it didn't turn as smoothly in a 360 degree circle, but that there were parts of the rotation that had more friction than others. It took a few tries of taking the lens gear shaft off, rotating one of the bevel gears in relation to the other, and putting the shaft back on before I got them to mesh smoothly all the way around again.

One knurled knob locks both the position of the DFocus on the rails and the distance of the focus gear to the lens.

The DFocus comes with a 15mm rail mount to mount the follow focus onto standard 15mm rods. It is made of plastic, and it does an acceptable job of holding the unit securely when it is well tightened. (An optional alternative is the $49.99 DSLR Mount V2, which allows you to mount the DFocus without a rod support system, but I haven't tried it.) A finger-tightening knob is used to tighten the mount to the rods. It works, but the knurled knob is not as easy to get a good grip on as I'd like, particularly if the rail mount is flush up against something like the baseplate that holds your rods into place. The same knob loosens both the connection of the mount to the rods, and the connection of the gear to the lens. This is convenient because not all lenses have their gears in the same place, so when you change lenses you may have to slide the follow focus forwards or backwards as well as moving the gear out of the way. Loosening just this one connection allows you to do both at once.

The DFocus takes standard follow focus accessories like cranks and whips.

The focus knob of the DFocus is rubberized and easy to grip. It also includes a square hole to fit standard follow focus accessories such as a focus whip or a speed crank. I currently don't own either one of those, so I have yet to try it out, but I am really glad it has this feature, so I can add those accessories in the future. DFocus sells its own speed crank, the DCrank, for $29.99.

The somewhat awkward placement of the reference pin.

My only real complaints with the DFocus are with the marking disc system. First of all, the reference pin is on the side of the focus knob. Like I said, it can be flipped to either the camera side or the matte box side, but neither is ideal. Some follow focuses have rotatable reference marks that can be moved to any position around the edge of the disc. Of course this is ideal but I would certainly not expect a high end feature like that on such an affordable follow focus. Most follow focuses, however, have their reference marks at the top of the focus knob, which is absolutely where it should be if it can only be in one place. Having the reference mark at the top allows you to see the marks on the disc, as well as marks on the lens itself at the same time without having to look away from one or the other. It also gives you a better eyeline to the action that you are focusing on in front of the camera than having it on either side does.

Diagram showing: A, the standard positioning of the reference pin; B, the normal placement of the focus witness mark on a "cine style" lens; C, the ideal placement of the pin for a proper eyeline between the two; and D, the alternate placement of the pin if you flip the main block upside down.

I'm guessing it's not on the top because that would impede the ability to flip the main gear block upside down, making the unit less configurable, but I think there should be holes on the top and bottom (the sides too, for that matter) that would allow you to take the pin out and put it back in on whichever side is best for the specific setup. Four pin placement options would make it almost as versatile as a rotatable one. As it is, I think I'm going to have to build some kind of additional reference pin that I can position at the top of the wheel. I haven't figured out how I'm going to attach it yet.

My second complaint about the marking disc is that I don't like the material it's made of. Most marking discs I've used on other follow focuses have more of a matte surface, whereas this one is very glossy. Different people prefer different writing implements for marking these discs, but my preference has always been mechanical pencil. It's very easy to erase, either with an eraser or with water, it makes very thin and therefore precise marks, and unlike felt tip pens or markers, the marks don't get wider as it gets used more and more. Pencil will not write on the glossy surface of the DFocus however, so I am out of luck. The DFocus website recommends a wet-erase type marker for using on the acrylic disc, so I guess I will have to get some of those, but I think it will be less convenient to have to wash the disc off with water or some kind of cleaning solution every time I need to put down some new marks.

Lastly, the marking disc is not easily removable. Most follow focus marking discs are held in place by magnets or some other means that allows them to pop off and back on very easily. This is nice as it makes them easier to clean, and also allows the possibility of having separate, pre-marked discs for each lens. This is not possible with the DFocus. All of these gripes with the marking disc system are minor and easy to work around, however.

All in all, I think the DFocus is a great follow focus. In my opinion, it is comparable in quality to follow focus units that cost several times as much. At $135, not only is it a great value, but quality aside, to my knowledge it is also the cheapest follow focus on the market. I honestly don't see any reason for any DSLR shooter, amateur or pro, to spend any more on a follow focus when they can buy the excellent DFocus for just $135. I give the DFocus The Frugal DP's highest rating: five out of five bangs for the buck.

____________________________________________________________________

I believe that much of the confusion comes from mis-analyzing tests such as these:

http://marvelsfilm.wordpress.com/2009/10/10/canon-7d-noise-and-iso-test/

http://www.cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4736

that clearly show that the 160-multiple ISO settings exhibit less noise than the 100-multiple ISO settings. Viewing these test results is often surprising to people because it goes against the conventional wisdom that the higher the ISO, the noisier the image will be, and the lower the ISO, the cleaner it will be. In fact, it is very surprising to learn that ISO 1250 can look on par with or even better than ISO 125. The natural assumption when looking at these tests is that the native ISOs must be the cleanest ones. This seems like a logical assumption at first, but it doesn't hold up when you look at it a little bit closer.

It makes sense that noise would increase if you added a digital push to the exposure, but if the lowest native ISO is 160, and all other non-native ISOs exhibit greater noise levels due to a digital exposure push, then how are ISO 100 and ISO 125 derived? Also, what about the Canon Rebel T2i? It does not offer any intermediate ISO settings, but only allows the selection of the 100-multiple ISOs. Given that this camera is so similar to the 7D, it seems much more likely that they would simply eliminate the intermediate (non-native) ISO choices than that the camera's sensor would be somehow fundamentally differently designed from that of the 7D and 5D Mark II.

So, if the 160-multiple ISOs are not the native ones, why are they cleaner, and how are they derived? Well, it is correct that the 125-multiple ISOs are the noisiest because they are derived by a digital exposure push. ISO 125 is actually ISO 100 with a 1/3 stop digital exposure push, ISO 250 is ISO 200 with a 1/3 stop digital exposure push, etc. However, the 160-multiple ISOs are actually the cleanest not because they are "native", but because they are a result of a digital exposure pull. This pull brings down the exposure of the entire image, and hides much of the noise that would be visible at the next higher ISO. ISO 160 is the cleanest because it is the native ISO 200 with a 1/3 stop digital exposure pull, yielding even less noise. ISO 320 is actually ISO 400, with a 1/3 stop exposure pull, etc.

So now that we know this, which ISO settings are best? Just because 160, 320, 640, etc, are not "native" does that mean you shouldn't use them? Well, no, not necessarily. They are less noisy, after all. It's just important to understand that there is a price to pay for this lack of noise. That price is decreased dynamic range.

Because ISO 320 is actually ISO 400 pulled 1/3 of a stop, that means that the highlights are going to clip at exactly the same point as they would at ISO 400. The 1/3 stop pull is just making that point 1/3 stop darker than pure white. The entire image at ISO 320 is 1/3 stop darker (and may be less noisy) than the image at ISO 400, so the blacks lose detail 1/3 stop sooner, but you don't get that 1/3 stop back at the highlight end of the range -- it's still gone. Therefore, at ISO 320 you're losing a net 1/3 stop from the total usable dynamic range that you would have if you were shooting at ISO 400. The tests here confirm that this is the case: http://www.cryptobola.com/PhotoBola/Canon7D_ISO.htm. [Update: these tests no longer seem to be online.]

So which is more important, shooting images with less noise, or shooting images with more dynamic range? It's obviously subjective, but for me there is no one-size-fits-all answer. In some cases I prioritize one, and in some cases I prioritize the other. I really can't think of any reason to use the digitally pushed ISOs (125, 250, 500, etc). If you need more exposure, you're better off going up to the next exposure-pulled ISO, or the next native ISO, rather than shooting with the increased noise and decreased dynamic range that comes along with the pushed ISOs. In general, if I am shooting a bright scene with a large contrast range, such as a daytime exterior, I will prefer to use the full-stop, native ISOs. In that situation, since I will likely be using the lower ISOs (100 or 200), noise really isn't much of a factor anyway, and I will prioritize dynamic range to prevent the highlights from blowing out as much as possible. If I am shooting a dimly lit scene, I will likely be using the higher ISOs where noise is more of an issue. In that case, keeping the highlights in check isn't usually a problem, so I will prefer to use the 160-multiple ISOs (320, 640, or 1250) so I can get more exposure with less noise.

If you've ever taken a photography class, or read a book about photography, you no doubt learned the three variables that affect depth of field: focal length, distance to subject, and aperture. Ok, so what about format (sensor size)? How does that come into play? Well, chances are you don't remember hearing about that one, because it's not really a variable. If you are shooting on 35mm film, you're only concerned with the depth of field of 35mm film. When you're taking a picture, chances are you're not going to grab a camera that shoots in another format just because you want more or less depth of field, the way you might change the aperture or choose a different lens for that reason.

The other reason you might not think of sensor size as a variable that affects depth of field is because what it's really affecting is field of view, which only indirectly affects depth of field. Field of view is the extent of what is seen by the camera -- how wide or tight the shot is -- and this is what is being directly affected by sensor size.

Let me show you an example. Let's say the image below is the image circle created by a given lens at a given distance and f-stop. (That's right, lenses create circular images, not rectangular ones.)

This particular image circle is large enough to cover a full frame sensor or 35mm still frame. For the purposes of this explanation, it doesn't matter what lens this is, or what the f-stop or distance are, only that they are constant. The format is the only variable that will be changing here. Now let's look at this same image circle with the frame lines of various formats superimposed:

The full frame film or sensor (which this lens is designed to cover) uses the most of the image circle, and each smaller sensor uses less and less of it, resulting in a tighter and tighter shot. With the same lens, the same distance, and the same f-stop, changing sensor size alters the field of view considerably. Lets take a look at what a picture taken with this lens, distance, and f-stop would look like in each of these formats:

You may notice that the depth of field here isn't changing -- the same distance in front and behind the car appears in focus in each picture -- only the field of view (how much of the image we see) is changing.

So how does this affect depth of field? Well, say we are shooting on a 2/3" sensor, and we want to achieve the same field of view as we see in the full frame image. This particular focal length and distance aren't going to work for us obviously, so what are our choices? Well, we can either move the camera further away, or switch to a wider lens. Both of which, as you may remember from that photography class you took, will increase depth of field. So you will end up with a field of view that is the same as the full frame shot above, but the objects in front of and behind the car won't be nearly as out of focus.

Alternatively, you could stay on this lens at this distance, if you want this amount of depth of field, but you won't feel the shallow depth of field nearly as much. Look at the full frame shot. We feel this shot has shallow depth of field because we see a lot of stuff in the foreground and background that is out of focus. The die and the hotel in front of the car are very blurry, as is the horseback rider behind it. Now look at the 2/3" shot. While the depth of field is just as shallow, we don't see the die, the hotel, or the horseback rider. In fact, we really only see the car, so there is nothing in the frame that's out of focus, and we don't feel that shallow depth of field at all.