Full Frame Aesthetic?

[mercer]

I have never shot in full frame. Are there certain characteristics, other than lens choices, wider angle of view, shallow depth...etc?

If you intercut with an aps-c camera, will the two match, or will the aps-c stand out?

[Mattias Burling]

56 minutes ago, mercer said:

I have never shot in full frame. Are there certain characteristics, other than lens choices, wider angle of view, shallow depth...etc?

If you intercut with an aps-c camera, will the two match, or will the aps-c stand out?

The difference is only the distance you need or can be at from your subject. 
If we take 105mm for example. Its a lovely focal length for a portrait shoot. The amount of background blur in combination with how much the background is compressed is just spot on. But if you put it on a s16 like your BMPCC you need to back up way to long and mess everything up. With the APS-C its not as bad, but still bad enough that you might considering an "equivalent" lens. 
When you do switch to a 75mm you get the subject in frame from a workable distance but loose the FOV and background compression/separation of the 105mm.

The DOF, Light input, etc doesn't change with a smaller sensor. Its the exact same thing as taking a pair of scissors and cutting out a smaller square of a magazine cover.

Thats why Medium and Large format is sweet. With MF I can take a 75mm and get that lovely portrait of my dog. It has the same SDOF of field that you would get with a 75mm on your BMPCC or Nikon from that distance. 
But still have my entire house in the frame without using a wide angle. Because with a wide angle the DOF gets wider on any sensor. 

The pic above would have only her head in the frame on a small sensor like the APS-C. Everything else would remain exactly the same.

With Large Format you can stand a few meters away and photograph a group of people head-to-toe and still get nice separation from a 100mm.

If we take the Fuji x70 that I bought yesterday as another example. Its a APS-C with a 28mm equivalent. Some might thing, ok 28mm on FF with 2.8 would give me SDOF. But it won’t on the Fuji. Not because the sensor is smaller but because it is an 18mm lens. And there for get the exact same DOF as an 18mm on FF, not very shallow.

So in short. You will get the nice SDOF and characteristics of your 50mm on the Nikon but with more in frame. You will get shallower death of filed simply by zooming without zooming so to speak.

And yes its awesome

You can intercut, its not always that big of a difference.

 

 

(Fun fact, the picture of the dog is taken with the first camera any member of my family ever bought. It was my mom who got it as a child. Still works perfectly)

http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Certo_Phot

[Lintelfilm]

If you're using certain full frame lenses on APSC you loose the nice swirly corner bokeh you only see when using the full image circle of the glass on full frame (though you can replicate this using my FCPX plugin! See xc10 thread). Other than that and the things you mentioned, full frame image generally is technically superior in terms of low light and dynamic range (and looking at the plus size RED and Arri sensors, resolution too). Personally for me S35 is the sweet spot between image, lens size and practical focusing.

There are as many things that could be listed as advantages of smaller sensors...

[Lintelfilm]

@Mattias Burling (and following on from my own answer) of course this is where super fast lenses for smaller sensors come come in. An f/0.95 on MFT will be ROUGHLY equivalent to a 1.8 on full frame. If we talk about zooms only, the Sigma 1.8 APSC zooms are roughly equivalent to 2.8 zooms on full frame. And seeing as you can't get 1.8 zooms for FF you could argue they negate the FF advantage. But then you get into advantages of specific lens features etc (such as IS, focal range, AF) and it comes down to which system suits your needs best. I moved from MFT to EF for various reasons but partly because building a lens collection around EF on a S35 sensor is as close as you get to a video/cinema standard now (below PL of course).

[Mattias Burling]

@Lintelfilm 
Its true that for example the swirly bokeh of the picture above would be cropped out on a smaller sensor. But there are/where like you say lenses made with the smaller sensors in mind and therefor has the swirly bokeh.

I would never say a f0.95 is an equivalent to a f1.8 because it isn't and I think it just confuses.
I do use the term equivalent when talking about focal length even if technically that also remains the same. A 50mm is always a 50mm but practically its easier to call it a 150mm on a s16.

The aperture however doesn't have such a practical difference imo. The DOF and exposure with f0.95 i exactly the same on any sensor. It is physically impossible for the depth of field to be shallower on on FF vs APS-C or s16. 

So I stick to focal length equivalent only and thats just for the sake of communication.

[Timotheus]

Holding cameras in the exact same position, you can take the same (framing, DOF) picture with:

• a 50mm f1.8 on full frame
• a 35mm f1.2 on APS-C
• a 25mm f0.9 on MFT

So there really is no specific aesthetic linked to a certain format, just math.

[Mattias Burling]

But you can never use a small sensor and achieve the same pictures as a large sensor. Thats why they are so popular. 
Taking a portrait with 100mm looks so much better (to most) than with a 50mm. Only problem is that on a MFT that 100mm has you backing out of the studion ruining the ascetics regarding background compression.

The only difference between sensor sizes is the workable distance to fill the frame on a certain focal length. And that can be replaced with math and equivalent lenses. If you want the ascetics of FF you need to use FF.

Here you see it clearly. The shooter has used an equivalent focal length and aperture. But look at the background.
A smaller sensor can't give the same frame as the larger at a given distance no matter what.

Even if the larger aperture makes the bokeh looking the same the windows have changed size.

 

So again, Yes, the full frame gives the lenses an ascetic that crop sensors can't replicate and vice versa. Trying to use equivalent focal length and apertures does not help.
 

[Nikkor]

Without getting into equivalent stuff,etc... just seen from an aesthetic standpoint, vistavision or fullframe gives a sharper (more defined, not the crisp pixel sharpness) more plastic look (plasticity not plastic fantastic). It's like moving photos from a 35mm camera(obvious ). We tend to see and talk about the crazy shallow DOF stuff, but if you want to see good samples of a classic cinema approach on 35mm vistavision just watch some movie from that time and compare. https://the.hitchcock.zone/wiki/VistaVision these are very good examples.

[Timotheus]

@Mattias Burling we seem to disagree, so let's explore this al little bit, because I think understanding equivalence is useful for anyone, especially when juggling camera's with different sized sensors.

• You didn't respond to what I said, i.e. you can get the same framing, same depth of field, shooting from the same spot...with different sensor-sized camera's. The key is using lenses that compensate for the differences in sensor size.
• The math concerns using crop factors for both focal length and f-stop to estimate the effects on framing and DOF. The physical f-stop obviously does not change.
• You show a screenshot from a Tony Northrup video that proves exactly these points! In the example using 100mm f5.6 on full frame yields the same framing and DOF as a 50mm f2.8 on MFT (2x crop).
• You can hear Northrup explain from 16:06...your example shows up right at 17:18 :-)
• Obviously there are limits as to what is currently possible. Getting the same framing and DOF as a fullframe 50mm F1.2 on a MFT camera would mean using a 25mm F0.6, which doesn't exist (yet!).

[mercer]

Okay, thanks guys. I guess my main concern would be... If I had a D750 with a 50mm f2 lens attached and my D5500 with a 35mm f2, I know I will have similar FOV, but if I used them to shoot both actors over the shoulder shots in a dialogue scene, would the lighting be off with one of the cameras if I lit for the scene and not the actor? So, would I need to use a 35mm 1.4 with D5500 to match... obviously I can always adjust my exposure accordingly, in camera, but what if I couldn't, then would I need to use a faster lens with the D5500 to match the 750?

[Nikkor]

1 minute ago, mercer said:

Okay, thanks guys. I guess my main concern would be... If I had a D750 with a 50mm f2 lens attached and my D5500 with a 35mm f2, I know I will have similar FOV, but if I used them to shoot both actors over the shoulder shots in a dialogue scene, would the lighting be off with one of the cameras if I lit for the scene and not the actor? So, would I need to use a 35mm 1.4 with D5500 to match... obviously I can always adjust my exposure accordingly, in camera, but what if I couldn't, then would I need to use a faster lens with the D5500 to match the 750?

They won't match, theoretically the 35 1.4 should give something like the 50 2 on FF, but 50 2 on FF is something super clean,the nikkor 35 1.4 on DX is messy. (You can up your iso for the lighting, there is no problem in using different f stops). But seriously, who cares? Nobody but anal pixel peepers would care.

 

[dahlfors]

6 hours ago, mercer said:

If you intercut with an aps-c camera, will the two match, or will the aps-c stand out?

Given equal quality of the footage (say, not a really soft 1080p output from one of the cameras): if you match exposure and colors of footage, very few will notice - even if given the task to spot the differences. Low-light footage will be an exception, where footage from smaller sensors will be noisier (if they're from the same generation of sensor technology).

One aspect I find important with full frame, is that I can easily find wide lenses with very little distortion for full frame. With the 28mm f/2.8 AI-S Nikkor, or with the 16-35mm f/4 I can shoot wide shots with very little distortion. The smaller the focal length, the harder it becomes to design lenses with little distortion.

 

[mercer]

Okay then, that brings up another question I was wondering about... Would it be better to use a DX lens with the D5500 to get the entire characteristics of the entire glass than a cropped portion of the full frame glass... Theoretically?

@Nikkor

[kidzrevil]

If its just the depth of field you are after the closer you get the subject to the minimum close focusing distance of your lens + the distance of the background will create the "full frame aesthetic" most people are trying to achieve

imo the REAL full frame aesthetic comes from the rendering of the lens from the center to the corner of lenses. Crop cameras obviously crop out the corners of the lens and you lose resolution BUT if you get an aps-c lens on an aps-c camera You are getting the FULL RENDERING of the lens from corner to corner.

 

[Nikkor]

13 minutes ago, mercer said:

Okay then, that brings up another question I was wondering about... Would it be better to use a DX lens with the D5500 to get the entire characteristics of the entire glass than a cropped portion of the full frame glass... Theoretically?

@Nikkor

Well the DX lens should be tuned to give resolution for smaller sensors, so yes, but hey. Anyway, there is a difference between formats because DOF behaves different at different magnifications, but just don't think about that, you are going for 1080p

[Mattias Burling]

2 hours ago, Timotheus said:

.

• You didn't respond to what I said, i.e. you can get the same framing, same depth of field, shooting from the same spot...with different sensor-sized camera's. The key is using lenses that compensate for the differences in sensor size.

No you cant. Look at the Tony Northup frame I posted. It clearly proves that you can replicate the image from a large sensor in the way you earlier suggested.

I tell you what. Take the three lenses and sensor sizes you listed in your first post. Take three photos from the same distance of the same subject. A person with a background similar to the example I posted.

I will give you $100 it they turns out exactly the same. 

[Geoff CB]

52 minutes ago, mercer said:

Okay, thanks guys. I guess my main concern would be... If I had a D750 with a 50mm f2 lens attached and my D5500 with a 35mm f2, I know I will have similar FOV, but if I used them to shoot both actors over the shoulder shots in a dialogue scene, would the lighting be off with one of the cameras if I lit for the scene and not the actor? So, would I need to use a 35mm 1.4 with D5500 to match... obviously I can always adjust my exposure accordingly, in camera, but what if I couldn't, then would I need to use a faster lens with the D5500 to match the 750?

Unless you shoot them wide open almost nobody would be able to tell the difference unless they were looking for it.

Even if you do shoot them wide open, most audiences would not notice, though people on this board probably would.

A7r II Super 35 mode with 28mm Voigt

A7r II Full Frame mode with 40mm Voigt

[mercer]

2 hours ago, Nikkor said:

Without getting into equivalent stuff,etc... just seen from an aesthetic standpoint, vistavision or fullframe gives a sharper (more defined, not the crisp pixel sharpness) more plastic look (plasticity not plastic fantastic). It's like moving photos from a 35mm camera(obvious ). We tend to see and talk about the crazy shallow DOF stuff, but if you want to see good samples of a classic cinema approach on 35mm vistavision just watch some movie from that time and compare. https://the.hitchcock.zone/wiki/VistaVision these are very good examples.

With the vista vision comparison... The effects would only be noticeable on a big screen though, right? Or more noticeable, anyway?

[Lintelfilm]

46 minutes ago, mercer said:

Okay then, that brings up another question I was wondering about... Would it be better to use a DX lens with the D5500 to get the entire characteristics of the entire glass than a cropped portion of the full frame glass... Theoretically?

@Nikkor

Theoretically, yes. That's why I like the Sigma APSC zooms (yes I know I keep going on about them) on my C100 - because you can see the corners/edges. However different lenses have different corner characteristics. Some are not so nice.

[Nikkor]

5 minutes ago, mercer said:

With the vista vision comparison... The effects would only be noticeable on a big screen though, right? Or more noticeable, anyway?

Well actually you can notice it on every type of screen unless it's so small that everything is in focus (google circle of confusion), actually it's easier to notice on smaller screens (contrary to what I thought) the real limit on percieving this is the resolution of the camera,1080p nikon stuff is soft enough to make it unnoticable to most. Anyway mercer, don't think about it :p If anything, just find two lenses that match color,aberration and flare/glow wise if you want to be anal about it.