Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Is Full Frame the Future of Cinema Glass?

Peter Moretti

Peter Moretti

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2008
Messages
1,595
Reaction score
0
Points
36
We tend to think of S35 as the perfect frame size for cinematorgraphy.

2/3rd's, 16, S16 and M4/3 are all very viable, but there can be challenges when needing to go wide or wanting uber shallow DoF. Big issues? No, but not a completely non-issues either. On the plus, you seem to get lighter lenses with longer zoom ranges as sensor size decreases.

Larger than S35, we have FF which is 36mm X 24mm; the cinema equivalent is Vista Vision. But wide open the DoF can get so shallow w/ FF that conventional wisdom tells you that it's really not worth it in most cases.

Except, it looks like it might be cheaper and easier to design and manufacture a FF lens than the equivalent S35 lens interms of FoV and DoF.


For example, here is a $1,500 DX format 17-55mm f2.8 Nikon zoom lens:

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Pr...-S-DX-Zoom-Nikkor-17-55mm-f%2F2.8G-IF-ED.html


And here is a $1,300 FX format 24-120mm f4 Nikon zoom lens:

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Pr...s/2193/AF-S-NIKKOR-24-120mm-f%2F4G-ED-VR.html

And if you can tolerate a little ramping, the FX prices really drop.

So it makes me wonder if FF is actually a more logical frame size for cinema?
 
Even though there are no right or wrongs with this issue, my answer is 'no' for several reasons. 'Full frame' is arbitrary of course, but for practical (but purely relative) reasons it's 24x36mm. Anyway... the 17-55/2.8 is one stop wider than the 24-120. No wonder it's more expensive.
 
But that's the whole point, you can use a stop smaller w/ FF, you don't need as fast a lens.
 
Of course, I missed that little detail! I suppose there are two main points to make:

1. 24x36 sensors will cost more and might offset the apparently small savings with lenses.

2. I personally am not obsessed with shallow DOF but out of curiosity I will have a look and see how aperture differences relate to sensor sizes for given focal lengths.
 
The important thing is to have the choice to use what "format" you desire. Red's more or less paving the way in the high end digital cinema camera world by providing that option. S35 is indeed the traditional go to. But the current 5K full MX sensor is extremely useful on the wide end. Dragon's currently announced specifications sort of bridge the gap between S35, APC-H, and VistaVision to me. It's close to VV/FF35, but not all the way there. However, there will need to be glass that covers 6K and currently that's mostly FF35 glass and higher end cinema glass. New lenses seem to be popping up everywhere right now and by the time Dragon lands everybody will have several options in front of them and their cameras at many price points.

In my mind (sometimes at least) with sensors getting more sensitive and having the ability to see deeper into the dark we have the ability to shoot at smaller apertures on larger sensors in typical situations. The shallow DOF is there if you want it. The little boost in the wide is there too when you want it. And there's just a ton of wonderful glass, not necessarily designed for motion use, that covers the larger sensors.

To me whoever makes the first semi-affordable nice set of production "ideal" glass that covers Dragon FF and FF35 in the T1.3-1.8 range is going to have a winning combo with real lasting power. K35s in many ways were that. Imagine similar glass made with modern optics and coatings. That would blow my mind.
 
Here are some interesting findings. I'm comparing a 50mm f/2.8 with a 75mm f/4.0 with identical subject distance:

1. 50/2.8 @ 3m = 37.81cm DOF

2. 75/4.0 @ 3m = 23.75cm DOF

So the difference in DOF is significant. The 75mm lens, despite its narrower aperture, has 63% the DOF of the 50mm lens. For the 50mm lens to have a similar DOF to a 75mm lens at f/4.0, the aperture would have to be about f/2.0, according to the DOF calculator I used:

http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm

So is a 75/4.0 8-perf lens cheaper to make than a 50/2.0 4-perf lens, all other things being equal? How about an 18-50/2.0 4-perf zoom compared to an 28-75/4.0 8-perf zoom?

Personally I would prefer the S35 class of sensor than the VistaVision type if I were shooting digital. If your holy grail is the achieve the narrowest DOF possible, perhaps you will have a different preference, but then again you might just use faster lenses than I would.

I don't know if my preferences would change if I became a DP, but I suspect not. I'm always happy to change my mind, though, if I see a better idea.
 
I'm not sure there's a huge push towards it, but if it happens I'll be a happy chappy. VistaVision is a lovely aesthetic, not as nice as 70mm but it's getting there - the bigger the image format the better as far as I'm concerned. The perspective you get (from the added magnification and image compression of longer focal lengths) simply provides a more captivating aesthetic than you can get from smaller formats.

It's not the shallow DoF that does it to my mind, it's the additional magnification of the lenses you use to get equivalent FoV.

Anamorphic VistaVision would provide a hell of a look.
 
I think we are moving past having one aspect ratio being dominant per distribution channel. 1.33 & 1.5 are awesome for hand held devices, but are also great for average room size projection. So my view is that a large percentage of viewed content will be on 1.33 & 1.55 aspect ratio in the future(how cool would it be to have Jannards 96 fps shots at Fiji, cycling on a 6k picture frame on my wall). You can all ready see that one of the largest group of views greater then 1080p, is 2k by 1536. I also learned to shoot on both large aperture and large format still camera's, and I really miss working with them.
 
Mark,

I believe a 50mm lens on an S35 frame has the exact same image dimension, compression and perspective of an 80mm lens on a Vista Vision frame.
 
Big and resolution dense sensor and then super fast glass... leaves the most options. Then offcourse there is other options that can cost less and that might do the job.
But a big sensor with high resolution that you can crop all ready in camera is off course better than just having a small sensor. Good glass covering large sensors do not have to cost much. Personally I started to collect quality FD glass, they go for nearly the same price as a lens cap for a PL lens and they cover full vista vision, are super small and very nice made with all metal housings. They feels like holding "little micro master primes" in your hand. Also they got much longer focus swing compared to EF glass.

Will make sure I have a complete set from 14-400mm with all the lowest Fstop and I'm getting the tilt shift and the fisheyes as well...
Those old lenses makes it really exiting to go to flemarkets etc. There is always some crazy little FD zoom availabe there for a couple of bucks....
It's not cinema glass but they are small and they got usable whiteness marks...

Check this list. There is quite a few to pic from... But watch your self, because all of a sudden you find yourself bidding away on ebay :)

http://web.mit.edu/dennis/www/canon/fd-lens-info.html
 
Mark K. said:
It's not the shallow DoF that does it to my mind, it's the additional magnification of the lenses you use to get equivalent FoV.

Anamorphic VistaVision would provide a hell of a look.
Click to expand...
1. That's actually not true that longer lenses have more 'compression' than shorter ones. Someone else can explain it better than I can, but basically, if you crop a small section from a shot taken with a 20mm lens, it will have the same 'compression' as a shot taken with a longer lens. But with more DOF.

2. I won't doubt that!

Bjorn, I think that too many DPs are too worried about the more 'prestige' lenses and really should be putting together sets of their own lenses, such as the FDs you mention. Or maybe using Samyang/Rokinon cine lenses. Thanks to all the used equipment out there, and companies like Samyang, not everyone needs to blow their savings on Zeiss, Cooke, Leica or Angenieux. Just IMHO.
 
Karim, unless I am misunderstanding you some how, lens compression from two lenses of different focal lengths is not equivalent.

Take a 20mm lens @ f16. Then take a 80mm lens @ f16. All subject in focus. Crop the 20mm to the 80mm frame and the two will not match. If they did how could a zolly be possible?
 
James, that's a good question. As I said, there are others who can explain the theory better. However, here is how I would phrase it:

The further away two relative subjects are from the camera, the less apparent distance will be between them.

Zooming in will not change their apparent distance apart (e.g. from 20mm to 80mm). Because zooming is not changing perspective: it is merely changing focal length. Perspective is defined by a change in the distance between the camera and the subject. A dolly shot does change perspective because the camera moves. So the closer the camera gets to the subject, the greater the apparent distance between that subject and one in front or behind it.

Edit: FWIW, in the Hitchcock dolly-zoom (or whatever it's called, which Spielberg used to great effect in Jaws), both a change in focal length and a change in perspective are happening in the one shot.
 
Björn Benckert said:
Big and resolution dense sensor and then super fast glass... leaves the most options. Then offcourse there is other options that can cost less and that might do the job.
But a big sensor with high resolution that you can crop all ready in camera is off course better than just having a small sensor. Good glass covering large sensors do not have to cost much. Personally I started to collect quality FD glass, they go for nearly the same price as a lens cap for a PL lens and they cover full vista vision, are super small and very nice made with all metal housings. They feels like holding "little micro master primes" in your hand. Also they got much longer focus swing compared to EF glass.

Will make sure I have a complete set from 14-400mm with all the lowest Fstop and I'm getting the tilt shift and the fisheyes as well...
Those old lenses makes it really exiting to go to flemarkets etc. There is always some crazy little FD zoom availabe there for a couple of bucks....
It's not cinema glass but they are small and they got usable whiteness marks...

Check this list. There is quite a few to pic from... But watch your self, because all of a sudden you find yourself bidding away on ebay :)

http://web.mit.edu/dennis/www/canon/fd-lens-info.html
Click to expand...

LOL, After collecting a full set of Leica R glass on eBay, I found myself in withdrawal. I missed the hunt. The thrill of winning a nice piece of glass. I decided to see if I could find a nice clean copy of my very first SLR - a Canon FTb. After four attempts, I found one. I felt somehow more complete ;). Then it was off to find a clean FD 50mm f1.4 "chrome nose" that I had, as well as the 135mm f 3.5 chrome nose. Found 'em both. And SUCH a bargain after hunting for Leica R glass :). The FTb WITH a nice 50mm 1.4 was only $49.00. Kinda like a lens cap for my Ultraprimes ;)

But it was a nice ending to a fun ride. Now I stop.

M
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top