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 :)

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

The first step to recovery- acknowledgement -I am an alcoholic:beer: oops...wrong emoji
 
Björn Benckert said:
Horvje soon i give up... This thread is 14 pages long and you been following it closely. Still you simply cant understand?
Click to expand...


No.

I have spent too much time in post and have never shot and tested different format cameras.


Björn Benckert said:
Its not rocket sience its like pytagoras, what the kids learn about triangles in highschool.
Click to expand...

...


/sigh/
 
Let's hope for Christofer Nolan and Hoyte van Hoytema that they have read Steve Yedlin's thread to, if not here is the link http://www.yedlin.net/.
It will protect them from a lot of work (heavy IMAX cam, changing film, developing at a lab, scanning , printing back on film) that gave them a picture with lower resolution than Alexa65 or Monstro.
Phil Holland can show them what a Monstro in combination with those Tokina's can do (or others with similar equipment).

Just add some grain in post.
 
Ok, lets look at this from a practical shooting scenario, these tests and discussions are just going around in circles.

I need a wide angle shot that still has shallow DOF, yet limited distortion. Simple on the VV sensor, 20MM T1.5

POV.png


To achieve this exact look on a S35 sensor, would take a 16mm with a T stop of 1 or 1.1 or something close to that, either way it does not exist, plus you would have far more edge distortion.

The creative advantages with VV shooting are clear to many of us actually shooting in the format. Not even touching on the many other advantages of the sensor tech itself.
 
First of all 20mm t1.5 VV lens does not exist either(FF is smaller). But I digress...Put a $150 speed booster on that 20mm T1.5 lens you have and voila!!!! problem solved. Your real life shooting scenario ;-)
Actualy I did one better: put BMPCC SB on my 20mm f1.8 sigma and got the same thing on the little M43 Zcam E1... .53x FL ratio, 2 stops speed gain...
 
Jacek Zakowicz said:
First of all 20mm t1.5 VV lens does not exist either(FF is smaller). But I digress...Put a $150 speed booster on that 20mm T1.5 lens you have and voila!!!! problem solved. Your real life shooting scenario ;-)
Actualy I did one better: put BMPCC SB on my 20mm f1.8 sigma and got the same thing on the little M43 Zcam E1... .53x FL ratio, 2 stops speed gain...
Click to expand...

Actually a speedbooster for RED does not exist. The lens I spoke of actually does, as its how I got the image above. The fact that you need to add a speedbooster to mimic a "FF Look" in itself proves there is a visual, creative difference that FF sensors provide, so thank you for your admission.
 
Obviously you can't use the same lens on a different size sensor to get the same result. That is the point of this thread. Incidentally that is what Panavision missed in their video as well...
I don't think that the Sigma covers 46mm diagonal of the DCI 1.89:1 RED sensor.
And nobody said you have to use RED camera either...Actually the SB for RED does exist it's just very expensive...
 
Phil Holland said:
First thought. I'm just curious, and I'm saying this as a word of advice as I know you are somebody who provides service and products to DPs and rental houses worldwide, how incredibly off putting that is to potential or existing customers.

Secondary thought. For those of us familiar with large format cinematography and photography and have been doing so since "film was the thing", do you understand how it comes off in relationship to those who enjoy those formats who understand where and how format size, optics, and general cinematography related concepts relate to the images we/they are creating?

Tertiary point. Do you think for a minute companies like Panavision or any individual who has $100,000 through $1,000,000+ worth of equipment may have a slightly deeper understanding regarding some of these concepts? (Yes, I know where you used to work, but outside of that perhaps bias in this case?)

Quaternary. I understand that some people are susceptible to questionable marketing, but even the rather large efforts (likely too wordy) discuss and show the differences that can be had here. It is entirely up to the creators and filmmakers to decide how important format size is to them.

Quinary. Outside of this forum I interact with a lot of filmmakers and some are having a rather good laugh at threads like this and the behavior exhibited. Terms like "armchair cinematographer" have become rather commonplace in regards to forums and various online groups, and much of what is happening here breeds more fuel for such fire.

Senary. Even in Hrvoje's latest example it shows differences that for a discerning filmmaker are rather notable. Specifically to what we describe as how the frame is drawn. Now imagine that on a larger scale and the picture gets even clearer outside of shooting things on tabletops. (nice side by side there Hrvoje btw)

Septenary. To the point, you may not feel there's a massive difference in some of these images, but clearly there are due to a variety of factors. In the face of you expressing your opinion for what you prefer or believe, why would you think you are in a place to inform or impose upon actual DPs what you are seeing versus what they are seeing? Asking for a friend.

Octonary. On a personal note, when I was first introduced to VistaVision nearly 20 years ago as a format and than rather rapidly after that to 4 additional larger formats I was fortunate to learn from many who paved roads on how to utilize the format for live action and VFX. The scaling down benefits that we've all known the benefits of in the RED world and Kodak world, some of those things are new to the Arri landscape for those who haven't worked with the Alexa 65. Outside of that if you think that's the only reason or benefit to some of large format photography (or any format for that matter)?

Nonary. Do you think cinematographers don't care about image aesthetics related to image quality, lenses, and format size?

Denary and final frustration fueled point. I do find it frustrating often where you and I agree and disagree sometimes or even how to employ tact in the face of curiosity among professionals. Over the years I've often wondered if it's a cultural thing or perhaps a just well laid "occasional internet troll" demeanor outside of potential special interests or gripes against specific companies or individuals. The reality is outside of the nice test here, is any discussion regarding format should have been produced with curiosity, an inquisitive mind, some thoughts on theory, and some thoughts on what's happening in front of your eyes. Instead some are now being labelled as sheep. And while I have a thick skin and know what I do for a living, I do wonder if at times you understand how many of your online interactions come off.


Last word. Mark, sorry to derail your thread on this topic, but calling professionals sheep on a generally well operated forum where so much useful information can be found to and from young or experienced amateurs and/or professionals somewhat frustrates me as somebody who cares about and moderates this community.
Click to expand...


+1

Well said, thank you!
 
Gents, could we please just leave the egos and personal attacks at the door? It's making a real mess of a thread that could otherwise be quite useful to people who are trying to research this topic.

Hrvoje Simic said:
If what you are saying is correct...50 mm lens on an APS-C camera with a speedbooster and 50 mm lens on a full frame camera should differ significantly in depth geometry.

Let's see.

9usqk1.gif
Click to expand...

Hrvoje, this is a really interesting test - were these two shots taken on separate cameras? Or on a single full-frame camera, cropped for S35mm when the speedbooster was used?

And is your hypothesis that a 50mm on Vistavision, versus a 50mm + Speedbooster on S35mm will capture the scene geometry in the same way; whereas a 50mm on Vistavision, versus a 35mm lens on S35 will change the geometry due to the wider native focal length of the 35mm lens?
 
It is true that an iPhone will be able to take a different kind of shot, not matter how subtle, than a Hasselblad with a lens that gives the same FOV.

Geometry, for lack of a better term, will be identical, although other qualities will not be. Also, the front diameter of the iPhone's lens is so narrow that you can put it up against a mesh fence (within reason) and film through it, and nobody would know that the fence was there. The Hasselblad's lens is too wide to to that.

Monstro is obviously about quality. There might be diminishing returns, but they are there.
 
Brad Grimm said:
To achieve this exact look on a S35 sensor, would take a 16mm with a T stop of 1 or 1.1 or something close to that, either way it does not exist, plus you would have far more edge distortion.
Click to expand...

That's a single, use-case scenario, though. What if you didn't need such a wide FoV or shallow DoF? That's what the others are saying; large format has benefits in every scenario, wide angle or not, shallow DoF or not.

So, I'm eager and more than willing to try to "see it"; it just hasn't clicked for me. And while I can see that one image looks different than the other, I haven't found a reason to seek out that quality in my work. If anything, my shitty lighting and composition will break a shot much, much, quicker than a slight parallax shift.

Like I said before, there are clearly other benefits that are much more tangible to me as an artist -- I would make no hesitation to buy Monstro if I could afford it. But when Panavision puts out a video and shows an example of VV looking more stretchy and more 3D, while at the same time I see examples posted here showing things less stretchy, I question what is being marketed to me.

Very much looking forward to Phil's in-depth write up. Always appreciate how I don't feel patronized when he's trying to educate. I'll bow out of this discussion until then.
 
Aaron Lochert said:
That's a single, use-case scenario, though. What if you didn't need such a wide FoV or shallow DoF? That's what the others are saying; large format has benefits in every scenario, wide angle or not, shallow DoF or not.

So, I'm eager and more than willing to try to "see it"; it just hasn't clicked for me. And while I can see that one image looks different than the other, I haven't found a reason to seek out that quality in my work. If anything, my shitty lighting and composition will break a shot much, much, quicker than a slight parallax shift.

Like I said before, there are clearly other benefits that are much more tangible to me as an artist -- I would make no hesitation to buy Monstro if I could afford it. But when Panavision puts out a video and shows an example of VV looking more stretchy and more 3D, while at the same time I see examples posted here showing things less stretchy, I question what is being marketed to me.

Very much looking forward to Phil's in-depth write up. Always appreciate how I don't feel patronized when he's trying to educate. I'll bow out of this discussion until then.
Click to expand...


Large format does not have have a benefit in every scenario. As they need a lens that covers. They get less light trough per square unit of the sensor. Thats the reason you will have great difficulty to find a f1.2 large format lens.

The PV statements and videos showing the round faces and "change of perspective" etc is simply false advertising. When you move the camera you get a different prespective thats the only way to get a different perspective. Nothing else. Claiming it has something to do with the sensor is false. Yes PV actually do that, false marketing, that or they run a sales show including great misconception, which yes is a bit remarkable. PV should know their stuff and should have no problem selling that camera without getting into things that simply is not true.

Sony is running a similar parade, on tour telling DPs amazingly stange things about their new camera. Simply the message does not hold any kind of water.

Sure resolution still matters, large pixels at high counts matters. So larger formats is huge and very much adds qualities. But no they dont change perspective of things.
 
Mark K. said:
Hrvoje, this is a really interesting test - were these two shots taken on separate cameras? Or on a single full-frame camera, cropped for S35mm when the speedbooster was used?
Click to expand...

5Dmk3, Sony A6300 + "speedbooster".

Visible difference is due to camera height. Because A6300 is smaller and goes lower.

Difference not visible here is the crop of the lens because adapter does not give 100% FF coverage.
Geometry is the same, 50mm lens geometry. AOV is not.

Someone please inform Bjorn how a speedbooster works.

Mark K. said:
And is your hypothesis that a 50mm on Vistavision, versus a 50mm + Speedbooster on S35mm will capture the scene geometry in the same way; whereas a 50mm on Vistavision, versus a 35mm lens on S35 will change the geometry due to the wider native focal length of the 35mm lens?
Click to expand...

If you see a hypothesis in a post on this forum and my name on the left side, it will be clearly pointed. :)

Yes, 50 mm lens on a VV and "speedboosted" on S35 has the same image geometry, as you can clearly see in this example. FF had a larger crop of the lens because the adapter is not full 1.5x, and once the image is overlaid to match the crop all objects stay in their same position and have the same size relations between them. It is the same lens, with an adapter put behind it which remaps the larger crop of the lens onto a smaller plane. You cannot match those 24mm on S16 and 50mm on FF shots, everything in that shot differs in proportions of size and distance in Z axis.

The relation of focal length to geometry is common knowledge with many. Format understanding varies.

The larger the focal length, the longer the triangle made by the lens and its focal point.
The longer the triangle, the smaller light ray angle. It even rhymes.
The smaller the light ray angle, the smaller difference between object size throughout distance.
The larger the format, the larger the surface where the light is projected, light shaped by the physiognomy of the lens.

Same format, different focal length = same crop, different spatial geometry, different AOV
Different format, same focal length = different crop, same spatial geometry, different AOV
Different format, equivalent focal length = different crop, different spatial geometry, same AOV


I have posted here:
- 24mm S16 crop & 50 mm full frame crop test
- 35mm APS-C crop & 50mm "speedboosted" on APS-C test
- 50 mm full frame crop & 50 mm "speedboosted" on APS-C test

With tests designed precisely to show the effects of focal length to geometry.
The difference enlarges as the format enlarges and is not that visible if the shot is not designed to show it with spatial visual references.

This is the effect of the lens. Not format. Format just defines the crop.

Who cannot understand the spatial geometry relation to focal length even after all this, and connect the dots, there is not much which can help. For many this should be sufficient.
 
So many in here argue that FF doesn't look much different from s35mm, disregarding all the points of how it change the physics of how sensors operate, processing and how it change the characteristics of how a certain lens look. I mean, my 35mm has different characteristics than my 24mm so if I get a 24mm-like wide image on a FF with my 35mm that's a good thing. Also, if I want to use T4.0 to get more sharpness out of a lens I can do that, but retain the shallow dof of a wider equivalent lens at wide open (with all the distortions of using it wide open).

I think there's too much semantics in here and not much actual cinematography. If you shoot with a large format camera and a Signature prime 18mm T1.8, please find the equivalent 13,5 T1.3 lens that match up on s35mm and look the same in all aspects of the image; from noise, contrast, colors, CA, distortion, sharpness, smoothness and so on. Mathematical comparison charts are irrelevant when aiming for a certain quality of how an image should look.
 
I heard of a mechanic who incorrectly believed that higher octane fuel burned more quickly. Thankfully this did not make him a bad mechanic (just like believing in creationism won't make you a bad doctor). But he was still wrong.

Sometimes being wrong doesn't lead to anything either way. But if anyone believes that focal length determines compression/stretching (whatever you call it), they are simply wrong. They can be great DPs and I will love their work, but they'll be wrong.

(Someone, whose name I have forgotten, did mention front-telecentric lenses, which are a unique design and which are generally not used in photography).

Here are four areas where people can get confused:

Measuring vs counting (some units of measurement cannot be divided, such as Mondays or Decembers)

Ratios vs fractions (depending on what question you're asking, the same data can give you 1:3 or 1/4 as an answer)

Sampled probability vs calculated probability (you can't predict the probability of having more than one SIDS baby by multiplying probabilities)

Some concepts don't exist in nature (skies, weeds, planets)

Also, let's take an example of a lottery draw where six numbers are drawn from 45. Here are three possible draws:

A. 3,14,21,28,33,44

B. 1,2,3,4,5,6

C. 40,41,42,43,44,45

Which one has the greatest chance of being drawn? Which has the least? I bet half of you will be wrong.

Remember folks, I'm not an engineer, mathematician, statistician or scientist. I just like to be correct about things. But if you ask me about the nature of God, I can only guess.
 
Karim D. Ghantous said:
Also, let's take an example of a lottery draw where six numbers are drawn from 45. Here are three possible draws:

A. 3,14,21,28,33,44

B. 1,2,3,4,5,6

C. 40,41,42,43,44,45

Which one has the greatest chance of being drawn? Which has the least? I bet half of you will be wrong.
Click to expand...

A B C have all the same probability. I am right?
 
Björn Benckert said:
Large format does not have have a benefit in every scenario.
Click to expand...

True.

It is not the smartest choice for pulling your own focus in a single shooter real life unpredictable single shot opportunity run'n gun style of cinematography. For example. Or where you just need deeper DoF and cannot compensate the stop with light.

And while the broadcast world uses S16 format equivalent predominantly on a daily basis, camera makers didn't seem to get the memo for serious S16 cinematography context. So high quality sensor wafers are cut mostly according to "more/bigger = better", current quantitative "left-brain dominant" mass infatuating mantra. And C-mount glass is collecting dust.


Björn Benckert said:
The PV statements and videos showing the round faces and "change of perspective" etc is simply false advertising.
Click to expand...

It's not false advertising. It is just a clumsy terminology.

The term "perspective" is more general and does point to the specific effect of a larger format crop. And is a stumbling stone affecting this evident cognitive dissonance.

The more specific term and helpful for understanding would be "proportions".

Björn Benckert said:
So larger formats is huge and very much adds qualities. But no they dont change perspective of things.
Click to expand...

True.

They change the crop.
The rest is defined by the lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top