Effect of Red's FF35 to Industry?

[Lee Saxon]

Hmmm, wait until you try to follow-focus during a fast dolly into an ECU of an actor at T/2.8 on your FF35 camera... :crying: That DOF that is "too nice to be true" suddenly becomes, well, not so nice. Super shallow focus is pretty in images, especially still ones, but it's not always practical in the day-to-day reality of following actors around in tight shots.

I don't really understand why this as an argument to get a smaller-sensor camera ie 2/3" Scarlet. Seems to me with FF35 or even S35 you have options - hassle-free shallow DoF wide-open (even with sub-$1500 f/2.8 still lenses if you're broke) plus deeper DoF just a few aperture clicks away! Meanwhile with a 2/3" or smaller sensor you're stuck with relatively deep DoF even if you spend ten bajifewajilfajiweftillion dollars on f/1.3 Master Primes.

Is it just the cost and heat associated with lighting for smaller apertures?

 

[Sergei Franklin]

The PL mount S35 format give's us a huge choice of lenses: fast T1.3 lenses from 14 to 150 mm for night work, shift and tilt, old lenses for special looks, modified still lenses like 8mm and 300mm F2.0, zoom lenses,...
FF35 has a lot less choices, and very few T1.3 lenses.
Rather than more pixels I would like to see more bits per pixel(14Bit) and better low light performance.

 

[D Namir]

want to add one point from the history of the film Industry.
There were 100's of formats in films, 29mm 17.5mm three projectors 180 degrees projectors and even 360 degrees projectors, 4 perf, 8 perf, I have the whole list some where.
The only format that survived till now all they way was 35mm which was the original and even its "Silent" frame is still being used nowadays in commercials.
This is because sometimes the simplest solution and means are the best and the correct ones.
It is all about story telling, like a book which so simple with cover and pages inside. A book is the package of the story and the ideas that somene had created.
Be prepare to be surprised.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

Hello,

I've also shot a short with the 5D un pulled focus myself... on mostly the 50mm 1,4 canon lens.

I can't imagine how a cam assist will be able to pull focus on this kind of apperture and focal length (perhaps Jedi focus-puller ? ).

I had to literally pull focus by sligtly moving the camera back and forward adjusting the focus to the actor move... (this in conjunction with usual focusing, when moving the camera was not possible, good it was all handheld).

If FF35 will exist, RED has to enable us to shoot with higher ISO without noise to be able to stop down at least 1 or 2 stops on the lens. (compared to competition)

Otherwise the system will be another dead born format.

Shooting @ 1,4 or even 2 with FF35 is first an assist nightmare, then a dop nightmare and at the end the director will commit suicide in the DI room!!!



Shallow depth of field is very flattering but you have to be clear:

- either you accept the shooting constrain of a proper focus set by the camera assistant
- or you accept some soft (really soft) pictures. (the audience is final juge...)

Patrick

 

[Tom Lowe]

The PL mount S35 format give's us a huge choice of lenses: fast T1.3 lenses from 14 to 150 mm for night work, shift and tilt, old lenses for special looks, modified still lenses like 8mm and 300mm F2.0, zoom lenses,...

FF35 has a lot less choices, and very few T1.3 lenses.
Rather than more pixels I would like to see more bits per pixel(14Bit) and better low light performance.

Just put your PL mount and S35 lenses on the Monstro FF35. It WILL have greater bit-depth and superior low-light performance.

 

[David Rasberry]

S35 seems to be the sweet spot for reasonable DOF control. But one can always crop to 5k,or 4k and use wider PL lenses on the FF35 to get the needed DOF.
From the photo spreads I'm seeing published in the stills magazines these days, the fad seems to be moving to the other extreme, ultra deep DOF. Some shooters are even doing HDR like composites of multiple frames shot at different focus points to maintain sharp focus from the front of the lens all the way to the horizon.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't really understand why this as an argument to get a smaller-sensor camera ie 2/3" Scarlet. Seems to me with FF35 or even S35 you have options - hassle-free shallow DoF wide-open (even with sub-$1500 f/2.8 still lenses if you're broke) plus deeper DoF just a few aperture clicks away! Meanwhile with a 2/3" or smaller sensor you're stuck with relatively deep DoF even if you spend ten bajifewajilfajiweftillion dollars on f/1.3 Master Primes.

Is it just the cost and heat associated with lighting for smaller apertures?

Do you have a lot of experience lighting sets for a natural look at high apertures?

Sure, it's possible -- I try to light anamorphic for an f/4, and when I have to do slow-motion shots, I have to get the level up for that. I once had to light a tiny bedroom to f/22 for some 1000 fps Phantom shots.

Doesn't mean it's easy, or allows you to get the same degree of naturalism when mixing with available light.

Besides, the "just" in "is it just the cost" implies that lighting cost is some minor thing we all have to deal with. One f-stop more of light is twice as much light.

Besides, I never said that anyone should shoot 2/3" instead of FF35 -- there is an in-between size afterall. It's not like your only two choices are 2/3" and FF35. Also, "hassle-free shallow DOF" is somewhat of an oxymoron because shallow DOF can be a hassle to work with when it is easy to achieve.

 

[Michael Hastings]

It's not like your only two choices are 2/3" and FF35. Also, "hassle-free shallow DOF" is somewhat of an oxymoron because shallow DOF can be a hassle to work with when it is easy to achieve.

I suspect you mean S35, but what about an in between step from S35 and 2/3" (given that we can achieve 4k or better resolution on the sensors at this size) like four/thirds. As a rough guesstimate it seems like for the same physical size/weight you can get about a stop faster on lenses for S35 than you can for FF35 and the same is true for four/thirds - you can get about a stop faster for lenses (this is most evident when you look at the zooms F2 compared to normally the best are F2.8 for the APS-C and FF35 SLRs.)

So you would have significantly shallower depth of field than 2/3"/16mm but not quite as much as S35. We have been considering this also for the implications relating to side by side stereo 3D but I wonder what you would think of the practical implications for your normal narrative work flow.

In other words would you like to have an extra "stop" of light AND depth of field or would it compromise the creative aspects?

 

[david farland]

David, what sensor size are you using for S35?

S35 is based on a diagonal of 31.25mm /CoC = .025mm
Dave

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Unless you crop both sensors being compared to the same aspect ratio, it's better to just compare horizontal view. Because the FF35 sensor is basically a 1.50 : 1 shape and the S35 sensor is a 1.78 : 1 shape, and you generally don't pick a focal length for it's diagonal view of the scene.

 

[david farland]

David,
I hate sums. I’ve based my examples on CoC of 0.2mm (5 lines pair/mm at 250mm).
If I use the horizontals, the CoC then become…..

FF35
250mm /36mm = 6.94
0.2mm /6.94 = .029 (CoC)

S35
250mm /24mm = 10.42
0.2mm /10.42= .019 (CoC)

So my equations are……

S35/50mm/f5.6 / 4 feet = 5 in (depth of field)
FF35/80mm/f9.5 / 4 feet = 5 in (depth of field)

Dave,

 

[David Mullen ASC]

David,
I hate sums. I’ve based my examples on CoC of 0.2mm (5 lines pair/mm at 250mm).
If I use the horizontals, the CoC then become…..

FF35
250mm /36mm = 6.94
0.2mm /6.94 = .029 (CoC)

S35
250mm /24mm = 10.42
0.2mm /10.42= .019 (CoC)

So my equations are……

S35/50mm/f5.6 / 4 feet = 5 in (depth of field)
FF35/80mm/f9.5 / 4 feet = 5 in (depth of field)

Dave,

That conforms more to what I figure, which is a 1.5-stop difference.

 

[david farland]

David,
Are you using the horizontals to compare because you're rarely shooting the same aspect ratios with S35 and FF35?

D

 

[Tim Lüdin]

Hmmm, wait until you try to follow-focus during a fast dolly into an ECU of an actor at T/2.8 on your FF35 camera... That DOF that is "too nice to be true" suddenly becomes, well, not so nice. Super shallow focus is pretty in images, especially still ones, but it's not always practical in the day-to-day reality of following actors around in tight shots. I'm doing a D.I. right now for a S35 movie, and looking at some focus problems on the big screen makes me wonder if I should have lit everything to a T/4.0 at least...

David, you are absolutely right about the focus problems.
You will need the jedi focus puller for sure.
Pulling focus below f 2.0 with an S-35 cam is hard already.
So the new FF sensor should be as sensitive as the Nikons or Canon sensors, so you could stop down if needed.
Those new sensors would give you a lot of flexebility back, that the RED sensor is lacking at the moment.

Tim

 

[Tom Lowe]

I think it will be difficult for Red to quickly match the low-light performance of Canon and Nikon. Those companies have spent years if not decades on research and development to reach where the 5D2 and D3x are at right now. Even Sony's attempt to build a FF35 camera was a complete failure in terms of ISO! Then again, Jim has been able to pull a lot of rabbits out of a lot of hats, so you never know. I'm sure it will be a huge improvement over R1.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

David,
Are you using the horizontals to compare because you're rarely shooting the same aspect ratios with S35 and FF35?

D

Comparing diagonals is fine if the sensors have the same aspect ratio, or you crop them to the same ratio, but many don't.

Most of the time, you are picking a lens for its horizontal view, though not always. It just simplifies things if you pick one element to compare, and the trouble with diagonals as that often you have to take out your calculator and figure them out based on the horizontal and vertical dimensions provided. This becomes the only time I have to spend using the Pythagorean Theorem since high school...

 

[Stefan Christou]

I think one advantage that FF35 may have over the S35 versions is that it will be easier for those who will have to do a 16:9, 14:9 or even 4:3 release of whatever 2.4:1 film they are making.

As David has said in his "ask him anything" thread it is much easier to frame for 2.4:1 in a taller format (cropping from almost the top of the frame so you don't leave too much headroom in the taller frame version, and can get a boom closer) and then crop down to 2.4:1 so you don't have to pan and scan in the 16:9/14:9/4:3 version, which would lose a lot of your image.

Since 1.5 stops is the real difference in this case, and we can reasonably expect 1 stop more DR in the new sensors (at the same photosite size) there is not toooo much of a problem is there? Especially compared to the non-pan and scan advantage? Or am I chatting rubbish? (I don't really have experience of this so this is a thought experiment for me)

 

[david farland]

Thanks Dave...must be a nightmare trying to work out magnification factor/overlays with different aspects. I guess we're gonna have fun when mix/matching on the FF35. Going from S35/1.78 to F35/1.5 you'll be bumping up against the horizontals. It's just that magnification factor that worries me. So you think it's more like 1.5 stops.....good news.....very good news.
D

 

[Tom Lowe]

Again, don't forget that even if the Epic FF35 is not ASA 1000 or whatever, by shooting a 6K RAW image, you have room for some serious noise reduction in post, which will allow you to boost ASA/ISO ratings while shooting. If you are finishing at 2K, the amount of noise reduction can be massive. But even posting at 4K, you can process the RAW files for noise reduction.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

As much as we whine about this shallower-focus issue of FF35, truth is that most DP's when asked if they'd like to shoot a feature in VistaVision or 65mm would jump at the chance, focus problems be damned -- IF there is a dramatic improvement in picture quality over S35. (Shooting for TV, well, there is less incentive to shoot 6K or FF35 if it creates more work that isn't going to be seen on TV.)

And yes, if the FF35 camera is practically a stop faster, then it's less of a deal, though the truth is that people often tend to light to the lowest level they can get away with. I was surprised to read that "Terminator Salvation" was lit and shot entirely at a T/2.0 -- for an action movie, that's rare, partly because you end up with so many cameras on stunts with T/2.8 zooms on them, plus action is hard to focus on.

I think the bigger impediment to using the whole FF35 sensor is going to be lack of cine optics, not the challenges of using a larger sensor, focus-wise. DP's are going to be less inclined to push to shoot an entire movie on a FF35 sensor if they have to use still camera lenses.

As far as the 1.50 : 1 aspect ratio of the FF35 sensor being an advantage for delivering multiple aspect ratios, compared to the 1.78 : 1 (16x9) S35 sensor, that's less of an issue unless you need a 4x3 image or want to shoot with 2X anamorphic lenses. Generally 16x9 is "square enough" to pull most other aspect ratios from without too much work. Plus it's hard to compose for multiple ratios or keep a big square sensor clear of junk if you are composing for 2.40, so at some point, it doesn't help to have a squarer sensor (except for anamorphic lenses.)