Large Format Depth of Field

[Peter Lyons Collister ASC]

Just an FYI John Schwartzman has shot his last two films using DXL2 shooting at a T/4-5.6 split except for some closeups of actors where he will go to T/5.6 or deeper

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

There you go Peter. That is something to consider for sure....

 

[Douglas Underdahl]

I agree with Schartzman, Peter. I think that 4-5.6 split is the answer. How to get there? I think I would do a combo of opening up the shutter to 1/32 and increase ISO to get that extra stop or stop and a half. I find myself shooting at 1/32 all the time and haven't noticed any motion artifacts from this practice. My Epic MX looks good at ISO 1600- that's just where I start to notice noise, but most viewers don't. Any higher and I use Neat Video which seems to be a modern miracle for eliminating noise. I haven't used Monstro VV but I bet that noise is less of a problem.

I think my "standard" lens with Monstro would be 70mm or thereabouts. I'm always at 28-35mm for 4KHD so I think 70mm would be standard lens for VV. You can go wider to get more depth of field, but if you keep the subject the same size in the frame, you don't gain depth of field actually. And leading talent looks better at 35 than 25 in CU, so . . .

 

[Michael Hastings]

Just an FYI John Schwartzman has shot his last two films using DXL2 shooting at a T/4-5.6 split except for some closeups of actors where he will go to T/5.6 or deeper

Without going down the rabbit hole of the scientific discussion of S35 vs VV with equivalent FOV and DOF (Given the faster S35 generally available) where I couldn't tell exactly where we landed (i.e. difference or no difference) - Just intuitively given Monstro vs Helium which is significantly larger than S35 it seems to me the difference would be pretty subtle - what is it that he thinks he is getting by shooting the larger format and stopping down?

I get that Monstro is supposed to be better in some tonal things, but two thoughts:

1) I am getting a little annoyed at some of what I perceive as TOO shallow depth of field in some commercials I have seen and it seems to me the whole super shallow DOF thing has been overused already.

2) A year and a half ago the Helium sensor was the greatest thing since sliced bread, Historic high DXOMARK, better sensitivity and colors. etc. Now it seems like Helium is the redheaded stepchild and Monstro is the amazing big brother.

Is there really a dramatic difference in quality or is it close enough that the way it is processed is more likely to show a difference and they could be easily matched with the subtleties so small that no one really can tell much difference? Is it enough to justify the disadvantages of fewer lens choices and bigger lighting setups when the trend for years has been the other way?

How much is marketing to justify the huge (after recent adjustments) price difference?

For example: If one looks at Mark Toia's demos or other things shot with Helium - they are phenomenally good images. How much better would they be on Monstro?

 

[Phil Holland]

Without going down the rabbit hole of the scientific discussion of S35 vs VV with equivalent FOV and DOF (Given the faster S35 generally available) where I couldn't tell exactly where we landed (i.e. difference or no difference) - Just intuitively given Monstro vs Helium which is significantly larger than S35 it seems to me the difference would be pretty subtle - what is it that he thinks he is getting by shooting the larger format and stopping down.

I get that Monstro is supposed to be better in some tonal things, but two thoughts:

1) I am getting a little annoyed at some of what I perceive as TOO shallow depth of field in some commercials I have seen and it seems to me the whole super shallow DOF thing has been overused already.

2) A year and a half ago the Helium sensor was the greatest thing since sliced bread, Historic high DXOMARK, better sensitivity and colors. etc. Now it seems like Helium is the redheaded stepchild and Monstro is the amazing big brother.

Is there really a dramatic difference in quality or is it close enough that the way it is processed is more likely to show a difference and they could be easily matched with the subtleties so small that no one really can tell much difference? Is it enough to justify the disadvantages of fewer lens choices and bigger lighting setups when the trend for years has been the other way?

How much is marketing to justify the huge (after recent adjustments) price difference?

1. That's more of a sign of the times and a recent trend I think. Recent in the last 10 years in particular that is.

2. Helium is still a really great slice of bread.

I've shot with both Monstro and Helium side by side.

The greatest trick that RED has done in the digital cinema camera market is to give you choices. In the case of 2018, you have 3 premium cameras when it comes down to it.

- Monstro 8K VV: Large format VistaVision 8K at up to 60fps FF, S35 6K-5K, best all around image quality
- Helium 8K S35: Super 35mm 8K at up to 60fps FF, extremely useful if your focus is filming with S35 glass, S16 sized shooting is very doable for those who like that look and finishing out at higher res.
- Gemini 5K: Super 35mm 5K at up to 75fps using a larger height sensor more ideal for anamorphic shooting with dual sensitivity

I'm a Monstro man myself as I'm working in 8K and enjoy the hell out of large format and like the idea of 5K/6K in S35 filming. If I was starting to film a documentary tomorrow I'd likely grab a Gemini if I was finishing out to 4K. Working on perhaps an episodic with S35 glass, probably a Helium.

That's the hardest part for people to wrap their heads around really is the choices RED has given. All 3 of these sensors are being used on productions right now, heck, so are the previous generations as well.

 

[Michael Hastings]

Those are good answers Phil, but part of my question was what did Schwartzman expect he was getting over say a helium? Was it just the subtle tonal improvements of Monstro or is it really something beyond which is strictly due to the physical size of the sensor/film format?

 

[Peter Lyons Collister ASC]

I don't pretend to speak for John Schwartzman but he has used film for 3 films in the past 5 years, and then Alexa and also we shot Red for Spiderman. Now he is enamored with the VV size of DXL2 (Monstro) with some of Dan Sasaki's fine Panavision large format customized lens conversions. These are exciting times. Just like in the 60's when we had fewer choices but some big films could shoot in 65mm. We are so lucky to have more than 20 different lens choices, we have several cameras in both S35 and VV and 65mm digital. AND we could be lucky enough to shoot on 35mm film.
Pretty cool!

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

1) I am getting a little annoyed at some of what I perceive as TOO shallow depth of field in some commercials I have seen and it seems to me the whole super shallow DOF thing has been overused already.

It's a kind of social signalling. "Look at me, I do this too!" And it shows that a lot of people don't really have their own voices. They are just parroting other people's. Listen to Super 8 enthusiasts. They just love the format, even if they don't currently use it. They aren't usually interested in affectations (though sadly, low-fidelity imagery is somewhat overdone as well).

- Monstro 8K VV: Large format VistaVision 8K at up to 60fps FF, S35 6K-5K, best all around image quality
- Helium 8K S35: Super 35mm 8K at up to 60fps FF, extremely useful if your focus is filming with S35 glass, S16 sized shooting is very doable for those who like that look and finishing out at higher res.
- Gemini 5K: Super 35mm 5K at up to 75fps using a larger height sensor more ideal for anamorphic shooting with dual sensitivity

If I could pick any of these, cost aside, I'd pick Gemini. Gemini can do pretty much ANYTHING. High resolution, high DR, low light, no problem. Pick your image circle and go. No digital cinema sensor is that dynamic. Not Helium, not Monstro, not Alev III, nothing.

Of course if you're shooting for IMAX you'd want the 8K sensors. But even then, Gemini could still compete.

We are so lucky to have more than 20 different lens choices, we have several cameras in both S35 and VV and 65mm digital. AND we could be lucky enough to shoot on 35mm film.
Pretty cool!

And that's just the half of it.

 

[Misha Engel]

Those are good answers Phil, but part of my question was what did Schwartzman expect he was getting over say a helium? Was it just the subtle tonal improvements of Monstro or is it really something beyond which is strictly due to the physical size of the sensor/film format?

Phil should be able to answer that question in the best possible way, but I think he can't answer that question for other reasons.
Having only played with Helium once(rental) I loved the output, tweaked the tonal's a bit to our(customer) likings in Resolve.
When you want the same DoV and FoV as the Monstro, get yourself a speedmount(EF and/or PL) they are on sale now.

I think the Helium(+ optional speedmount) is the most versatille camera you can buy/rent at the moment.
The Speedmount not only gives you a comparable DoV and FoV to Monstro (5mm Monstro vs. 3.65 x sqrt2=5.16mm Helium pixel pitch) but also almost 1 stop more of light(hence lower iso and higher S/N-ratio).

Brian Caldwell sure gave the industry another nice tool.

 

[Phil Holland]

Phil should be able to answer that question in the best possible way, but I think he can't answer that question for other reasons.

Nah. I don't mind rapping for a minute more on this one, there's nothing to hide. Heck you've seen my tests online here too.

Monstro is clearly the top tier sensor technology offered by RED at the moment, which is certainly clear in the price point as well. I've tested, owned, and used the other offerings as well. For my personal creative efforts and professional needs of larger format and 8K resolution, Monstro 8K VV fits me well. It "overall" produces the highest quality image.

Much like my previous answer, RED is offering things that might better fit other's needs. I know people who aren't looking to explore 8K, and Gemini 5K S35 in particular hits that mark. I also know a lot of people who aren't very interested in larger format, but do want to finish out to a real high quality 4K or 8K delivery, hence Helium 8K S35. And for those who are interested in that larger image plane and what comes with that, bingo there's Monstro.

Dynamic Range is subtly different across all three sensors, all 3 capture a great deal of Total Captured DR. Noise Floor is different for all 3 slightly. Gemini is the unique camera at the moment as it's the newest beast with Dual ISO Sensitivity Modes. If you are shooting well with all three, color-wise you'd be hard pressed to truly find much of a difference. Which is also the reason you see all 3 sensors being used on productions really. Noise structure has a bit of variation on the top end for all 3.

This is one of those no one answer is going to help everybody out there moments. I like Monstro as it holds that neato pixel pitch that works so well in relationship to motion picture film as well, though we are certainly out resolving film even there.

The real tricky one for me in particular was discovering Monstro's improvements over Dragon as I was in the rather rare position to have both 8K VV sensors for a hot minute, and yep, Monstro has more DR and a notable improvement in color overall. Hard to quantify that without writing a book, but on a per pixel basis Monstro contains more color info and is more linear in response. Heh, and let me tell you, I loved/love Dragon, that wasn't the easiest few months. Jarred and Brent got to see me spinning around testing all the things and chewing off my fingernails in the process.

Interestingly I worked this year with all 3 sensors at this point. Helium a month ago, Gemini a bit before that for a quicky. Monstro all year so far.


I guess the other notable thing is I've tested Monstro against the other large format offerings out there, it's the best beast in the sea for me when it comes to image quality and *controversial point* usability. It's my favorite digital cinema camera at the moment. Somebody recently was joking "why don't you get a Xenomorph like Fincher" and I replied "that's too damn big for me". Heh. Ranger through Bayhem though..... Something in that wheelhouse is highly attractive for narrative for me.

Jarred and various other people at RED know the other features I want in the future. I have pretty clear ideas of some of what's next, but I have to say extreme kudos go to RED for two major things.

- Going 8K for Digital Cinema (they already hit it out of the park with 5K and 6K earlier)
- Breaching the Large Format waters with VV well before other companies knew there was a whole world outside of the sea.
- Also, I got some mad love about DSMC2 style bodies being so small and I haven't missed plugging my LCDs or EVFs in with cables for sure.
- IPP2 is a big deal.

 

[Misha Engel]

Dynamic Range is subtly different across all three sensors, all 3 capture a great deal of Total Captured DR. Noise Floor is different for all 3 slightly. Gemini is the unique camera at the moment as it's the newest beast with Dual ISO Sensitivity Modes. If you are shooting well with all three, color-wise you'd be hard pressed to truly find much of a difference. Which is also the reason you see all 3 sensors being used on productions really. Noise structure has a bit of variation on the top end for all 3.

Many camera's are using Dual ISO Sensitivity Modes these days but only one is getting 14+ stops over the entire sensitivity range from EI 160 to EI 3200. Is there a patent on this technique or is rocket science? All Dual ISO mode camera's have two analog circuits but only one of them uses both circuits at the same time(and still has the best high-light roll-off).

 

[Phil Holland]

Many camera's are using Dual ISO Sensitivity Modes these days but only one is getting 14+ stops over the entire sensitivity range from EI 160 to EI 3200. Is there a patent on this technique or is rocket science? All Dual ISO mode camera's have two analog circuits but only one of them uses both circuits at the same time(and still has the best high-light roll-off).

The Dual ISO is not where the highlight roll-off comes from in this case, but there are also some drawbacks with that method.

There are several cameras now that have more captured dynamic range than the one you're talking about as has been demonstrated a bunch in the last 5 years or so.

Measured tonal stops gets real fuzzy when we are dealing with different contrast levels as well, but I'll exit stage right on that note.

 

[Peter Lyons Collister ASC]

Phil,

Really appreciate you giving us all here your knowledge and experience Phil.

Looking forward to shooting a lot more Monstro when I finish this film up in BC.

Much fun lens discussions to be had.

Cheers,

Peter

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

The Dual ISO is not where the highlight roll-off comes from in this case, but there are also some drawbacks with that method.

That's too bad Phil it was getting interesting. You must have some pretty cool info from the source. I always thought the highlight rolloff came from the dual circuitry pixel merging.... Maybe some day...

 

[Phil Holland]

Phil,

Really appreciate you giving us all here your knowledge and experience Phil.

Looking forward to shooting a lot more Monstro when I finish this film up in BC.

Much fun lens discussions to be had.

Looking forward to it Peter. It's been a while!

 

[Björn Benckert]

That's too bad Phil it was getting interesting. You must have some pretty cool info from the source. I always thought the highlight rolloff came from the dual circuitry pixel merging.... Maybe some day...

Rolloff is not a sensor thing its a curves in color procesing thing. Camera is still recording linear on all boards even when doing dual iso and blending them like some camera do.

A wider DR provides more room for highlights and will render them in a nicer way when rounding them off. Basically with a wide DR, provided from one or two readouts does not matter, lets you be more waistfull with the sensor capasity. More room left above whats displayed as white and below whats black.

 

[Misha Engel]

Basically with a wide DR, provided from one or two readouts does not matter, lets you be more waistfull with the sensor capasity. More room left above whats displayed as white and below whats black.

With one analog circuit set to lets say 3200 ISO and the other to 160 ISO you can measure the clipping point at the 3200 ISO and proces this in such a way that you will never have clipping(upto the 160 ISO setting) and get a nice roll-off.
The DR of the sensor doesn't change.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Rolloff is not a sensor thing its a curves in color procesing thing. Camera is still recording linear on all boards even when doing dual iso and blending them like some camera do.

A wider DR provides more room for highlights and will render them in a nicer way when rounding them off. Basically with a wide DR, provided from one or two readouts does not matter, lets you be more waistfull with the sensor capasity. More room left above whats displayed as white and below whats black.

I thought they were just compressing more stops above middle gray for more luma fidelity and "sweetened" it with a blip of low ISO pixels replacing the blown ones. All in real time... There is another aspect I learned in recent conversation with ARRI executive but I'm not sure I can talk about it...

 

[Björn Benckert]

I thought they were just compressing more stops above middle gray for more luma fidelity

Yes that is the better description of what Im trying to say. The DR they got is a combo of two readouts but its still two linear readouts that they combind.

 

[Jens Jakob Thorsen]

Huh???


Shooting Format = ARRI Alexa 65 Alev III - Open Gate
Format Size = 54.12x25.58mm (59.86mm image circle)

Relative Format = Kodak Film - 65mm 5-Perf
Format Size = 52.63x23.01mm (57.44mm image circle)

And as explained and shown by Yedlin....

https://shotonwhat.com/the-sound-of-music-1965

Yes Phil is confused...