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

[Sidney L. Plaut]

while I can understand shooting larger format on film because of difference in grain and increase of resolution-

I cannot quite see the big revelation on digital... if you have a camera that can record the same resolution, DR etc... on S35 and 70mm, VV, etc.. then in my head, its only a matter of Depth of field and perspective, which
I can match by changing lenses and T-stop or is what am I missing?

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

I agree 100% David and, unfortunately, I think we fell victims to a massive scale "consumerisation of a professional industry" - something I personally haven't experienced in my 30 year involvement. We are simply being treated like uninformed consumers.
IMO this has to do with the immense growth and, consequently, financial potential of the film making community. Everyone wants to cash in all of the sudden. Our intelligence gets insulted. Better get used to that I guess...
I guess I have always known my work to be a safe haven from "Burger and Coca Cola commercials" (as ironic as it sounds). That is no longer the case I feel. And it's not coming back....

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Certainly it was easier to spot differences in format sizes when we were shooting movies on film -- 65mm film literally had half the average grain size as 35mm film plus the increase in resolution. Recently when there was a spate of big-budget movies shot on the Alexa 65, I remember sitting through them and feeling like I wasn't seeing a big difference compared to the regular Alexa movies, it wasn't like when I saw something shot in 65mm film instead of 35mm film. I remember when "The Revenant" came out and everyone was guessing as to what percentage was shot on the Alexa 65, it's not like it was that obvious.

 

[Björn Benckert]

Certainly it was easier to spot differences in format sizes when we were shooting movies on film -- 65mm film literally had half the average grain size as 35mm film plus the increase in resolution. Recently when there was a spate of big-budget movies shot on the Alexa 65, I remember sitting through them and feeling like I wasn't seeing a big difference compared to the regular Alexa movies, it wasn't like when I saw something shot in 65mm film instead of 35mm film. I remember when "The Revenant" came out and everyone was guessing as to what percentage was shot on the Alexa 65, it's not like it was that obvious.

Check altered carbon on netflix on large oled or 4k projector with Dolby vision. Then the alexa 65 really sings, like mad. Sure the HDR stuff adds to the feel (personally I dont really like it, it´s a bit over done feels harsh on the eyes) But I got a alexa project in my box at the moment and was flipping from that to netflix altered carbon on the same oled screen. And the difference is quite massive. Sure different lenses and all that but still. To me it very much have the quality increase that 65mm film has compared to 35mm film. You just need the right monitor to see it. And sadly I dont think the movie theatres have it and/or usually post has dipped into 2k before making a 4k master and that shows.

 

[Misha Engel]

I'm with Sidney, Jacek, David........

As long as the glass is good enoung (Otus 85 can resolve more then 100 Mpix/FF36x24 and the sigma cine T1.5 85mm is not far behind) and the sensor is good enough just play around with ISO, ND, Field of view, etc... and you can get almost any look you like.
Just do the math https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

Most of the Oscars went to ALEV III open gate (3424 x 2202, 3.4K Open Gate, 28.25 mm x 18.17 mm), so bigger doesn't mean higher rated by the ones who judge.

Maybe we need a new oscars for focus pullers in the future.

 

[Misha Engel]

Check altered carbon on netflix on large oled or 4k projector with Dolby vision. Then the alexa 65 really sings, like mad. Sure the HDR stuff adds to the feel (personally I dont really like it, it´s a bit over done feels harsh on the eyes) But I got a alexa project in my box at the moment and was flipping from that to netflix altered carbon on the same oled screen. And the difference is quite massive. Sure different lenses and all that but still. To me it very much have the quality increase that 65mm film has compared to 35mm film. You just need the right monitor to see it. And sadly I dont think the movie theatres have it and/or usually post has dipped into 2k before making a 4k master and that shows.

Shot on
ARRI Rental ALEXA 65, 35mm ANA/SPHERICAL Lenses
Canon Cinema Prime Lenses
Cooke 5/i Lenses

 

[Björn Benckert]

Shot on
ARRI Rental ALEXA 65, 35mm ANA/SPHERICAL Lenses
Canon Cinema Prime Lenses
Cooke 5/i Lenses

I know. The extra resolution in the alexa 65 is very visable there. Like more than I seen in the revenant etc. But I guess the revenant was not running through with a DI in 4k. Which netflix demand on their stuff.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Shot on
ARRI Rental ALEXA 65, 35mm ANA/SPHERICAL Lenses
Canon Cinema Prime Lenses
Cooke 5/i Lenses

Doesn't the use of 35mm format lenses require cropping the sensor? It may be shot on Alexa 65 but with 35mm lenses used they can't be using the whole sensor area or it would vignette. So it is actually S35 or so sensor ...

 

[Björn Benckert]

Doesn't the use of 35mm format lenses require cropping the sensor? It may be shot on Alexa 65 but with 35mm use they can't be using the whole sensor area or it will vignette. So it is actually S35 or so sensor ...

I doubt that. Netflix would not let them go under 4k remember?

So dont really know what they mean with "ARRI Rental ALEXA 65, 35mm ANA/SPHERICAL Lenses".

If it´s a alexa s35 shot film it´s the best looking such I ever seen, I look at such material uncompressed in full glory every day.... it does not sing like the compressed altered carbon image so if they only shot normal alexa stuff using the 65 then that 65 need to have some really magic pixels.


ALEXA 65, 35mm ANA/SPHERICAL Lenses

I guess the above mean anas on the 65 and spherical on the35 / normal alexa, no?

Edit its XL in 5k apparently.

"In a crowded television field, one question that Netflix and showrunner Laeta Kalogridis faced, was how do you set the tale apart from other sci-fi fares. In keeping with the Netflix 4K mandate, the makers of Altered Carbon decided to emphasise visual quality, shooting large-format with the ARRI ALEXA 65 camera in 5K mode, one of the first television series to follow this path.

With three months of prep, directors of photography Martin Ahlgren and Neville Kidd established a strong working relationship. Ahlgren says that he’s never had that kind of close collaboration with another director of photography.

“It was a unique opportunity to use our combined creativity, with both of us attacking it in different ways,” he says. “It’s been a real treat to work together and bounce ideas. You don’t usually have the luxury to design sets and lighting, and work out as a team how to approach a project.”

Ahlgren and Kidd both like shooting with the ARRI ALEXA, but Netflix’s 4K minimum requirement took that off the table. Once the ALEXA 65 was proposed, they shot tests to determine whether 4K, 5K or 6.5K mode was right.

“Because the camera only records in ARRIRAW, you’re creating massive amounts of data,” says Ahlgren. “From a storage and handling perspective, 4K mode seemed best. But one goal was to give the show a truly different look for television, so we argued that there was real value in shooting 5K. The size of the sensor becomes a key characteristic in itself for cinematography, and although 4K is bigger than Super 35, it’s not as distinctly different as the look you get when you go to 5K or 6.5K.”

5K was a middle ground when it came to the amount of data, but it also offered compatibility with a wider array of lenses compared to 6.5K, which is slightly bigger than a VistaVision frame and requires large-format glass that will cover the greater area."


Funny, I worked with Alhgren way back doing some shitty Ikea commercials long before he got rich and famous. I guess he is one of those that would oppose to most said in this thread.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

OK So it seems that they picked , at least for the spherical shots, lenses that covered 5K on the Alexa 65 sensor. Somewhere between 4K FF size (Alexa LF) and MF (Alexa 65)

 

[Björn Benckert]

OK So it seems that they picked , at least for the spherical shots, lenses that covered 5K on the Alexa 65 sensor. Somewhere between 4K FF size (Alexa LF) and MF (Alexa 65)

I think it was all spherical, some misconception of the hawks used, but it seams it was a Aspherical hawk.

https://codex.online/casestudies/Altered-Carbon-Tests-the-Limits-of-Television-Image-Quality


Another interesting quote from Martin:

“We felt 5K was the best of both worlds because we could have the advantages and look that comes with the large sensor, and still shoot with lenses that would open up to 1.3 or 1.4. We could focus literally ten inches from a face, and have the shot develop into something wider. That flexibility was important. And in 5K at a stop of 1.4, your depth of field is actually even shallower than you can achieve in 6.5K. Our focus pullers had their work cut out for them, but they did an outstanding job.”

To me he is kind of saying that VV is the sweet spot no?

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Ring him up and point to this thread if you can. I would love to see what he has to say....

 

[Björn Benckert]

Ring him up and point to this thread if you can. I would love to see what he has to say....

I pinged him on Facebook.

 

[Misha Engel]

Canon cine primes have an image circle of ~ 43.3 mm and Cooke 5/i ~ 30 mm.
8.25x8.25 um/pixel
shot at 2:1 aspect ratio
Minimum resolution needed for UHD 2:1 3840x1920
Gives me an image circle of 35.42 mm
So they must have used some kind of magic ,to get 4k with those cooke's. (3250x1675 should be possible).
With the canon primes 4690x2345 should be possible.

 

[Björn Benckert]

Canon cine primes have an image circle of ~ 43.3 mm and Cooke 5/i ~ 30 mm.
8.25x8.25 um/pixel
shot at 2:1 aspect ratio
Minimum resolution needed for UHD 2:1 3840x1920
Gives me an image circle of 35.42 mm
So they must have used some kind of magic ,to get 4k with those cooke's. (3250x1675 should be possible).
With the canon primes 4690x2345 should be possible.

The longer cookes have a larger circle so they probably used Canon for the wide end and then cooke when they started to cover for the long end. My guess.

 

[Les Hillis]

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...

Not trying to sell anything...

The difference is there or it isn't.

Even if it's just the lenses causing the difference, with all this talk about matching S35 to Monstro/Vistavision sized images, I'd be interested in knowing what combination of lenses would allow that to be done most accurately (or even if it can actually be done at all).

Anyone care to shed some light on that?

 

[Misha Engel]

The longer cookes have a larger circle so they probably used Canon for the wide end and then cooke when they started to cover for the long end. My guess.

From the cooke website

Maximum Format Cover: 30mm Diameter (Super 35mm Format)

https://www.cookeoptics.com/l/fiveilens.html

They tricked netflix with the camera (who said anything about the lenses).

 

[Björn Benckert]

From the cooke website

Maximum Format Cover: 30mm Diameter (Super 35mm Format)

https://www.cookeoptics.com/l/fiveilens.html

They tricked netflix with the camera (who said anything about the lenses).

99% that cooke says 30mm in diameter for their set. They dont mention for individual lenses do they? Normally a long lens has much greater coverage than needed. It´s always the wide end it gets problematic.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Not trying to sell anything...

The difference is there or it isn't.

Even if it's just the lenses causing the difference, with all this talk about matching S35 to Monstro/Vistavision sized images, I'd be interested in knowing what combination of lenses would allow that to be done most accurately (or even if it can actually be done at all).

Anyone care to shed some light on that?

To me at least it looks like a barrel distortion makes the image look more "fisheye-ish" for the lack of better term ;-) Maybe picking lenses with pin cushion distortion would create more of a "tele" look... just a thought...

 

[Aaron Lochert]

Hrvoje's example posted above is on an APS-C sensor for both images. If I remember correctly, one is a 35mm, the other is a 50mm + a speedbooster.

Which means the sensor size is a fixed variable and therefore it's out of the equation entirely. It became a direct comparison of two different optical systems. Which means this whole argument comes down to optical design.

And if Hrvoje's test has any merit, then theoretically a lens designer can use this knowledge and design any lens as a large coverage lens with a permanently fixed focal reducer inside. They could market their lenses as "large format optics for small formats" and we'd be back to square one wondering what's so special about the sensor being larger if we can bridge that gap with speedboosters.

I propose that someone test a 50mm on 8K compared to 25mm on 4K at the same position and show that the geometry changes (because of the lens, of course). And then find the entrance pupil/no-parallax point of both lenses. Keep the tripod in the exact same position but slide the camera forward or back on your dovetails to line up the entrance pupils, demonstrating that the two images can be matched nearly identically for geometry representation.

You'd also have to shoot distortion charts for each lens to eliminate that variable as well.

In the end it always comes down to the optics themselves. If you like the way a certain lens looks and it's only achievable with a large sensor behind it, go for it. If you like the way a different lens looks and it only projects a smaller image circle, go for it.

I'm with David and the others.