2/3" sensor question - Avatar

[Kris Anderson]

I am eagerly awaiting the arrival of the Scarlet like most of you here and after recently seeing Avatar which was shot using Sony F900 cameras with 2/3" chips I have to ask the question.... is it really necessary to go further than 2/3?

I'm mostly after your thoughts. Not saying one way or another is better.

 

[Alex Mack]

No. If you get the interchangeable eventually in addition to the fixed, then no.
That's because the interchangeable offers 35mm like dof with the primes, and small formfactor/1.4 lowlight. The fixed covers all else, including face tracking focus, wide focal range, ND, and cheap entry price.
In addition, the deeper dof and electronic zoom of the fixed is ideal for 3D.

The 35mm scarlets will get you Imax style resolution and very thin dof. More relegated to niche if you round out your 2/3 collection..

So IMO, a full 2/3 scarlet arsenal will get you the best of cinema (if you get both brains with a prime or two - 16/25).

If you really wanted very shallow 35 dof in the future, schneider sells a crazy f/.95 16mm prime that is equivalent to f2.3ish on 35mm.

 

[Ralph B.]

...depends on your definition of necessary. haha

Ultimately every tool will have its optimal application, on any given shoot "your mileage may vary"

My answer would be. No, it's not "really" necessary, but it is "fairly" necessary.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I am eagerly awaiting the arrival of the Scarlet like most of you here and after recently seeing Avatar which was shot using Sony F900 cameras with 2/3" chips I have to ask the question.... is it really necessary to go further than 2/3?

I'm mostly after your thoughts. Not saying one way or another is better.

F950 (10-bit 4:4:4), not the F900 (8-bit, 3:1:1).

Remember that this was a 3D movie, and 3D benefits to some extent from the deeper focus of 2/3" so less of the frame is out of focus.

 

[Stephen Strangways]

Yeah, shallow depth of field and 3D really don't mix well. I think the 2/3" will be the brain of choice for 3D, at least among those that are not blinded by a shallow DoF fetish.

 

[Kris Anderson]

F950 (10-bit 4:4:4), not the F900 (8-bit, 3:1:1).

Thanks for the clarification. I found they also used the F23 and HDC-1500.

My use will primarily be in multi-camera live events and interview situations as well as some nature based/landscape films. Having said that, I prefer a more cinematic shooting approach over the usual ENG approach.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

RED was also used for Avatar, unless I understood wrong, don't ask were and from hum as I can't say, don't recall who told me, but I have been researching and studding S3D, ever since I said that I will take KETCHFRAME to S3D some time at the beginning of the year, and I have spoken to so many people it is not even funny.

However, even if I have to agree that the Scarlet 2/3 offers and incredible new realm of possibilities for S3D especially so do to size and image quality, according to specs, but I absolutely am confident that the Epic will be a shine of the S3D world, and My self will be looking in to Epic and not Scarlet for S3D, yes with S35 and or even FF and not to mention the Epic 645, S3D could and will have an absurd capacity and quality that it has not been given to, sure more lighting will be needed as for shooting larger Imager brings a more shallow DOF, so with the need of stopping down the Aperture more light is required, a lot more for S3D, but also do to coming news of HIGH ASA capabilities of the new Imagers, well then so much is there to be discovered and tested of what will be the actual Toll of choice, and personally I just love it.

I have been testing and experiencing all kinds of new technologies some of which I can't even discuss, but it is coming and it will blow people's minds, that much I can promise.

Next moth I look forward for some more tests and talks in my week stay in LA, and further enrich my knowledge of the various imagers, but I will not say that Scarlet will be the best camera for S3D based on the fact that 2/3 imagers have been used successfully till now, as what is coming has not yet been used :~)

 

[Kris Anderson]

btw... I'm not so much concerned with the 3D side of things yet. Just wanting to shoot 2D for now.

 

[Mitch Gross]

Pace tested many different camera systems for various purposes during the years that Avatar was in production. I do not believe that REDs were used for this production. They also own some Phantoms and I believe that they did do some reference capture imaging for the production but I don't know if anything directly from the cameras actually made it into the finished movie.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Actually Mitch I just remember were I was told about RED being used on Avatar, and it was very recently by a 3D Post house, but before confirming and making names, I will make sure I did get it right :~) as I was just as surprise at first when I was told of this, since I have been very aware of Pace and Cameron's incredible amount of work with Sony HQ in Tokyo to work n their Fusion systems.

 

[Linda Barzini]

Thanks for asking this question. I have been lurking for a while and finally decided to jump in.

I have seen a variety of posts showing the various size relationships of the sensors. If the 2/3 sensor creates such detailed and beautiful shots for commercial features, what is the practical purpose of having a full frame sensor. I can only think of IMAX.

It sounds like adding more horsepower to a 500 hp mercedes. What's the point? Are you ever really going to drive over 180? It seems unnecessary. Or more appropriately, it seems like going from a 12MP camera to 40MP camera for small web photos.

I get the 2/3 sensor looks tiny compared to the Epic sensor in the charts people here have produced, but can anyone show any pictures of the diference? I can't wrap my brain around the practical aspect of having a bigger sensor.

The images produced by 2/3 sensors are gorgeous. Is the crop effect of the lens noticeable to anybody but highend professional cameramen?

What am I missing? Why is bigger better when I can't imagine improving on the gorgeous 2/3 sensor images?

 

[Eren Ozkural]

Thanks for asking this question. I have been lurking for a while and finally decided to jump in.

I have seen a variety of posts showing the various size relationships of the sensors. If the 2/3 sensor creates such detailed and beautiful shots for commercial features, what is the practical purpose of having a full frame sensor. I can only think of IMAX.

It sounds like adding more horsepower to a 500 hp mercedes. What's the point? Are you ever really going to drive over 180? It seems unnecessary. Or more appropriately, it seems like going from a 12MP camera to 40MP camera for small web photos.

I get the 2/3 sensor looks tiny compared to the Epic sensor in the charts people here have produced, but can anyone show any pictures of the diference? I can't wrap my brain around the practical aspect of having a bigger sensor.

The images produced by 2/3 sensors are gorgeous. Is the crop effect of the lens noticeable to anybody but highend professional cameramen?

What am I missing? Why is bigger better when I can't imagine improving on the gorgeous 2/3 sensor images?

Larger FOV, easier to achieve shallower DOF if that's your thing and better low light performance are just some of the benefits of Full Frame.

Mind you, I'm perfectly happy to shoot motion on 2/3"-s35mm and shoot stills both in DX/APS-C to Medium Format 5x4. Different horses for different courses.

 

[Linda Barzini]

Larger FOV, easier to achieve shallower DOF if that's your thing and better low light performance are just some of the benefits of Full Frame.

Larger FOV can be mitigated by wide angle lens or distance. DOF is not the holy grail of perfection some people think.

One moderator said it best on another thread. The FF sensor is better at real low light where most people are not socialized to see deep focus. That's really the only credible argument in my opinion.

 

[Peter Mosiman]

Larger FOV can be mitigated by wide angle lens or distance. DOF is not the holy grail of perfection some people think.

One moderator said it best on another thread. The FF sensor is better at real low light where most people are not socialized to see deep focus. That's really the only credible argument in my opinion.

Well put.

I loved the look of Avatar (though I will have to see it again to really check out the technical aspect of the movie as I was immersed in the experience the first time )

 

[J. Brennan]

Larger FOV can be mitigated by wide angle lens or distance. DOF is not the holy grail of perfection some people think.

oh, come on man.

1. Wide angle lenses are not ALWAYS appropriate for what you are shooting. In fact they are inappropriate a lot of the time.

2. You don't always have as much room as you want. You can't just always just move farther away or closer to the subject.

3. While I agree, DOF is not the holy grail, that doesn't mean it has no purpose either. Deep focus is no closer to the holy grail then shallow DOF.

There is no holy grail. that's the point. So you saying a 2/3 sensor is better then a FF35 sensor is like me saying a popsicle is better than a snow cone. It's a completely subjective statement. However, there are times when FF35 is more capable in a certain situation than a 2/3 is and vice versa.

One moderator said it best on another thread. The FF sensor is better at real low light where most people are not socialized to see deep focus. That's really the only credible argument in my opinion.

uh... what about achieving shallow DOF? how is a 2/3 sensor better at that?

and this is coming from someone who is planning on buying a 2/3 scarlet.

 

[Jeremy_Sawatzky]

seen avatar 4 times now. its so awsome..........now back to discussion