Has actual large-format cinematography ever been attempted?

[Björn Benckert]

http://www.richardgaleoptics.uk/forbes70-large-format/

 

[Eric Lange]

http://www.richardgaleoptics.uk/forbes70-large-format/

Clavius..---> "Moon roof" ---2001 Space Odyssey moon base (Name of)... "Clavius".

 

[Eric Lange]

What of the Canon beasty ?

Still Eadweard gets my vote having achieved large format dynamics 147-ish years ago Circa 1870s onwards.

Where did I put that Zoopraxiscope ? Saw it lying around here somewhere ...

^^^ Pocket version H2

 

[PatrickFaith]

The NSA,CIA and other abbreviations have those big things up in space (reversed Hubble's looking at you), but don't worry, you also paid for them.

The film camera's have been declassified finally, really cool. They are in museums and such now: http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/sr_sensors_pg1.htm

 

[Zack Birlew]

I thought the large format hack video looked really cool! It was almost 3D-like and I’m guessing it would sharpen up stopped down more than S35 and FF do and while keeping that 3D effect which is pretty cool. However, there is an added heft with large format and it will definitely make for a heavier setup. For now, I would say full frame and medium format would be the stopgap for cinema use and plenty will still prefer S35, it’s all just a creative choice in the end.

 

[Robert Hart]

It has been done, not by a large format sized sensor but by a ground-glass relay technique in the film Bellflower. The camera system was a meld of plate camera and the then new SI2K digital cinema camera and was named the Coatwolf Camera.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

There have been a few commercials and music videos shot over the years by rephotographing the image on the back of an 8x10 view camera, usually a groundglass screen, sometimes an image on a white surface, but the cameras used for the recording have varied in resolution, some have been 1080P HD cameras, at least a decade ago they were.

 

[Todd T]

The NSA,CIA and other abbreviations have those big things up in space (reversed Hubble's looking at you), but don't worry, you also paid for them.

You should see the ARGUS-IS; 1.8 Gigapixel images at about 3 frames per second..., and much more economical since it only requires a conventional aircraft, not an orbital vehicle.

 

[Sabovic Adis]

@2:50 1.000.000 TB a day?!

 

[Todd T]

@2:50 1.000.000 TB a day?!

All those gigapixels have to go someplace 

 

[Cameron McKinlay]

That's ^^^ Rhetorical I assume. (Non-quizzical) .

The original question was "why shoot large format video?"...the answer is the same for why people like Ansel Adams shot large format photography. Aesthetics. Also, Just like why do people shoot on IMAX or Alexa 65's or MONTROS.

 

[Misha Engel]

Aesthetics.

Really? can you explain that?

 

[Robert Hart]

If I could convince Hien Le, the designer-guru side of Letus Corp to design and build a plate-camera sized ground-glass relay imaging system to integrate with the RED DSMC and BM URSA camera families via a PL-Mount attachment, would anyone really want to buy them in enough numbers to warrant the effort? - Possibly not. - It might be worth surveying.

The effective ISO of cameras would be diminished in the order of 0.7 - 1.5 of a stop and approximately 2/3rds of the full effective area of the ground-glass would likely not be usable due to the characteristic dimming of the image corners which would be aggravated by the larger format lenses and their typically narrower available apertures. Apparent resolution/sharpness could be expected to be in the ballpark of about 4K for a 5 micron dressing of the ground-glass or better depending on the texture of the ground-glass and how much trade-off in the form of darkened corners and halo outlines is acceptable.

A five micron dressing with a beeswax layer or a 3 micron dressing can give sharper pleasing results but the halo artifact and corner vignette is not avoidable except by reducing the scanned area of the ground-glass smaller which defeats the purpose of using the device.

This was about as good as it got with a ground-glass adaptor on the SI2K at 2048 x 1152 engineered by Dennis Woods at Cinevate.

With unassisted lighting on the Sony EX1 with Letus Extreme

 

[Michael Tiemann]

Large-format offers a unique aesthetic, that's why.

This is obviously just a hack, but I really love the look:

Did you bother to watch the video? [...]

[...]Yep, in January 2018

The original question was "why shoot large format video?"...the answer is the same for why people like Ansel Adams shot large format photography. Aesthetics. [...]

Really? can you explain that?

Did you bother to watch the video?[...]

We have a Matthew 13:13 situation here in the forum. I repeat, Matthew 13:13.

 

[Eric Lange]

The reason WHY I shoot larger formats is to capture more physical detail per shot...

Two dimensionally or three dimensionally... For stuff we do and need to do + reality capture that high number of well resolved (think combined system MTF) is really critical.

Same if you want to do reality capture dynamically...

Frame rate + global shutter effects will also play a part.

If you want and need near to 100M photo sites / frame then probably you gonna need a larger sensor.

Some true large format Digital sensors cost the Earth and are not so practical for more common commercial use.

 

[Eric Lange]

If I could convince Hien Le, the designer-guru side of Letus Corp to design and build a plate-camera sized ground-glass relay imaging system to integrate with the RED DSMC and BM URSA camera families via a PL-Mount attachment, would anyone really want to buy them in enough numbers to warrant the effort? - Possibly not. - It might be worth surveying.

The effective ISO of cameras would be diminished in the order of 0.7 - 1.5 of a stop and approximately 2/3rds of the full effective area of the ground-glass would likely not be usable due to the characteristic dimming of the image corners which would be aggravated by the larger format lenses and their typically narrower available apertures. Apparent resolution/sharpness could be expected to be in the ballpark of about 4K for a 5 micron dressing of the ground-glass or better depending on the texture of the ground-glass and how much trade-off in the form of darkened corners and halo outlines is acceptable.

A five micron dressing with a beeswax layer or a 3 micron dressing can give sharper pleasing results but the halo artifact and corner vignette is not avoidable except by reducing the scanned area of the ground-glass smaller which defeats the purpose of using the device.

This was about as good as it got with a ground-glass adaptor on the SI2K at 2048 x 1152 engineered by Dennis Woods at Cinevate.

With unassisted lighting on the Sony EX1 with Letus Extreme

The effective ISO of cameras would be diminished in the order of 0.7 - 1.5 of a stop and approximately 2/3rds of the full effective area of the ground-glass would likely not be usable due to the characteristic dimming of the image corners which would be aggravated by the larger format lenses and their typically narrower available apertures.

As you probably know there are radially gradated center filters to compensate for some of the "Dimming in the image corners"...

These rigs could be fun to build...


I have different glass back formats from 4x 5 " to 13x 18 cm (130 mm x 180 mm) 5" x 7" ... and 60 mm x 90 mm and 60 x 80 mm and a whole bunch of these that have glass backs + separate viewable ground screen and hood that can be inserted.

^^^ Wild Heerburg P-32 format 60mm x 90 mm or 80 mm

Larger format Wild _Heerburg camera closer to 4" x 5"

Larger format ^^^ Wild Heerburg camera closer to 4" x 5" notice radially gradated center filter and different focal lengths of lens.






May not necessarily be required to go full on 8" x 10" to achieve the same effect ? but I guess one of the reasons to go to the approach of shooting reprographically what is on a ground glass screen is to achieve a "special" effect that has interesting artifacts ... and unusual capabilities.


____________________________________________________________________

^^^ " Groovy Baby !"

A lot of these systems might superficially look slightly ancient but these are some of the most accurate lenses ever made.

 

[Misha Engel]

We have a Matthew 13:13 situation here in the forum. I repeat, Matthew 13:13.

Fairy tale for around 2.4 billion people, wtf happened to science?

FF35 (36x24) 50 mm f1.4 ~ S35 (24x18) 35.36mm f1 ~ MFT (18x12) 25mm f0.71 ~ Sort of Medium Format (48x36) 70.7 mm f2 ~ Large Format (72x48) 100 mm f2.8 ~ Very Large Format (96x72) 141 mm f4 ~ Extreme Large Format (144x96) 200 mm f5.6 ~ Ultimate Format (196x144) 283 mm f8 ~ Out of control Format (288x196) 400 mm f11 ~ etc.... all give the same end result

 

[Michael Tiemann]

Misha,

I have several Canon EOS Tilt-Shift Lenses. They are very nice, but they are also somewhat fiddly, due to their mechanically congested design. They also have serious limitations when it comes to tilt/shift combinations, when compared with the articulations possible with large-format systems. It is often very useful to tilt and shift the image plane rather than the front lens. Such movements are very impractical with SLR-style T/S lenses. Of course it is possible to keep repositioning the camera until the desired combination of front and real tilt and shift are accomplished, but this is by no means "smooth". What I saw as remarkable in the video is not about more pixels (per se) or the fiction that larger-format lenses render images with a nicer perspective than smaller-format lenses. (Elsewhere I've done my best to debunk that myth.) But what smaller-format systems don't presently offer (that I've seen) that larger-format systems do offer is the ultimate in flexibility as to how to play with near and far focal planes and the convergence/divergence of perspective. The aforementioned video (which uses a mere SI2K imaging system to read off the matte white card) makes it clear that the large-format image is not about gigapixel resolution or the pseudo-science about larger-format lenses having a 3d effect; it's all about using the movements of the platform to bring additional dimensions to the imaging party that are wonderful and exciting, which they demonstrate very convincingly.

 

[Misha Engel]

Michael.

Large format is not the same as fiddeling with lenses (creating distortions).
There is no technical reason that you can't get the same output with small sensors compared to what you can get with large sensors (always within certain limitations).

Lenses these days are so advanced that 8.3k FF35 (45MP) is no problem anymore, same counts for 11.6k medium format (100MP 53.4 x 40.0mm).

 

[Michael Tiemann]

I'm talking about ergonomics that lead to aesthetics. I don't disagree with the principals of optical/imaging equivalence. But at a practical level, if you want to exercise the aesthetics of tilt/shift/swing, a nice bellows-based system that gives the hands and fingers room to move is a nice thing.