Here's another list of 1,000 movies to see before you die (from the UK's The Guardian newspaper): http://www.theguardian.com/film/series/1000-films-to-see-before-you-die

Thanks for the post, V. I would not have heard about this otherwise, and it's an interesting, oddball concept. The footage is actually really nice as well - beautiful locations and drone cinematography. For those that didn't see the trailer, I wouldn't really call it "porn". The stuff they show on it is, at most, R-rated. It's weird to see how much of a taboo nudity and sex are to some people here.

For sure! I'm sure that many people are able to make it work, just as doctors, lawyers, police, firefighters, and other people that work odd and/or long hours can make it work. But I would think that it makes things more difficult than if both people work a 9 to 5 job. If you can marry someone who is also on set, it might make things easier?

Kam, I think you are over-complicating this. I don't have the energy right now to work through the mathematical formula from the dpreview article which I feel is an unnecessary exercise, but it appears that the wikipedia article is agreeing with us. The case where they are saying that the DOF will vary is if everything else is equal but you enlarge the cropped image to be the same size as the non-cropped image. Bingo, you've just changed a material (albeit minor) variable that would affect the apparent depth of field. However, in video/film, you generally don't have any control over the size of the image that the viewer watches, so there's no point in worrying about that.

Let's take this to the simplest, most basic form to understand what is happening: let's say you take a simple magnifying glass (Sherlock Holmes type), which is about the simplest lens you could possibly try, other than a pinhole or a drop of water (but those would also work), and in a dark room with a window, project the image of the window on an opposite wall in the room. The lens has to be pretty close to the wall in order for the image to be in focus (BTW, the image will be upside down). That distance to the wall is effectively your focal length. Keep the lens at that exact distance while you draw a full-frame 35mm sized frame around the image on the wall. Now draw a Super 35mm sized frame within the FF one, Now repeat with a 16mm sized one, and then repeat with whatever other format you want (large format still camera perhaps?).

Do you think that any of the characteristics (DOF, brightness, etc, except crop size) of the image projected by the magnifying glass will be any different within the various frame sizes?

I've wondered the same thing, and reached the conclusion that having a profession that is on set all the time (anyone in a film crew) is basically pretty tough on family life. Think about it - any job where you're expected to work 12+ hours a day is tough on a spouse and on family life. This is one of the reasons why I think this will remain a hobby and very occasional side gig for me. I also believe that it's a big reason (not the only one) why there aren't more women in top film set roles (director or otherwise). It's basically incompatible with having a family and being a mother (or father, really). I've heard Diablo Cody (Oscar-winning screenwriter of Juno) say as much in an interview she did on a podcast I listen to (either The Treatment or The Business) about her experience of directing a movie. I believe she said that she would not want to do it again.

I'm open to the possibility that I have an inaccurate view of the situation though, and that some people may be able to make it work. I would love to hear more about it, and hope that others will respond.

Thanks for your response, Ryan. It seems like a simple sort would work well (at least within same levels within comments and forum threads), but you are a lot more involved with this than I am, so probably know what is best. It sounds like the votes are being used for some algorithms already, so it's good to know that it's not useless to vote.