Is the future FF35?

[Joe G.]

Don't know or care what "most" will do. I want FF35, and I want film's dynamic range.

It's not like you can't shoot any lens you want on the FF35 cameras. And you can combine different resolutions all you want. Some shots cry out for the most resolution possible.

I don't think Nolan was unhappy about his 65mm Dark Night shots.

What the hell's the problem?

I see none.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Shawn once I get home I can post some examples. There is simply no comparison. The best thing to do is just to try it for yourself and see. There is a very, very good reason why pros shoot on FF35 DSLRs, not crop sensors. These same reasons generally apply to motion shooting.

Massive, massive image quality gains. Stunning ISO gains, incredible DOF, better DR, breathtaking detail, huge reductions in noise thanks to downsampling, and the list goes on and on.

 

[J. Bernard Vallon]

Remember epic s35 is 5k, meaning 4k rgb, sharper than red. It is an image boost. and shooting s35 on epic ff35 is nearly 4k rgb, and shooting full aperture ff35 has its drawbacks - big ones.

We recently shot a film on ultraprimes, most of the movie was WTFO on 32, 50, and 85. After seeing the rough cut, the DP and 1st AC told me they felt like the DOF was TOO shallow, that the racks were so frequent they felt it was distracting. Not to mention, despite the best intentions of every good 1st, some of the final cut will be soft, more so than if we had the stop to muster a 2.8

ff35 means anamorphic level of DOF, and most anamorphic movies are shot at f4+ for just that reason. Lots of movies dont have the light package to muster that stop. This isnt just an generic "image quality" decision, your making a choice about the look of the film, and the tools needed to make it look just so.

 

[Tom Lowe]

John, that is why ASA/ISO ratings are incredibly important to all of this. No discussion of this issue ever goes far before light sensitivity ratings are brought to the forefront, along with lens availability. There is a great deal of speculation that Monstro FF35 will present very significant gains in ASA/ISO ratings, which will give DPs even more options for controlling DOF.

 

[Shawn Nelson]

John, that is why ASA/ISO ratings are incredibly important to all of this. No discussion of this issue ever goes far before light sensitivity ratings are brought to the forefront, along with lens availability. There is a great deal of speculation that Monstro FF35 will present very significant gains in ASA/ISO ratings, which will give DPs even more options for controlling DOF.

But what good is double the sensitivity if you now need to be around f2.8/f4 just to get reasonable focus?

 

[Tom Lowe]

For girly crews who are afraid they cannot hold focus, you only need to gain about a stop and a half ASA to compensate for the FF35 DOF. That should be no problemo. I think it will all work out just fine. :beer:

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Massive, massive image quality gains. Stunning ISO gains, incredible DOF, better DR, breathtaking detail, huge reductions in noise thanks to downsampling, and the list goes on and on.

But Tom... ISO, DR and resolution.. are not directly related to FF35. Those are properties of the camera / sensor and not the format or size of the imaging area.

I do agree with you that the EPIC FF35 is going to be the flagship camera. That is the model I want. It will give me the freedom to shoot FF35 stills and motion, which I very much want to do. I think for mainstream production, S35 is not going away anytime soon. And to me, the EPIC FF35 is the perfect S35 camera!!! The larger sensor gives more options and abilities when shooting anamorphic, the ability to choose arbitrary frame sizes and orientations (which has been mentioned as a potential ability of EPIC) -- think of shooting vertically oriented footage without turning the camera on its side, for a simplistic answer.

FF35 is no doubt going to offer huge gains and become a highly desired new format. Final delivery and displays don't need to change to accommodate it. I'm not sure what people are trying to say when they mention that. Of course, with 4K projection and upcoming 4K displays, extra resolution will be nice, but we're going to get that along with the continued evolution of image sensors and not just due to a larger format.

Actually when I look at upcoming cameras, I really want Scarlet FF35 along with a fixed-lens Scarlet. Then for Epic, I want the 645. That 645 is going to be the monster workhorse machine, offering the best of all worlds with a frame size approaching that of 70/15 IMAX, much bigger than 65mm, but offering high frame rates at FF35 size and below.

FF35 is just another tool in the toolbox or format to choose from. I don't see mainstream production flocking to it. Just look at the number of great looking films being shot with 2/3" cameras.

 

[Scott C.]

There is a great deal of speculation that Monstro FF35 will present very significant gains in ASA/ISO ratings, which will give DPs even more options for controlling DOF.

Right, I wouldn't think of it as "...even more options", rather 500 ISO will put an FF camera on par with s35 systems in terms of DoF, as well as narrowing the differences between shooting Red and current film stocks. I'd say that 500 ISO the magic number for gaining acceptance.

For girly crews who are afraid they cannot hold focus....

Whoa, duck... :gun:

 

[Tom Lowe]

Of course, with 4K projection and upcoming 4K displays, extra resolution will be nice, but we're going to get that along with the continued evolution of image sensors and not just due to a larger format.

But what happens is, you begin to hit a wall at the APS-C/S35 sensor size, in terms of your ability to pack in large numbers of photosites while maintaining great DR and ISO/ASA ratings. For example, Canon really hit a brick wall at 15mp with their 50D. You just can't keep cramming more and more pixels onto a relatively small sensor like S35. At some point, you run out of real estate.

So, if you want to produce stunning 20mp or 25mp "6K" images (to finish at 4K RGB), then you really might need the FF35.

I agree with you about wanting an FF35 Epic, plus a fixed-lens Scarlet. That's sort of my dream right now, if I can afford it.

Scott, ISO 500 is for girly men! We should be talking about ISO 1000 or 1600! :sifone:

 

[Tim Lüdin]

yeah Tom you are right. With the new Monstro sensors, maybe 5D2 like, we will all gain great flexebility ISO/Gain wise.

Of course FF will be harder to pull focus with the lenses wide open but with a 5d2 sensor you can easily stop down to f4 or more and lift ISO ab bit with no draw backs.

FF finaly gives me the DOF I'm used to from my 35mm still cams. That's great.
If you want to work in S35 you still can use the crop mode and work with all the RPPs and PL lenses.

FF Epic is gonna rule.

Tim

 

[Tom Lowe]

Tim, you are a wise man as usual!

 

[JD Holloway]

Of course FF will be harder to pull focus with the lenses wide open but with a 5d2 sensor you can easily stop down to f4 or more and lift ISO ab bit with no draw backs.

Not mentioned yet is that this puts lenses closer to their "sweet spot" for Rez/MTF, while maintaining nice shallow DoF.

 

[Zaphod]

For girly crews who are afraid they cannot hold focus, you only need to gain about a stop and a half ASA to compensate for the FF35 DOF. That should be no problemo. I think it will all work out just fine. :beer:

You realise that one stop is double the light don't you?

A stop and a half is literally multiplying the lighting budget by three times.

 

[Shane Betts]

As sensor technology improves, ISO numbers will continue to increase and, indeed, the ability to set exposure by changing ISO around the desired stop & shutter angle. Lighting budgets are already impacted by the lower DR of digital sensors requiring more careful lighting than neg - but, again, as sensors improve this will dissipate.

So, whilst that means bugger-all right now I believe that, as FF sensored cameras start to make their presence felt in cinematography, these factors might just soften the blow somewhat. It would be a joy to have a camera with a FF35 sensor with more DR than neg and ISO's from 50 - 64,000 with little noticeable difference over a 3 or 4 stop change.

 

[Jaime Vallés]

Given that one could buy an S35 Scarlet package and a full set of RED Pro Primes for the cost of the FF35 Epic brain, I have a feeling many will be sticking with S35 for a while.

EDIT: Nevermind, I keep forgetting that there's a FF35 Scarlet brain for $9750, so as long as high frame rates aren't a necessity, FF35 cinema is relatively affordable as well. However, I still believe we'll be shooting most movies over the next 10 years in S35 format.

 

[David Rasberry]

With an FF35 setup you can always shoot the S35 formats cropped when you need the extra DOF or to match a production work flow.

 

[Michael Hastings]

I agree with you about wanting an FF35 Epic, plus a fixed-lens Scarlet. That's sort of my dream right now, if I can afford it.

Maybe you should turn that around - maybe best value would be Epic-X for the best bang for the buck (includes accessory package) gives you the frame rates and REDCODE 250 with S35 sensor that uses all of the current lenses, "Normal" S35 cine DOF, etc. and then get a FF35 scarlet for the shoots that don't need the high speed. With the included accessories it seems like you could have the BOTH bodies for what you would have to spend for the Epic FF35 ($33K or an add'l $5K ) plus $3K or so for CF, I/O and battery modules.

 

[Jason Wingrove]

Excellent question david.... YES


-

 

[Shane Betts]

For me, the biggest reasons to go FF35 would be 1, for anamorphic (as a 4 perf crop) and 2, for stills. That said, I'm still torn between the two Scarlets. Might depend on which one I can afford when they finally ship. At this point that means a cardboard cutout of an EpicX:nopity:

 

[Mark K.]

Having seen quite a number of recent feature films shot in 1080p HD (on 2/3" sensor cameras no less!) that looked visually stunning projected on regular suburban cinema screens. I'm sticking by my assertion that we've already reached a point of diminishing returns in regards to image quality. When you can have a s35mm film pristinely scanned at 2K, and then projected digitally at 2K (so it maintains that pristine appearance) and have it look absolutely gorgeous on a LARGE cinema screen - how much of difference is four times that resolution going to make? Are audiences going to care? Are they even going to notice? I'm not at all convinced they will.

At which point the notion of quadrupling the amount of data you have to deal with (and absorbing all of the costs that are associated with that) seems pretty unnecessary.