Is the future FF35?

[Daniel Browning]

And diffraction will not be the same.

You are mistaken. There is a reason why Group f/64 was able to shoot at such slow f-numbers, and the reason is format size. (Or, more technically, reproduction magnification.)

Diffraction is always an issue with light, of course, but it is only visually apparent at apertures below, say, f/11.

No. On small formats, such as 1/4" HD cameras, it is visually apparent even at f/4. Many such cameras don't even allow the user to stop down past f/8 because the effect of diffraction is so ruinous. Medium format photographers, on the other hand, routinely shoot f/22 and slower without batting an eye.

The reason for this is enlargement ratio (AKA reproduction magnification). For an HD 1/4" sensor (3.6x2.0mm) to fill an HD desktop monitor (660x371mm), it must be enlarged by a factor of 183X (660/3.6). A 2/3" sensor (9.6x5.4mm), on the other hand, is only enlarged 69X. A theoretical Medium Format sensor (90x50.6mm) would only be enlarged 7X.

The effect of this is that f-number perfectly scales with reproduction ratio. Smaller ratios (caused by larger formats) allow you to use narrower f-numbers and still get the same effect.

All of these have the exact same DOF, AOV, and diffraction:

• 7mm f/1.6 ISO 50 on the 1/4" Bayer sensor (3.6x2.0mm)
• 18.6mm f/4.7 ISO 360 on the 2/3" Bayer sensor (9.6x5.4mm)
• 21.6mm f/4.9 ISO 480 on the RED ONE in 2K mode (11.1x6.2mm)
• 43mm f/9.8 ISO 1900 the RED ONE (22.1x12.4mm)
• 70mm f/16 ISO 5000 on FF35 (36x20.3mm)

Even the noise will be the same, if they have the same sensor technology. You might think that there is no way a FF35 sensor at f/16 and ISO 5000 can match a 1/4" sensor at f/1.6 and ISO 50, but the 5D2 proves we're already there. (Practically. If the 5D2 didn't skip 1/3 rows, it would easily match the 1/4" Bayer sensors in video mode. For now you have to use still mode to see that it matches them).

Sure, we can stop down for more depth of field, but then we have to play with a whole different sort of lighting kit.

Again, that is a common misconception. You can use the *exact* same lighting kit. Underexposing the large format will give you the exact same amount of noise (and diffraction, DOF, etc.) as a normal exposure on the small format. But it will cost you more, and probably give you higher image quality (contrast, resolution, etc.).

 

[david farland]

cheers for checking

 

[david farland]

And diffraction will not be the same.
Stephen

Steve, little confused.....which is my mistake of course! By light diffraction at FF35 are you referring to light aberations (ie,chromatic, seidel) of lens....or something else? If it's lens, yes as you go wide with lg aperatures, the lens manufacturers sweat trying to get rid of these which is where aspherics, expensive coating/glass increase the cost. Next year with FF35 you'll notice the lack of this glass in the cine market.

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

I just now went and consulted with the Group f/64 photographers on my wall upstairs (Ansel Adams, Imogen Cunningham, and their good friends Paul Strand, Minor White, Wynn Bullock, and Frederick Sommer). And you want to know what they told me? Daniel Browning knows a whole lot more about this stuff than I do. But I've got the better art collection. So there.



Stephen

 

[Michael Hastings]

Steve, little confused.....which is my mistake of course! By light diffraction at FF35 are you referring to light aberations (ie,chromatic, seidel) of lens....or something else? If it's lens, yes as you go wide with lg aperatures, the lens manufacturers sweat trying to get rid of these which is where aspherics, expensive coating/glass increase the cost. Next year with FF35 you'll notice the lack of this glass in the cine market.

I'm not an expert but AFAIK it's not really involved with the quality of the lens element designs, coatings or whatever - diffraction is a physics thing having to do with the aperture (again just the size of the hole, not number of blades or style) relative to the sensor/film size.

Also AFAIK it is why you will see in some reviews that the sharpness of a particular lens, like some short tele macro lenses, is diffraction limited in that the glass is actually producing a sharper image than can pass through the particular aperture for the frame size it was designed.

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

What Michael said was what I was speaking of, but I'm not going to argue with Daniel.



Stephen

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

Try shooting the RED ONE at 2K, 24p, 1/48, 50mm T/2.8, ISO 160. Then compare it to RED ONE at 4K, 24p, 1/48, 100mm T/5.6, ISO 640. After you view them both at 2K you'll see that the DOF, noise, etc. is the same, despite the two-stop difference in T-stop.

Yes, your are right, proveread your theory. Much appreciated!

But... A SI2K (2/3 sensor) at 2K, 24p, 1/48, 50mm T/2.8, ISO 160 bares less noise than the RED ONE at 4K, 24p, 1/48, 100mm T/5.6, ISO 640 full debayer, downscaled to 2K.

I'm by now means an engineer but this is an easy to eyeball fact. Both cameras are RAW cameras. Perhaps I totally mislead but I must assume that your equation does work for windowing a sensor but not necessarily work for different sensor sizes.

Hans

 

[James T Mather]

I think if you are a hobbyist used to shooting portraiture style music videos with wafer thin DOF or pull focuses from trees to mountains with Sigur Ros playing in the background then yes FF35 DOF is going to be your holy grail because that's all your selling - DOF is your content. It's lens-geek porn with a limited general appeal (I guess because hobbyists have felt deprived of big-negative DOF for so long, I think it has maybe taken on a disproportionate significance.)

Also don't underestimate how difficult it is to pull focus with the larger neg (watch The Dark Knight interrogation scene and see that although lit up to t4 on 35mm anamorphic, the (world class) focus puller is just about catching Heath Leger move around (lots of soft in between - but do you want to be the guy to tell Heath Leger to calm down his performance so you can keep him sharp) - remember, the FP on TDK is at the top of his game and still working right at the edge - even in a simple 2 hander at a table.

As a drama format for movies/pro crews with professional, yet often technically impatient, directors and actors who are going to tire of being locked down on their marks and takes being blown for focus reasons, FF35 is going to be a much tougher sell. - one of the most common reasons for being sacked off a film is soft rushes - expect that to get more common, also focus pullers will take longer to get marks etc. S35/Anamorphic is plenty to be going on with IMVHO. FF35 doesn't make a vast amount of sense for most shooting work - perhaps the more technically curious directors for whom FF35 is part of the appeal and shooting a desert picture in daylight, maybe then, sure.

However, in a world of diminishing budgets - a stop and a half can be a lot in terms of the lighting & manpower required to achieve it in a studio - I know of a film in a recent big-budget series where the big-name DP blew his lighting budget by one and a half million dollars to light from 2.8/4 to 5.6 - that's a stop and a half.

He wasn't asked back for the sequel.

Bottom Line? S35 sized-neg will be technically more manageable and cost less to shoot generally and that's where the decisions will often be made - in the budget department.

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

Well said James,
but then the FF35 supporters will say that just stop down, the noise will be the same amount than with the S35 sensor, because it's a linear equation, etc... and choice is great.

Please take in account that the bigger the sensor the bigger the lens, especially if we talk about cine zooms which have all the known issues still zooms have ironed out such as no breathing, no ramping and maintaining focus throughout the range. A S35 10-1 zoom is above 5 Kilos. A similar zoom for FF35 will be even bigger. Personally I'm looking for smaller, more convenient lenses which allow handheld filming.

I'm not dissing FF35, on the contrary, but for the average film production handling S35mm is challenging enough.

Hans

 

[Tom Lowe]

You know, actual narrative cinema shooting accounts for probably 10% of what gets shot on these HD cameras. Is your biggest concern with FF35 really focus pulling? Because believe me, that will be figured out. How do people pull focus on anamorphic shows right now? Plus, there will also be new technology to aid with focus.

Once you really get a good look at what FF35 6K sensors can do, many will change their minds very quickly.

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

What James and Hans said. . .

Absolutely.

Stephen

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

You know, actual narrative cinema shooting accounts for probably 10% of what gets shot on these HD cameras. Is your biggest concern with FF35 really focus pulling? Because believe me, that will be figured out.

I do both (narrative cinema style and doc) and believe me there are only two big classic concerns: focus and exposure. While exposure is working well and hardly any errors occur many shots are soft. This has been an issue with 35mm and is with Red. I'll be happily the first who will use tools that are helpful in this regard. MiniDV-like autofocus doesn't cut it.

Yes, focus is the biggest concern, especially when shooting docs. And if we are into it: On most doc projects I use a S16 Canon 8-64 in 3K 2:1 mode and crop the footage down to 2.45K which matches the lens, gives headroom for full resolution 1080p and enough DOF to mangle all these unplanned moves of my talents.

Hans

 

[Stephen Williams]

How do people pull focus on anamorphic shows right now? Plus, there will also be new technology to aid with focus.

Once you really get a good look at what FF35 6K sensors can do, many will change their minds very quickly.

Hi Tom,

By lighting to T4 or greater, it's very expensive to do & the look often suffers IMO.

I think once people try FF35 & get burnt they will go back to S35 very quickly. Been shooting interviews with a 5DMK II, even with people seated it's a nightmare, looking forward to a 7D, I wont use a 5D again.

Stephen

 

[Tom Lowe]

Hi Tom,

By lighting to T4 or greater, it's very expensive to do & the look often suffers IMO.

I think once people try FF35 & get burnt they will go back to S35 very quickly. Been shooting interviews with a 5DMK II, even with people seated it's a nightmare, looking forward to a 7D, I wont use a 5D again.

Stephen

Hi Stephen, please make sure to set aside some Worcestershire sauce now, so you will be able to make a proper British meal of these words in the not-too-distant future. :laugh:

Light to T4? Why not switch the ISO/ASA up a notch instead? One benefit of the massive FF35 6K REDRAW image is the amount of noise that is lost on the downsample.

 

[James T Mather]

I don't dispute the option of FF35 is wonderful - I say shoot FF35 if you want. Hell, shoot Billboard size neg if it twists your top - knock yourselves out - but why do people act with such evangelical partisanship for technology. "I predicted FF35/Blu-Ray/Betamax/Edible-Cheese-Footwear ten years ago and people laughed then - but who's laughing now?".

It's a sensor size.

It doesn't need radical fundamentalism.

Hollywood doesn't want razor-thin depth-of-field necessarily - A moderately recent M. Night Shyamalan film had focus issues due to WFO shooting (despite being beautifully lit) - his subsequent film used another DP. With some big-name actors you get three takes. Period. If two of them are soft then tough luck pal. In a pro-shooting environment you need guarantees - so many shots a day, calculated schedules, time is money. If focus is costing you time, its a big thing (It's still the one thing we can't automate or fix in post AFAIK)

I can tell you as someone who oscillates between jobs on spherical and anamorphic - anamorphic is tougher:

Anamorphic needs four times the amount of light = a lot more electricians/ much bigger lights/ less DOF/ harder on focus/ bigger lenses which take longer to switch out due to size mismatching....

= fewer setups a day.

When the director needs 30 shots in one day and lens/lighting requirements push the Overtime into two hours - thats just cost production up to ten or twenty thousand. Multiply that by a feature film. It is a pretty serious consideration.

In the end of the day it's horses for courses - Baraka style pieces will, no doubt, benefit from FF35/IMAX sensors and films with other concerns might shoot S35 or even 2k if going for a more documentary feel - in the end of the day it's all about intent. Taking sides about it seems a bit like arguing about what spoon you eat the meal with to me. Important? Sure. But letting the tail wag the dog. If it suits your intention to shoot on soiled toilet paper then, I say, do it. (PS: wear gloves while loading

I feel pretty certain everything can coexist happily without a fatwa.

FF35 is a nice option to have. I agree but it's not something I have to take sides over.

 

[Steve Gibby]

I definitely respect the opinions that have been offered, but I differ somewhat in my viewpoint on FF35 options. Everyone’s opinion on this subject is necessarily filtered through their workplace experience, the styles of production they do, the genres they service, and their exposure, or lack thereof, to certain technologies and their uses.

In my opinion, FF35 penetration will be slow in the narrative cinema and other traditional cine-style production industries. Why? Legacy investments in lenses and accessories, traditional crew composition, frequent shallow DOF use, lack of FF35 cine lens options, and many more reasons. IMO, in time these obstacles will be overcome – but it won’t happen overnight.

So, what shooting style will quickly adopt FF35 in Epic and Scarlet? Non-narrative hybrid style pro-level production has already been practiced widely with RED One for over 2 years now – using 35mm stills lenses, small mobile crews, no matte boxes (screw on filters), no follow focus (hand racking lens barrels), eye focusing by the shooter using 1:1 image magnification, and exposing quickly using zebras and histogram.

Mobile genres adopting hybrid style production include wildlife, documentaries of various genres, alternative sports, nature, some music productions, tourism/travel, stock footage, corporate media, feature 2nd unit, some commercials, and on and on. DOF is generally medium to deep in these genres, although at times shallow DOF is used – especially in nature and wildlife production. Many of these productions also need FF35 stills from the same mobile crews. That has always involved bringing along a FF35 DSLR. But with the FF35 DSMC cameras, hybrid style in these genres, plus FF35 stills can be acquired with the same camera and lenses.

So what FF35 lenses have hybrid style professionals been using on RED One? 35mm stills lenses – Nikon, Canon, etc. There are a lot of professionals who own kits of high quality FF35mm stills lenses, who have traditionally worked in both motion media and stills work, want to maximize their FF stills lens potential, and who intend to work in both motion media and stills with the new FF35 cameras - Epic and Scarlet.

What FF35 lenses will hybrid pros use on FF35 Epic and FF35 DSMC Scarlet? If the announced mounts stay in the specs it will be the new RED Electronic Lenses, Nikon, and Canon. How will they focus them? All things are subject to change, but the RED 12/3 announcement for the RE Lenses listed auto-focus and image stabilization – critical features for certain types of 35m stills photography. Still photographers regularly switch between all manual, part manual, and all auto operation. IMO the new Nikon and Canon mounts will also be smart mounts that “talk” with those lenses. How much “talk”? Who knows? Will the AF and IS features also be operative in motion mode when using these 35mm stills lenses on Epic and Scarlet? We don’t know yet, but technology doesn’t stand still, and I think we’re in for some surprises when the specs are finalized for Epic and Scarlet. Are there some motion media genres, or portions thereof, where using some auto features is desirable? Yes – in certain hybrid and non-hardlined EFP genres some auto features are used widely – usually auto-iris in certain lighting conditions. Even auto-focus, if available, is sometimes used for certain shooting situations. Would cine-style crews use any auto features? No – but it’s simple, if you don’t need it, don’t use it.

Do FF35 lenses have to be giant? Yes - but only if we’re talking about a traditional technology cine lens. Do FF35 lenses using 35mm stills technology lenses have to be giant? No –and there are a myriad examples of that. Do all 35mm stills lenses ramp, change focus in a zoom, etc. No – and there are many examples of that.

Narrative cinema is great, and it gets a lot of press – but the fact is it is a drop in the bucket of the overall world total each year of professional motion media production. It’s a big motion media industry beyond narrative cinema, involving a lot of professionals with a broad diversity of needs. That's the beauty for this modular system of Epic and Scarlet - its modularity, flexibility, and resulting broad utility.

Let’s all keep open minds and when RED makes their announcement of the finalized specs for the Epic and Scarlet models, and we can get them in our hands for field testing. Then we can start to form some assumptions on what the cameras can do, what they can be used for, and the direction the various divisions of the convergent motion media and stills industries will take.

I respect those who work in all styles of media production. IMO we need a lot less turf protecting and finger pointing – and lot more open-mindedness and understanding of each other’s needs and workflows. We're all in the same overall family of image - generating professionals. There really is no universal “right” way to approach using RED One – and there won’t be with Epic and Scarlet either.

Peace guys…and have fun out there shooting…whatever styles you practice and genres you work in!

 

[James T Mather]

respect those who work in all styles of media production. IMO we need a lot less turf protecting and finger pointing – and lot more open-mindedness and understanding of each other’s needs and workflows. We're all in the same overall family of image - generating professionals. There really is no universal “right” way to approach using RED One – and there won’t be with Epic and Scarlet either.

Peace guys…and have fun out there shooting…whatever styles you practice and genres you work in!

Agreed.100%.

Best to all.

 

[Shawn Nelson]

If you asked every ASC member (or even stock footage shooters) a simple question: "Would you like to shoot your next serious picture on 65mm?"... what do you think the answer would be? My guess is that most of them would not only say Yes, but HELL YES.

FF35 is roughly 1/4 the size of 65mm. So FF35 is probably just a brief holdover until we get to "65mm" 645.

Can we get the title of this thread changed to "Is the future 645?":violent5:

 

[Stephen Williams]

Hi Stephen, please make sure to set aside some Worcestershire sauce now, so you will be able to make a proper British meal of these words in the not-too-distant future. :laugh:

Light to T4? Why not switch the ISO/ASA up a notch instead? One benefit of the massive FF35 6K REDRAW image is the amount of noise that is lost on the downsample.

Hi Tom,

I am interested to see how well the new sensors cope with tungsten light. It's really not clear what ISO will be usable, Red One is not renowned for its low light performance.

I really won't know until I test one for myself, however the Arri sensor I have seen working in very low light, making the Cooke Pancros @T.2.8 seem a very attractive proposition
.
Stephen

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

The reason all this S35/F35 discussion is relevant in the present context is because, hopefully, the good folks at RED are listening in. As it is now, RED has not announced an intention to create a S35 Monstro chip, just Mysterium-X. I think that's a mistake.

I would love a S35 Monstro for the added dynamic range. And cropping down a FF35 sensor isn't the answer, as the resolution drops on the crop. If we had a 5K S35 Monstro, however, we'd be right at a true 4K after debayering, and still have all the increased dynamic range that most of us indie folks are really craving.

Stephen