Sensor size + Cinema

[Jesper Sichlau]

We might also add Avatar and The Hurt Locker to the long list of great movies shot on 2/3" and S16mm. It is also noticable that the Oscar for best Cinematography the last two years has gone to two digitally shot movies.

 

[Sean Finnegan]

We might also add Avatar and The Hurt Locker to the long list of great movies shot on 2/3" and S16mm. It is also noticable that the Oscar for best Cinematography the last two years has gone to two digitally shot movies.

Yes, but let's be realistic....Avatar did not deserve Best Cinematography.

 

[David Rasberry]

I agree that f/5.6+ isn't "un-cinematic," but then I don't subscribe to the "shallow DoF is just a stylistic affectation akin to bleach bypass, it's only useful to indie posers trying to make their film look professional, you don't need it" school of thought. I don't want to emulate 35mm. Control of DoF is just an intrinsic part of photography to me and f/5.6 and up just doesn't give it to me. If it did my Nikon would be mounted with $120 lenses instead of $2000 lenses and I'd have a nicer car.

Motion shooting is very different than shooting stills. Compositions move, focus changes, sequences of shots have to tie together in a fashion appropriate for the desired emotional or narrative impact of a scene. There is much more involved than just pretty compositions.
Those most obsessed with ultra shallow DOF for the most part seem to be stills shooters and film makers who have been limited to 1/3" or smaller video cameras that offer very little in the way of DOF flexibility.
It is certainly nice to have some degree of DOF flexibility for creative choice, but it is only one tool among many and extreme shallow DOF has limited practical use in cinematography. As often as not under low light conditions one is fighting to get deeper DOF into shots.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

It works both ways -- whereas you can say that a 2/3" format does not give you the option of easily achieving super-shallow focus in all situations, a larger format does not give you the option of easily achieving deeper focus in all situations.

Many of us who have shot an action scene in 35mm at night and seen the focusing problems because we can't get the light level above T/2.0 or T/2.8, especially if we have a slo-mo shot that requires shooting wide-open... well, that's a form of limitation too.

80% or 90% of the time, the DoF of 2/3" and 35mm are workable, and matchable on the whole... it's just that now and then, that last percentage of shots... either you are fighting to get enough DoF in 35mm or fighting to lose enough DoF in 2/3".

Back in the 1950's, directors and cinematographers would have loved to be able to shoot at f/2.0-2.8 split and get the DoF of a f/5.6.

So you can either see the extra DoF as an advantage or a disadvantage. We are only talking about 2.5-stops. Most of us see 35mm movies shot in the f/5.6 range all the time for day scenes and yet we don't feel they look bad, or too deep in focus, or uncinematic, etc.

 

[David M]

Ok, sorry for chiming in, not only in an old thread, but responding to a post on the first page of a 4 page thread; however, from my understanding, Star Wars episode One was shot with an HDcam camera which had been modified with some kind of cabling, allowing to output the sensor's data to an external recording device allowing to NOT record on HDcam (3:1:1 1440x1080), but on a superior format. It might have been a hard drive RAID system. I read this ages ago, and cannot find a reference to this. If anyone has a link to an article with more details, or that proves me wrong, please post the link.

Cheers,
Damien
(a.k.a.earthling)

Star Wars I was shot on 35mm film.
You're thinking of Star Wars II.

 

[Jimmy Odom]

It works both ways -- whereas you can say that a 2/3" format does not give you the option of easily achieving super-shallow focus in all situations, a larger format does not give you the option of easily achieving deeper focus in all situations.

Many of us who have shot an action scene in 35mm at night and seen the focusing problems because we can't get the light level above T/2.0 or T/2.8, especially if we have a slo-mo shot that requires shooting wide-open... well, that's a form of limitation too.

80% or 90% of the time, the DoF of 2/3" and 35mm are workable, and matchable on the whole... it's just that now and then, that last percentage of shots... either you are fighting to get enough DoF in 35mm or fighting to lose enough DoF in 2/3".

Back in the 1950's, directors and cinematographers would have loved to be able to shoot at f/2.0-2.8 split and get the DoF of a f/5.6.

So you can either see the extra DoF as an advantage or a disadvantage. We are only talking about 2.5-stops. Most of us see 35mm movies shot in the f/5.6 range all the time for day scenes and yet we don't feel they look bad, or too deep in focus, or uncinematic, etc.

Yeah but I think this isn't as pertinent today due to the ability to change your ISO in such a way that the shots once needed to be shot at a f2-f2.8 could now be shot at maybe f4.5-5.6 but instead of being shot at ISO 320/640 we can now shoot at ISO 1250 or so. Thus reducing the issues cause with shooting on a larger format sensor wide open.