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

[Misha Engel]

This is a nice article, with pretty good examples.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

What is the status of the 645 speedmount for vista vision? 57.93x30.55 mm sensor (65.49 image circle) equivalent would be great competiton for arri 65's 54.12x25.58mm sensor (59.86 image circle).

Looking forward to the abt speedmount for DSMC2 and wondering about the status of the Duclos/Phil Holland speedmount.

 

[Mark K.]

Alrighty, :biggrin5: here we go...

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

‘We’ is us. The cinematographic community engaged in this discussion.

And we really do now ’know’. Adam Wilt’s article “Bigger is Better? Ok, but why?” https://www.provideocoalition.com/bigger-is-better-ok-but-why/ provides the most in-depth comparison and analysis I’ve seen on the topic to-date, and matches the results found in my own hastily thrown together test.

And Panavision’s excellent presentation on the topic, that Ron linked to above https://vimeo.com/253322347 produced the same conclusions as well (before they veered off into slightly illogical territory by comparing shots framed using lensing with very different fields of view and distances to their subject).

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

Why does the perspective on the Amira shift? As I stated in my little accompanying writeup: “Now the 25mm and 35mm match their respective fields of view very closely, but they are a fraction off being exact, so there is a minute difference in optical compression between the two.*But for the purposes of this test, and by the real world measure of a cinematographer looking for a specific field of view/level of optical compression from a lens, for a specific image format - they’re close enough as to make no difference.“

I wondered myself if the Amira had somehow been accidentally nudged between lens changes. But the clips from a subsequent lens change back to the 25mm (after we had shot the 35mm) show that the perspective returns to the same place it was originally. So the difference is caused by the slight shift in optical perspective, from having fields of view that are only extremely close, rather than matching exactly.

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".

What ‘stuff’ are they rolling their eyes at?

What is an ‘academic cinematographer’?

What am I (or was he referring to you?) being overly optimistic about?

The evidence appears to be pretty overwhelming here, that we have come to understand the actual differences between formats. So if there’s some key component or difference we’ve failed to consider, please by all means enlighten us, and provide some evidence to the contrary.

The entire point of these tests (mine and others) is to quantify these differences. And the results of each independently-conducted test all point to one clear, and consistent conclusion. So if you can prove that things are otherwise Hrvoje, please do so. We genuinely want to know.

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.

All of these tests (and one would assume, most tests that any cinematographer would make) are predicated on the basic notion that a cinematographer chooses the image they want to make, rather than simply accepts the image given to them by a random focal length on a randomly sized image format. We decide whether we want a wide, medium or close shot of a particular subject, and we choose a focal length that will provide the appropriate amount of optical compression for that particular shot (sometimes we want a wide shot on an 18mm lens, and sometimes we want a wide shot on a 200mm lens - and there are specific reasons that we make those choices. Sometimes we want to shoot an entire project on a single focal length, and that’s guided by the exact same reasons).

That basic notion provides us with precisely the knowledge that we need, to know what we’re looking for when comparing image formats (i.e. how does a particular image format, render a particular shot size, with a particular field of view at a particular subject distance). It also allows us to draw sufficient insight from the results of these tests, and gives a clearly defined perspective from which to assess the objective differences displayed within them.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Mark I should have been more specific- my fault ;-(
As you found out- you get better results talking to a brick wall than trying to convince some members here ...

 

[Björn Benckert]

Correct me if Im wrong. But there is a difference in the falloff curve on different focal lenghts. Shorter lenses got a more exponential curve. So two setups with different sized sensors but same FOV and DOF Behaves slightly different if the distance to target is altered.

Like if you match the dof in macro in between the two by altering iris then they would not match when focus is set to 5meters or such.

Or am I wrong?

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

‘We’ is us. The cinematographic community engaged in this discussion.

No, you don't represent the cinematographic community, no one has put you as representative.

You use "we" based on what you chose to implement in your understanding to back up your assumptions, because of the effect of group think.

There is "we" also outside of "the internets" and it's rolling eyes at the group think oversimplifying nonsensical misconceptions spreading as a fact.

That remark is not an attack on you and your effort is highly appreciated, it is a friendly warning you don't get caught up in it.

And we really do now ’know’. Adam Wilt’s article “Bigger is Better? Ok, but why?” https://www.provideocoalition.com/bigger-is-better-ok-but-why/ provides the most in-depth comparison and analysis I’ve seen on the topic to-date, and matches the results found in my own hastily thrown together test.

And Panavision’s excellent presentation on the topic, that Ron linked to above https://vimeo.com/253322347 produced the same conclusions as well (before they veered off into slightly illogical territory by comparing shots framed using lensing with very different fields of view and distances to their subject).

Mark....do those links remove the Amira twitching between your own shots ?

Why does the perspective on the Amira shift?

It is already known why it shifts.

Because you used a different focal length for the same AOV.

As I stated in my little accompanying writeup: “Now the 25mm and 35mm match their respective fields of view very closely, but they are a fraction off being exact, so there is a minute difference in optical compression between the two.

No, that is incorrect.

1) There is no "optical compression".

That is a myth risen from shooters using smaller formats & FL, which distort spatial geometry compared to larger format & FL , so if one uses that distorted perception as a reference it only seems like a large format equivalent FL "compresses" while it actually depicts geometry more naturally.

2) If you had the exact FL equivalent, the scene geometry would differ anyway because you are using a different lens on a different format.

*But for the purposes of this test, and by the real world measure of a cinematographer looking for a specific field of view/level of optical compression from a lens, for a specific image format - they’re close enough as to make no difference.“

No difference or "close enough" ?
So..objectively...Amira is not actually twitching between the shots ?

Also, this shot shows you all you need to be able to understand the differences between formats ? This single shot captures all the format aspects ? That is your definition of objective testing ? Now you know ? What if you don't know because the test is not informative enough and you just assumed ?

I wondered myself if the Amira had somehow been accidentally nudged between lens changes. But the clips from a subsequent lens change back to the 25mm (after we had shot the 35mm) show that the perspective returns to the same place it was originally. So the difference is caused by the slight shift in optical perspective, from having fields of view that are only extremely close, rather than matching exactly.

So which is it Mark ?

"No objective and observable difference" or "observable difference which I don't care about" ?

It can't be both.


If you had a different test, the difference would be larger. If you had a subject in CU and not sitting 10 feet from the camera, if you had a subject reaching towards the camera, if you didn't have just 1.5 between formats....the difference would be more obvious. If you had panned with s35 and 65mm the difference would hit you in the face.

What ‘stuff’ are they rolling their eyes at?

The misconceptions spreading online and how far people will go to protect the group think.

Many photographers are aware of this. Probably more than cinematographers due to more experience with larger formats.

What is an ‘academic cinematographer’?

A local expression for a cinematographer who was educated in Academy of Dramatic Arts.
With lens physics and motion and other stuff in the curriculum they used to have this practice thing where you get to shoot everything from 8mm to 645 with assignments and limited access to film and manually develop it for yourself, so they had to get the most out of the material and got to learn some stuff on the way.

What am I (or was he referring to you?) being overly optimistic about?

He was referring to me in investing effort to help people understand format-related geometry.

The evidence appears to be pretty overwhelming here, that we have come to understand the actual differences between formats.

The "evidence" depends on the ability to actually perceive it.

You have it right in front of your nose, which you disregarded. And rather went with assumption.
That is not objective. Objective is that Amira did not have too much Red Bull.

So if there’s some key component or difference we’ve failed to consider, please by all means enlighten us, and provide some evidence to the contrary.

I cannot enlighten you, that is a process initiated from inside the observer with a manual switch pressed by the own will.
You have the evidence right in front of your nose in your shot.

It shows what a smaller FL does to objects closer to the camera. It makes them larger. It also does the opposite on the distant objects and they get smaller. And the larger the FL the reduced the size/distance discrepancy effect. While you get to keep AOV due to format size. You can even see that on a zoomed in and cropped grab in the minute differences in the size between the subject and the background. If you had a different scene setup and FL combo and larger format, the geometry difference would be larger.

Even those minute differences are enough for that "something special" which our minds notice but cannot always rationalize. That "magic" of the larger format is right in front of your nose right in your own shot.
It is not the resolution, it is the proportions. The fundamental aspect of beauty and aesthetics.


Here is another shot.

Not just any shot with camera pointed at a random scene or a shot designed to show "how it can get close so your s35 camera is still cool" but actually designed to show you the difference.


Do you see it or not ?

That basic notion provides us with precisely the knowledge that we need, to know what we’re looking for when comparing image formats

Basic notions are insufficient to understand complex concepts.

Scene geometry and "variable sphere of distorsion" (just coined the term) is a complex concept and requires spatial visualization and geometric application abilities. Showing it in manifestation requires a setup specially designed to show it. Because it is not obvious. If it was obvious it would not be "that something magical which feels different but I cannot pinpoint what it is".

And if basic and/or known notions are used as only premises for observation and rationalization, everything which does not fit into simplified and/or known concepts and corresponding points of reference will be either imperceivable to the observer or simply disregarded by the rationalization apparatus. Two scenarios, both of which are happening in this case and have been happening for a while. Either not noticing what is in front of the nose or just throwing it away as unimportant.



You need to look for:


- The differences in foreground background size of elements in the shot
- Human proportions - face in CU with wide/normal FL (not a face 10 feet or more from the camera, because trigonometry)
- Human proportions - body in low angle or high angle shots or shots where a person is lying down and body at an angle, away/towards the camera (so not perpendicular to the lens axis)
- Space proportions - wide/normal lens (so not a wall in the background )
- Motion > Subject closer to the camera moving hands towards the camera, driving shot front, driving shot side, pan shot, people moving towards /away from the camera, people walking through the shot from side to side at different distances to the camera

Using more focal lengths, more distances to objects and larger format differences, not just 1.5x and especially using 645.









ἀγεωμέτρητος μηδεὶς εἰσίτω






...

 

[Björn Benckert]

Horvje,
thats a high horse you jumped up on to hit down on Mark. Are you sure your right in all your statements here?

Because as I see it you are pretty much wrong on every coment you made above.

On you picture reference for example, the nodal point is moved. So thats not the best reference.

Your claims about paning is totaly false and dont hold water at all. Sure, first you need to make the nodal point of the lenses match up before you pan but two lenses with the exact same FOV and nodals aligined will behave very much the same. No? Or what do you claim would happen when you pan, some sort of prespective change? Well pans dont change prespective and as long as nodal points are aligned nothing will differ between objects in the scene no matter how you pan. Look at how 360 photography is made you can do it from a few very wide angle shots or many with tighter angle or a mix. The will all match in terms of prespective. Light from all lenses goes in towards the comon nodal point.

So all your statements in bold in the end of your post is basically false. But maybe there is somthing i misunderstood. So it would be great if you could explain things further in the mean time I also get my popcorn


Here is a little sketch drawing of large and small sensor with longer and shorter focal lengths but matching fov. Its quite easy to see that the smaller sensor with shorter focal length catch more light per square unit than the larger sensor with longer focal length. And when doing these kind of comparsions you need to extract the different builds of lenses and such so best as I see it is a totally matimatical approach where you set up virtual lenses and cameras. As lens distortion and such comes into play. But if you add those aspects then you simply dont compare sensors and their sizes but lens builds. So it´s important to know whats in play and remove or look around the distractions.

Just food for thought.


Untitled by Björn Benckert, on Flickr

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Horvje,

H-R-V-O-J-E

thats a high horse you jumped up on to hit down on Mark.

Interesting interpretation.

Are you sure your right in all your statements here?

No, I just copy paste group think into my conscience, assume knowledge after a 2 min consideration of overly-simplified premises, typically enjoy spending energy after a whole day of handheld to setup a test for others, and typically enjoy wasting spare time on conversations like these, additionally flavored by smartass oneliner jabs by Jacek.

Your claims about paning is totaly false and dont hold water at all.

Yeah...okay Bjorn.

 

[Ron Steinberg]

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.

The Sigma Art photo lenses are measured in F-Stops. The Sigma Cine lenses are measured in T-Stops. This accounts for the difference in "stop". Same thing Canon does with their CN-E lenses.

 

[Mark K.]

No, you don't represent the cinematographic community, no one has put you as representative.

That’s a fair call. I retract my previous statement and replace it with “‘We’, is myself and every other cinematographer (that I can find) who has posted tests of this nature.”

Mark....do those links remove the Amira twitching between your own shots ?

It is already known why it shifts.

Because you used a different focal length for the same AOV.

I do think you’re on to something in regards to differences in spatial geometry due to the wider-angle distortion of the smaller format lenses Hrvoje. However I don’t see how we can reach that conclusion definitively when neither your test or mine has actually managed to match fields of view perfectly between the different formats. With fields of view that are slightly off, it’s reasonable to expect geometric properties between the two shots to exhibit slight differences.

To be honest, I’m not sure this is really possible to confirm outside of a computer generated comparison that can eliminate the variable of lens distortion. And even then, if the answer is that it comes down to lens distortion being the source of these slight differences, then the issue is an optical one, rather than the nature of how a spherical image is rendered on different image formats.

And I think it’s also important to acknowledge (again) that all of this is only significant within the context of how a cinematographer composes their shots. So if the one inescapable property of S35mm photography compared to Vistavision, is this slight shift in geometry on foreground objects on the edges of the frame (which from all of the tests we’ve seen so far, is objectively too insignificant to impact a composition in any meaningful way), then it will be good to know that the difference is there (and to understand why it is), but it still won’t have any objective impact on how we make images.

So which is it Mark ?

"No objective and observable difference" or "observable difference which I don't care about" ?

It can't be both.

That’s another fair point. My only defence would fall again to the context I outlined above - that all of this is being considered solely through the viewpoint of how a cinematographer composes their shots. So if an objective difference in the image rendering is too small to create a perceptual difference, then objectively it has no impact on how a cinematographer is going to work.

Which is really the crux of what we're trying to figure out here - how will these larger formats impact our work and the images we make.

If you had panned with s35 and 65mm the difference would hit you in the face.

What differences would we observe in panning? Lower geometric distortion providing a less warped perspective between foreground and background elements as the image pans sideways?

The misconceptions spreading online and how far people will go to protect the group think.

Many photographers are aware of this. Probably more than cinematographers due to more experience with larger formats.

As far as I can tell Hrvoje, this ‘group think’ we’re positing, is a brand new line of thinking on the part of cinematographers. As far as I can tell, we’re fighting the current group think.

He was referring to me in investing effort to help people understand format-related geometry.

Well I hope you’ll ignore him. If there’s misconceptions to be corrected, I’d always champion the effort to do so (as I think most on here would).

Even those minute differences are enough for that "something special" which our minds notice but cannot always rationalize. That "magic" of the larger format is right in front of your nose right in your own shot.

It is not the resolution, it is the proportions. The fundamental aspect of beauty and aesthetics.

I completely agree with you on that last point, however these differences have to be objectively perceivable to make a difference. If they’re too small to be readily noticeable in a direct comparison, then their worth remains a subjective quality (which isn’t really something we can comment on, beyond liking or disliking it for reasons we can’t actually articulate).

Here is another shot.

Not just any shot with camera pointed at a random scene or a shot designed to show "how it can get close so your s35 camera is still cool" but actually designed to show you the difference.


Do you see it or not ?

I can absolutely see a difference between those shots, but you have to provide some more information as to what we’re looking at for it be of any relevance. From what I can see, neither field of view or focus have been matched, so I’m at a bit of a loss as to what we can glean from it.

Basic notions are insufficient to understand complex concepts.

Scene geometry and "variable sphere of distorsion" (just coined the term) is a complex concept and requires spatial visualization and geometric application abilities. Showing it in manifestation requires a setup specially designed to show it. Because it is not obvious. If it was obvious it would not be "that something magical which feels different but I cannot pinpoint what it is".

And if basic and/or known notions are used as only premises for observation and rationalization, everything which does not fit into simplified and/or known concepts and corresponding points of reference will be either imperceivable to the observer or simply disregarded by the rationalization apparatus. Two scenarios, both of which are happening in this case and have been happening for a while. Either not noticing what is in front of the nose or just throwing it away as unimportant.

So please help us to understand this intrinsic difference in how scene geometry is rendered, by providing some examples and explanations.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I wonder if that small difference between the two could be matched better by adjusting the focal lengths and distances slightly, in other words, the math that tells you how to match FOV and DOF is not taking into account certain lens variables.

But I also contend that this difference exhibited is not significant. Mainly what people initially perceive with larger format photography is (usually) increased resolution, lower noise/grain, and typically lower depth of field in most live action moving images, not this slight difference in "roundness" or compression/expansion. Also, if we're talking about the difference between Super-35 and Full-Frame / VistaVision, it's not a big enough jump to create dramatic perceptual differences compared to, let's say, Super-35 and IMAX.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Untitled by Björn Benckert, on Flickr

I appreciate your effort and hats off for the good will but that image is oversimplified and misleading.


This one is also simplified but helps to setup the light ray scheme more accurately.


If you setup the scheme correctly, add objects in space (same object size, different distance), add different lens geometry for the AOV/format combo and corresponding light rays you should be able to come to the right conclusion using a ruler and compasses and basic trigonometry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LTffEMF5qI


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5Y6rmPpGo4


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dI-9Zj1Fo4A

 

[Björn Benckert]

I appreciate your effort and hats off for the good will but that image is oversimplified and misleading.


This one is also simplified but helps to setup the light ray scheme more accurately.


If you setup the scheme correctly, add objects in space (same object size, different distance), add different lens geometry for the AOV/format combo and corresponding light rays you should be able to come to the right conclusion using a ruler and compasses and basic trigonometry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LTffEMF5qI


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5Y6rmPpGo4


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dI-9Zj1Fo4A

You mean a lens bend light which is not in my drawing, sure you can add an element in there that warp the direction of light, But not sure thats relevant here. Look at my example as a pinhole lens if you will.


What Mullen writes makes sense, that most of the differnces we see when swapping lens and sensor size to remain on the same FOV is actually different lens characteristics, then also often by mistake, an altered nodal point.

As if you do the above in a math lab, like a 3D app then nothing change, now why is that?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Trying to reduce some variables, I did this test on the same camera with the same zoom lens. It was an APS-C camera (Sony A6500) and I shot it at 50mm at f/8 and then at 25mm at f/4, cropping the effective sensor area size of the 25mm version by half to match -- I cropped by eyeball so there will be some slight sizing differences, and I think the zooming creates some shift in lens distortion, but I think it reduces the variable of comparing two entirely different lenses.

 

[Björn Benckert]

Trying to reduce some variables, I did this test on the same camera with the same zoom lens. It was an APS-C camera (Sony A6500) and I shot it at 50mm at f/8 and then at 25mm at f/4, cropping the effective sensor area size of the 25mm version by half to match -- I cropped by eyeball so there will be some slight sizing differences, and I think the zooming creates some shift in lens distortion, but I think it reduces the variable of comparing two entirely different lenses.

Would be interesting to see with a bigger difference. like a 25-150 lens or such. Sure resolution of the sensor would come in play when cropping that much but would be fun to see how little difference there is in character.


As we all can see in this difference render where I just aligned your two images (yes a bit sloppy I know) the perspective gets compressed and the whole image looks different, or maybe not.

2 by Björn Benckert, on Flickr

 

[Les Hillis]

Cropped both pics a bit to match the edge of frame a little better.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

You mean a lens bend light which is not in my drawing, sure you can add an element in there that warp the direction of light, But not sure thats relevant here. Look at my example as a pinhole lens if you will.

We are not talking about a pinhole lens.

There are no differing focal points in your drawing and various object distance > light ray > focal point > sensor plane trigonometry.

What Mullen writes makes sense, that most of the differnces we see when swapping lens and sensor size to remain on the same FOV is actually different lens characteristics,

FOV is easily understood.

Yes, they have different characteristics, the main being a different focal length.

Defining where the focal point will be, defining trigonometric relations of object reflected light rays landing on a sensor plane. Focal length defines the trigonometry and object relations through depth, format size how large is the chunk of the image gathered.

So you get a larger chunk of a larger FL lens and use benefits of 85 mm geometry on 645 format to get a shot as wide as ~32 on S35. There is no frikking way a face CU will look the same on 32mm on S35 and 85 mm on 645.

There is a chance however you will not notice the effect if:
a) the format size difference is too small per FL choice (like 1.5)
b) if you shoot a person from 20 feet standing in front of the wall, because you won't have the distance and spatial relations appropriate to notice the effect
c) if the methodology of viewing is not appropriate (side by side vs toggle A/B)
d) if you don't know what to look for in the shot

Because the effect visibility depends on FL range, distance, references in the shot and perceptive properties.

A bunch of medium format shooters do not need this explained. Large format shooters even less likely. And in the studio where I took that test shot photographers had question marks above their heads with weird facial expressions why I even had to do this, like having to stress that water is wet. Those same photographers which take product shots on that same table using 135mm lens on full frame. While caring zero about the telephoto DOF characteristics because it is done using flashes on more closed iris to keep the whole product in focus, with a single color clean surface background, where DOF effect is invisible, or the products are cutout from the background in Photoshop anyway.

As if you do the above in a math lab, like a 3D app then nothing change, now why is that?

I have no idea what exactly you do in a math lab and a 3D app and how the test is setup and app is setup with relative/absolute properties so cannot give an adequate answer on question marks floating in the air. If the light ray diagram is as you did it above, it is wrong and it will lead to a wrong result.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Cropped both pics a bit to match the edge of frame a little better.

I think that shift is mainly due to the design of the lens more than the size of the sensor -- so on the one hand, there are differences no matter what because you can't make a "perfect" series of lenses of different focal lengths where nothing gets shifted / warped across the frame no matter what optics are stacked together to create the lens. On the other hand, it's a difference that varies mostly by lens design and is not inherent only to being designed for larger coverage. It seems to me that the benefits of larger sensors are real enough without overselling the perspective issues, which can be minor depending on the lens. And in this case, I was showing a difference between sizes greater than the 1.5X difference between S35 and FF35.

I'd also point out that this test was done with a still camera zoom so perhaps was not designed with maintaining its geometry as it zooms as well as a cine zoom might be...

 

[Ron Steinberg]

Trying to reduce some variables, I did this test on the same camera with the same zoom lens. It was an APS-C camera (Sony A6500) and I shot it at 50mm at f/8 and then at 25mm at f/4, cropping the effective sensor area size of the 25mm version by half to match -- I cropped by eyeball so there will be some slight sizing differences, and I think the zooming creates some shift in lens distortion, but I think it reduces the variable of comparing two entirely different lenses.

The top image has more depth compression compared to the bottom image. Is this due to lens distortion or the natural effect of a "normal" vs. "wide" focal length is difficult to state as every lens and every position on a zoom will have different geometric distortions (unless we are able to compare two focal lengths with identical distortion characteristics I don't know if we can truly say). In my not so important opinion - the differences are both subtle and huge. I feel more intimately involved with the top image and with the bottom I'm more of an observer of the scene. Isn't this a tool in our image making toolkit? To use different lens focal lengths, and consequently different formats, to inform our viewers experience?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm amazed that you are more intimately involved with the top image -- they look almost identical to me, but even seeing some differences in optical distortion across the field, I'd be hard-pressed to find any emotional difference being evoked.

I think I'm just responding negatively to the marketing pitch for larger formats going on, which is a bit too pseudo-sciency for my tastes. I'd rather they stick to the facts, or tell people that there are some cool larger format optics that they can play with now rather than imply that now their wide-angle shots will "feel" like telephoto shots but with a wide-angle view.

 

[Phil Holland]

I'm amazed that you are more intimately involved with the top image -- they look almost identical to me, but even seeing some differences in optical distortion across the field, I'd be hard-pressed to find any emotional difference being evoked.

I think I'm just responding negatively to the marketing pitch for larger formats going on, which is a bit too pseudo-sciency for my tastes. I'd rather they stick to the facts, or tell people that there are some cool larger format optics that they can play with now rather than imply that now their wide-angle shots will "feel" like telephoto shots but with a wide-angle view.

I agree about some aspects of the marketing language, however, there's more going on here. Moving the camera, working distances, etc....

I'm writing up something that touches some of this. To be clear, I'm for all formats, they have their own unique qualities. But there's just a lot being overlooked when comparing still images that we have "matched" if that makes any sense.

If I work hard I'll have this all done by NAB.