Why Bigger is Better (but not much else) S35mm vs. Vistavision Comparison

[Justin McAleece]

Great test and writeup! It's useful to push past all the subjective and see that physics is physics. That being said, I still want a VV.

 

[Björn Benckert]

Here is a chart if you want to match the look of a closeup at around 0.8m distance using a 50mm on VV at 2.2 As you can see pretty much any camera can do this. Sure you need really fast glas on the smalest of sensors but not many of us shoot super 8 or 16mm.


50mm VV comparison. by Björn Benckert, on Flickr


Its easy enough to pluck in the numbers for custom sensor size i.e 40.96 x 21.60 monstro FF and then your focal length, stop and focus distance, then you scroll down and you see what lens would equal this on pretty much any other size sensor.

https://www.pointsinfocus.com/tools/depth-of-field-and-equivalent-lens-calculator/#{"c":[{"av":"2.2","fl":50,"d":244,"cm":"0"}],"m":0}

 

[Misha Engel]

A good thing we have companies like Metabones and Kipon these days.

Looking forward to the reviews on the Abt speedbooster mounted on a Helium and or Epic-W.

 

[Björn Benckert]

speedboosters are not really the best way to get a good image on a s35 sensors. If it was thats how masterprimes would be made.

Speedboasters are more a hack optical solution to narrow down on the image circle of a existing lens. So its more like trading focal length and image circle for speed. But its far from opticaly the best way of getting there.

The reason why they became so popular is the high number of small sensors in combination with the high number of relativly low cost high quality FF glas that exist.

So best will allways be lenses built for the given sensor size. Shooting helium then you want good s35 glas.

 

[AndreeMarkefors]

Here is a chart…

It would be interesting to see how the crop factor is calculated here. They say the 1Dx mkII has a 1.42x crop, but I'm using the width of the sensor which is 1.33x. The 4k area in the 1Dx mkII is 27mm wide.

I'm guessing the difference is in the translation between the different aspect ratios.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

It would be interesting to see how the crop factor is calculated here. They say the 1Dx mkII has a 1.42x crop, but I'm using the width of the sensor which is 1.33x. The 4k area in the 1Dx mkII is 27mm wide.

I'm guessing the difference is in the translation between the different aspect ratios.

For the same aspect ratio sensors you can calculate either way, diagonal, width or height. It gets more debatable when the aspect ratio changes. I think the most neutral way to calculate with different aspect ratio sensors would be by the image magnification factor....

 

[Misha Engel]

speedboosters are not really the best way to get a good image on a s35 sensors. If it was thats how masterprimes would be made.

Speedboasters are more a hack optical solution to narrow down on the image circle of a existing lens. So its more like trading focal length and image circle for speed. But its far from opticaly the best way of getting there.

The reason why they became so popular is the high number of small sensors in combination with the high number of relativly low cost high quality FF glas that exist.

So best will allways be lenses built for the given sensor size. Shooting helium then you want good s35 glas.

Sure they are not the best, but when you have $ 61.500 epic-W+extras + $ 3.500 Abt speed booster and a $ 25.000 set of 7 sigma cine primes you can shoot a descent picture for $ 90k.

And no netflix UHD user will see the difference and I doubt any 4k cinema viewer will see the difference.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Great write up. Agreed 100%. Another myth busted haha...

Which myth might that be, Jacek ?

 

[Mark Toia]

I like both.
Work horse day to day... HELIUM.
Arty type shots, short depth if feild, etc... VV.

VV is my go to art, fashion, portrait, people camera..
HELIUM is my Aerial, automotive, action camera. Because all our big s35 lenses work.

 

[Björn Benckert]

I think the argument here is that the smaller image circle of helium alows for faster lenses that can compensate for the less falloff due to sensor size. Its about 1.2 stops defference as I understand. But sure for lenses that have FF coverage the larger format shines.

And the sensor size makes a difference in relation to the size of the object filmed. So the more macro you go the bigger difference it makes.

 

[Björn Benckert]

Sure they are not the best, but when you have $ 61.500 epic-W+extras + $ 3.500 Abt speed booster and a $ 25.000 set of 7 sigma cine primes you can shoot a descent picture for $ 90k.

And no netflix UHD user will see the difference and I doubt any 4k cinema viewer will see the difference.

I might be mistaken but are the cine primes not a bit slower than the regular art aps-c series? If so they are the arts extended and then you boost them... Sure the netflix viewver will not see the difference but possibly better and less costly to just by a rehoused art set.

 

[Mark K.]

Which myth might that be, Jacek ?

The 'myth' (if you want to call it that), is the long-held and widely-held belief that there is any kind of objective difference to the way a larger format like Vistavision, renders an image, in comparison to S35mm.

It's 'busted', because we now know that there is no difference in rendering or aesthetics, merely superior image quality, and (for a Vistavision sensor compared to S35mm) approximately a one-stop difference of depth of field at the same aperture.

 

[Misha Engel]

I might be mistaken but are the cine primes not a bit slower than the regular art aps-c series? If so they are the arts extended and then you boost them... Sure the netflix viewver will not see the difference but possibly better and less costly to just by a rehoused art set.

Sigma Cine FF are T2(F1.8) for the 14 and 135 mm, the rest is T1.5(F1.4) so they have the same speed or are faster.
With a speed booster they will be faster(0.9..1 Tstop) then the s35 Master primes which are T1.3.

Optical the sigma cines are hard to beat and I rate them higher then the 9 year old Master Primes.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

The 'myth' (if you want to call it that), is the long-held and widely-held belief that there is any kind of objective difference to the way a larger format like Vistavision, renders an image, in comparison to S35mm.

It's 'busted', because we now know that there is no difference in rendering or aesthetics, merely superior image quality, and (for a Vistavision sensor compared to S35mm) approximately a one-stop difference of depth of field at the same aperture.

Oh no Mark, what have you done !!!?hmy:

 

[Björn Benckert]

Oh no Mark, what have you done !!!?hmy:

The difference is there you just need to imagine it to see it Jacek

 

[Les Hillis]

The 'myth' (if you want to call it that), is the long-held and widely-held belief that there is any kind of objective difference to the way a larger format like Vistavision, renders an image, in comparison to S35mm.

It's 'busted', because we now know that there is no difference in rendering or aesthetics, merely superior image quality, and (for a Vistavision sensor compared to S35mm) approximately a one-stop difference of depth of field at the same aperture.

Not meaning to be disrespectful or diminish the well executed and presented test results (thanks for sharing them), but while I get the myth-busting thing, I'd be careful about how that myth (or belief), and your test results, are defined or presented.

Your test shows you can get a close match between the field-of-view and depth-of-field of different focal length lenses when using bigger and smaller sensors (but not much else :smiley.

Are there really long and widely held myths or beliefs that were in denial of this fact?

I think if there was or still is a myth (or opinion?) about the aesthetics of a larger format like Vistavision, it's more based on the results gained from an overall system of image-making and presentation than what's been tested here, and I'd be wary of drawing broad conclusions about such a system based on the testing of only some of it's elements.

Yes, some of the focal lengths can be made to match, but as you yourself conclude, there's more to it than that (eg. different depth of field at the same aperture, and 'merely' superior image quality).


Generally speaking, I also think it might be useful when referring to larger than S35 format Vistavision style image-making, to differentiate the modern and historical versions of it.

The original film-based (larger-format motion-picture) image-making is the stuff of legends, with formats and methods being invented at considerable expense, in order to push the cinema going experience to new heights of spectacle and immersion.

What we have, and what is being developed now, is something else. It's still the result of awesome achievements in technical design and execution, but it's happening in a different climate and landscape, populated by content creators and consumers who have different expectations and wants than before.

Just my opinion (and I'm not talking about this test here), but I'd say at a certain point it's best to leave the comparisons to the old stuff behind and focus on the here and now, killing every bullshit assumption as it arises and exploring the new technologies and methods as thoroughly as possible. There are more ways of capturing and processing moving images now than ever before, so why would you choose, or not choose, a larger format mode of operation? What is the thing? What can you do with it? How does it fit your intentions? That's what I want to know, and am glad I'm living in a time with a level of shared knowledge that makes it actually possible to find out.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

The 'myth' (if you want to call it that), is the long-held and widely-held belief that there is any kind of objective difference to the way a larger format like Vistavision, renders an image, in comparison to S35mm.

It's 'busted', because we now know that there is no difference in rendering or aesthetics, merely superior image quality, and (for a Vistavision sensor compared to S35mm) approximately a one-stop difference of depth of field at the same aperture.

"We" ?
Who's "we" ? There are more of you behind the keyboard ?
You now "know" ? Really ?

So...what happened to Amira on the right side of your shot ? I see some twitches.
It had too much coffee ?

Some of my colleagues are rolling their eyes on some of the stuff here.
One academic cinematographer literally laughed out loud and his literal words were "you are too optimistic, if people don't understand the differences between formats I just avoid the subject with them".


Btw "belief in objective difference" ?
Objective difference is objectively perceivable and no need for belief. The question in the case of visual perception is whether one actually sees something or doesn't based on:
a) having sufficient insight from the test
b) knowing what actually to look for
c) whether one projects reality according to own horizon and interests or interested to expand own horizon according to reality.

 

[Björn Benckert]

[/url]Untitled by Björn Benckert, on Flickr[/IMG]

 

[Phil Holland]

The 'myth' (if you want to call it that), is the long-held and widely-held belief that there is any kind of objective difference to the way a larger format like Vistavision, renders an image, in comparison to S35mm.

It's 'busted', because we now know that there is no difference in rendering or aesthetics, merely superior image quality, and (for a Vistavision sensor compared to S35mm) approximately a one-stop difference of depth of field at the same aperture.

This will be fun. Very fun.

 

[Aaron Lochert]