Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Sensor size + Cinema

L

Liam O'Prey

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Realistically, what kind of quality will we get from the ⅔ sensor and 3k resolution? Can anyone name any films that have been released in theaters and shot with the same size sensor and resolution?

Thanks
 
Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

Shot with the Silicon Imaging SI-2K which uses a 2K CMOS sensor.
 
The modern Star Wars movies that were shot digitally were 2/3" as was Benjamin Button. I don't think 2/3" will stop you getting a superb image, nor will 3k resolution. There's no reason why it won't look utterly superb.

Graeme
 
Graeme Nattress said:
The modern Star Wars movies that were shot digitally were 2/3" as was Benjamin Button.

Graeme
Click to expand...

Graeme,
to be totally accurate, not inconsequential details, keep in mind that both movies were shot with 3CCD cameras 6M pixel and 9M pixel imagers and Star wars used Fuji "E" lenses and that BB was shot in Filmstream AND Zeiss DigiPrimes. These details do matter in what we saw on the screen. DOF was the same however.
 
But the first Star Wars shot digitally (Attack of the Clones) used the Panavision lenses and was recorded to 3:1:1 1440x1080 HDCAM.

Also, when it comes to pixels, it's not just how many, it's what you do with them and how they're arranged. In the end, it's the image produced that counts, which is why I can say " There's no reason why it won't look utterly superb."

Graeme
 
Will you be able to use the miniprimes on the larger sensor scarlets?
 
Geez, what about AVATAR?

There have been SO many features shot on 2/3" cameras -- too many independent films to list -- I shot eight myself.

Among the bigger names, there has been:
Star Wars: Attack of the Clones
Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith
Once Upon a Time in Mexico
Spy Kids 2 and 3D
Sin City
Zodiac
Benjamin Button
Collateral
Miami Vice
Public Enemies
Speed Racer
Youth Without Youth
Tetro
Home of the Brave
Tristam Shandy
Bubble
Cloverfield
 
NChaparro said:
Will you be able to use the miniprimes on the larger sensor scarlets?
Click to expand...

The mini-primes are "mini" because they are smaller -- because they only have to cover the smaller 2/3" sensor. They probably will vignette on the S35 Scarlet sensor, except maybe the longest focal lengths.

You can use a lens designed to cover a larger sensor on a smaller sensor, assuming it is sharp enough, but normally a lens designed for a smaller sensor does not have the coverage to fill a larger sensor.
 
What stops you from getting a great image is the DP, the director's ideas and the budget the production has available (let's not forget about art direction, right? :).

Aside from it, as people already mentioned, lots of movies were done in either 16mm or 2/3" digital systems.
 
It's just a 2.5-stop difference in depth of field, to put it bluntly. That's basically it. Assuming you have a lens that opens to f/2.0, on a 2/3" camera it will look like Super-35 depth of field when shooting at an f/4-5.6 split, assuming you match Field of View and subject distance.

So ask yourself if there is inherently anything un-cinematic about 35mm shot at an f/4-5.6 split. The only time the 2/3" look is a bit unique compared to 35mm is in night exterior work and other extremely low-light situations, where people aren't used to seeing more depth of field.
 
"Also, when it comes to pixels, it's not just how many, it's what you do with them and how they're arranged."

Can you explain this please?
 
Michael Bravin said:
Graeme,
to be totally accurate, not inconsequential details, keep in mind that both movies were shot with 3CCD cameras 6M pixel and 9M pixel imagers and Star wars used Fuji "E" lenses and that BB was shot in Filmstream AND Zeiss DigiPrimes. These details do matter in what we saw on the screen. DOF was the same however.
Click to expand...

Slumdog was on the si-2k which is a single 2/3" sensor with 2k RAW resolution. Actual luma resolution falls somewhere in the 1.6k range, and chroma farther below that. Scarlet will have a higher res, so if you're pleased with slumdog's cinematography, you will likely be ecstatic with the scarlet.

It's just a 2.5-stop difference in depth of field, to put it bluntly. That's basically it. Assuming you have a lens that opens to f/2.0, on a 2/3" camera it will look like Super-35 depth of field when shooting at an f/4-5.6 split, assuming you match Field of View and subject distance.
Click to expand...

This quote should be a banner at the top of the forum. This misconception is ridiculous and everyone needs to be disabused of it.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Geez, what about AVATAR?

There have been SO many features shot on 2/3" cameras -- too many independent films to list -- I shot eight myself.

Among the bigger names, there has been:
Star Wars: Attack of the Clones
Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith
Once Upon a Time in Mexico
Spy Kids 2 and 3D
Sin City
Zodiac
Benjamin Button
Collateral
Miami Vice
Public Enemies
Speed Racer
Youth Without Youth
Tetro
Home of the Brave
Tristam Shandy
Bubble
Cloverfield
Click to expand...

Curious question, what are some of the reasons to choose to shoot on a 2/3 camera instead of S35 or Full Frame? What are some of the benefits a 2/3 has over a larger sensor. The above films obviously had access to larger sensors, why 2/3? Was it just for artist look, greater DOF the 2/3 provides, or are there plenty of other reasons?
 
David Mullen ASC said:
The only time the 2/3" look is a bit unique compared to 35mm is in night exterior work and other extremely low-light situations, where people aren't used to seeing more depth of field.
Click to expand...

Another lightbulb in my head just switched on...

Thanks, David!
 
Zhibo Lai said:
Curious question, what are some of the reasons to choose to shoot on a 2/3 camera instead of S35 or Full Frame? What are some of the benefits a 2/3 has over a larger sensor. The above films obviously had access to larger sensors, why 2/3? Was it just for artist look, greater DOF the 2/3 provides, or are there plenty of other reasons?
Click to expand...

Larger sensor cameras have only been around for a few years (the Panavision Genesis, the first of the "big chip" cameras to really find an audience, was introduced in 2004, but not really used in quantity until 2005/2006). So the primary reason a number of the pictures on that list didn't use them is that they didn't exist. Some other reasons are not so obvious, but one is that the 2/3 inch cameras are, in general, video based designs. This restricts the output and often reinforces the notion that what is captured needs to be reasonably close to what is desired as the final image, but it allows the DP (or, more likely, the DIT or engineer) to tailor that image in the camera to be what they want. Prior to RAW capture becoming practical (the Viper did that in a sense, the Red made it a lot more accesssible, and the D21 makes it available uncompressed), getting the image "right" out of the camera was something that some users really liked - Michael Mann, in particular. So he stayed with that technology because it let him achieve what he wanted.

It is also the case that the smaller chips yield deeper depth of field in "typical" shooting conditions, which can be of benefit when shooting visual effects elements on green or blue screens.
 
The same advantages that apply to 16mm film also apply to 2/3". Lighter smaller more compact optics, especially wide range zooms, compared to those for larger formats. A real consideration if one needs to pack extreme long lenses for nature shooting for instance. More compact lighter and less obtrusive setups for tight spaces or for guerrilla style doc or narrative shoots. One can mount a single fast broad range zoom that can cover virtually any shooting situation one is likely to encounter, yet it will still be light and compact enough for hand held/shoulder mounted solo shooting and the tripods or other support needed will similarly be smaller and lighter too.
I watched a rerun of Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman a couple of weeks ago just to refresh my memory for the look of the show. The series was shot almost entirely with one camera and one lens: an ARRI SR2 super 16mm with an Angenieux T2.4 11.5-138HR zoom. This style of shooting makes for very fast and efficient setups with less chance of sensor contamination in the field since you don't have lens changes to deal with.
 
David Rasberry said:
The same advantages that apply to 16mm film also apply to 2/3". Lighter smaller more compact optics, especially wide range zooms, compared to those for larger formats. A real consideration if one needs to pack extreme long lenses for nature shooting for instance. More compact lighter and less obtrusive setups for tight spaces or for guerrilla style doc or narrative shoots.
Click to expand...

While everything you say about lenses is, of course, true, the same cannot necessarily be said about the cameras themselves, at least prior to the newest generation. At the professional level, the bodies were designed primarily for ENG, their primary market. As a result, a camera such as the F900, once built with a long zoom, a matte box, and other accessories, could easily be 4 feet long (or longer). This precluded it from being able to fit in many places that even a 35mm Panaflex, similar built, could. Today, with more compact bodies and different form factors in some instances, that is less of an issue.
 
M Most said:
While everything you say about lenses is, of course, true, the same cannot necessarily be said about the cameras themselves, at least prior to the newest generation. At the professional level, the bodies were designed primarily for ENG, their primary market. As a result, a camera such as the F900, once built with a long zoom, a matte box, and other accessories, could easily be 4 feet long (or longer). This precluded it from being able to fit in many places that even a 35mm Panaflex, similar built, could. Today, with more compact bodies and different form factors in some instances, that is less of an issue.
Click to expand...

Not all 2/3'" cameras are as large as an F900. As Gibby has pointed out, there are many production situations that don't require full crewed cinema style setups. SI2k is a good example of compact 2/3" format.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top